He who doth offer to perswade vs that the Canon-lawe that Gratian that the Masse it self is against the reall presence as heere in this argument he vndertakes to do what will he not affirme what testimonies will he not presse to serue him what so strong that he will not wrest what so sacred that he will not violate he might aswell vrge against vs the Canon made at Trent in this matter and outface me that in this defence I do not auouch but oppose it I cannot think him in his wits that vndertakes to perswade me white is black neither is he much wiser that takes on him to know the meaning of the Church better then Shee her self Ea quae in voce Arist sūt earum quae in anima passionum notae Where the wordes are obscure or ābiguous it is better the speaker interprete his owne mind then you that are not of his counsel I am sent hither by Waferer to see how the Doctor doth vrge the Canon of Gratian which I will examine God willing before I returne to looke againe on his pamphlet but since insteed of one Canon I find two drawne together to make the greater noise I must giue the one a lift to remoue it out of my waie before I meddle with the other Which waie the mouth of it stands the Doctour he stood in his owne light could not see He tels vs it is against the Reall presence Why so Master Featlie because a. Featl Conf. with M. Musk pag 66. it is verie incongruous to pray to God to looke downe mercifullie vpon Christ and to accept the bodie and blood of his sonne as he did Abels sacrifice of first fruites yet the Canon of the Masse doth so Offerimus tibi de tuis donis datis hostiam puram c. panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel Wee offer vnto thee of thy benefits and guifts a pure hoast the holy bread of eternall life and the chalice of euerlasting saluation Vpon which vouchsafe to looke downe with a fauorable cleere countenance and to accep of and auow them as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the guifts or oblations of Abel thy child Answer That quae is not referd as you pretend to Christ or his bodie absolutè reade againe and marke it Neither would anie scholler conclude suppose your premises had beene right ergo the Canon denies the reall presence it affirmes it and in those verie wordes But rather thus ergo that prayer is not well conceaued or is incongruous Which is farre from your mark Wherefore to help out your argument you adde an other peice Per quem Christum haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sāctificas viuificas benedicis praestas nobis by whom o Lord thou doest euer create sanctifie quicken blesse and bestow vpon vs all these good things Whence your inference is as before that the Canon is against the reall presence But I turne it vpon you The words cannot be verified without a reall presence ergo the Canon by them doth make for the reall presence And the auncient Fathers who dedeclare themselues to be directlie for the reall presence vse the same kind of speach To beginne in S. Cyprians time one as auncient as he tels vs vsque hodie veracissimum Corpus suum creat sanctificat benedicit till this verie day he doth create and sanctifie blesse his owne most true not a meere figure then and most holie bodie How so let the same Authour tell how the Sacrament for of that the Canō speakes is made Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Well but how quickned sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Diuina se infundit essentia Another Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis vt corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen viuificatiuum inueniatur in nobis Serm. de Coena Cyp. S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the Humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie hid so heere a Diuine Essence doth vnspeakeablie infuse it self into a visible Sacrament He doth flow into the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the bodie of life might as a certaine quickning seed be found in vs. The like is in S. Chrrysostome S. Ambrose and others as you might haue learned partlie out of Gratian whom you cite had you but read him Moreouer in Scripture it self these words haue a larger sence then that which you conceaue a. Ioan. 17. Ego pro eis sanctifico meipsum there sanctifico is offero or sacrifico himself being as the words import both the victime and the Priest b. Psal 101. Populus qui creabitur laudabit Dominum c. Psal 50. Cor mundum crea in me Deus Praecipio d. 1. Timot 6. tibi coram Deo qui viuificat omnia These words viuificat and creabitur haue a latitude as you see And since allmightie God doth not onlie giue life but still conserue it e. Hebr. 1. portans omnia verbo virtutis suae why may not he be said in that regard also still to quicken why cānot an action of omnipotencie able to abstract accidents from the subiect still keeping them in being and vnder them to make a succession of substances be called in large sence at least creation since none but the Creatour can in chief or as principall produce this effect and he who puts in the Sacrament the bread of life which heauenly bread liues it self and giues life to the receauers why may he not be said in a large sence at least to quicken the thinges that are before the Priest And you Master Featlie that are so strait-laced as not to suffer words to be euer vsed but in one sence and that of all the most rigorous what sence will you find in Scripture where words are not euer vsed so or to forbeare that question and come neerer how will you expound of bread and wine which is your intent these wordes by you obiected Haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas viuificas and the like before cited out of the Fathers was your communion-bread made of nothīg is it aliue did the Church in her liturgie meane to professe this was this the Fathers meaning shew me to vse your owne wordes Featl pga. 68. Master Featlie in what tolerable sence those elementes may be said cōtinuallie to be created and made aliue sith before they cannot be said not to haue beene or to haue beene
Is their meaning this bread not being bread is Christs bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Iust Supra p. 45. Answer They meane that the thing vnder the forme of bread which indeed is not bakers bread is his bodie And so did our Sauiour meane too when he said the bread which I will giue is my flesh Ioh. 6. if it were flesh it was not properlie bread but improperlie And that breade improperlie so called was a mans bodie properlie Wherefore our Sauiour could not saie as you would ridiculouslie haue him saie it is my bodie that is to saie it is not my bodie Neither is the sence of an affirmatiue proposition suppose it improper to be reÌ„dred as you doe As where God said to Adam putuis es thou art dust it is not to be glossed after your manner thou art dust that is to saie thou art not dust Serm de Coena Ambr. de Myst init c. 9. Gregor Nysl or Catec c. 37. August Suprà Eo nomine appellata res vnde versa est noÌ„ in quo versa est S. Aug. q. 21 in Exod. God doth there auouch something trulie wherefore you must studie for his meaning and not blasphemouslie impose a ridiculous sence vpoÌ„ his words The Fathers as I haue shewed haue declared their owne meaning it is bread changed not in shape but in nature transelemented super-substantiall bread and such is not indeed bread As the rod changed was not indeed a rod but a serpent and water changed was not indeed water but wine The name was vsed to signifie another thing The Doctours other proofe whereby he Would faine shewe that Hoc stands for bread is an ordinarie obiection borrowed from our Schoole deuines who propose it for the better explication of the termes and may be and is by them diuers wayes answered I am to defend heere that answer which my Lord gaue omitting what the Minister impertinentlie hath thrust in and giuing the Reader before notice that there are some propositions meerelie speculatiue as this God is wise or this a man is a reasonable creature And these doe not make but suppose what they signifie Others are operatiue or practicke as this I doe baptise thee and this Tabitha arise and these doe worke what they signifie The proposition which is heere in questioÌ„ Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie is of the later kinde practicke D. Featlie This pronoune demonstratiue hoc this must needs signifie some thing that * In the instant when that word was vttered then was existent to which Christ pointed sayingh This. Answer It must not for the proposition being practicall it doth signifie and demonstrate not that which is supposed alreadie being but that which it makes to be The propositioÌ„ I doe not say the subiect or the attribute but the whole entire propositioÌ„ is the cause and the thing signified is the effect which effect the foresaid proposition demonstrating doth make and making doth withall demonstrate it Now the effect you know if you know any thing in Philosophie doth suppose the whole cause and followes it So in these operatiue speaches of our Sauiour Lazarus come forth yong man arife the words Lazarus and yong man did not signifie persons existent then preciselie when they were vttered Cyrill Catena but when the speaches were compleate The words did signifie then when they were but not things existent then for when the words were the persons by them signifyed were not D. Featlie That hoc the first word of the proposition when it is vttered doth it signifie or no Answer Nomen significat sine tempore Arist li. 1. Periher c. 3. It doth signifie and by waie of demonstration and hauing donne that office goes away for words you know cannot staie nor can the speaker vtter all at once Neither can you determine preciselie hauing heard it what it did demonstrate It relates to the substantiue which followes but must harken to the rest for to know I point for example towards that before your eies and say This is And you see and heare me but know not preciselie what I meane by the word this till you heare the praedicatum If I saie whitenes or colour there is one subiect of the speach if I saie paper there is another if English there is a third The pronoune this is yet vndetermined it doth not of it selfe point at colour or paper Paper is not whitenes nor whitenes paper or any other thing If it did it would still shewe the same and so were not a fit instrument or signe to shewe indifferentlie the one or the other And being of it selfe indifferent and vndetermined if you will know determinatelie what it stands for you must stay till the praedicatum come for before you cannot vnderstaÌ„d it preciselie by that Hoc nor by the second word which is est But hauing heard the whole speach or signe you will easilie then perceaue what I meane Haec est What albedo charta I point at the Chalice and say This is and till you do heare more you know not whether I demonstrate the cup or the thing in the cup. scriptura you know not what I meane by that Haec nor whether it be made as yet or metaphysicallie present moâ—allie at least it is When I speake or no. Perhaps I meane the word or letter which I make whilst speake perhaps I meane the paper whereupon I write perhaps I meane the superficies onlie or the whitenes or the light vpon it The praedicatum when it comes will determine And If it be vncertaine to the hearer vntill then in speculatiue propositions much more in such as are practike where by the speakers intention the demonstratiue this concurres to make what by the same intention it doth relate vnto D. Featlie If hoc doe signifie the bodie of Christ or transubstaÌ„tiated bread you make a false proposition for when hoc preciselie is vttered there is not transubstantiated bread or the bodie of Christ Answer Who tould you that hoc is a proposition staie till the proposition be vttered all then there is the bodie of Christ because Gods words must needs be true his omnipotencie doth verifie them and if they be true the thing in that forme is his bodie for his words doe signifie and importit 1. Replie Hoc signifies it seemes that it is then the bodie when the word hoc is pronunced Answer No that one word hoc doth not signifie all this When all are vttered then there is that bodie present vnder the species which you see for so much is imported Not by any part of the proposition preciselie no part is a perfect signe of the bodie now present in this forme but by the whole as I tould you before It works instrumentallie the thing signified and in this thing the proposition with all it's parts is verified the veritie of a proposition being nothing els but the conformitie of it to that which
THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOVCHING THE REALL PRESENCE OR A BACHELOVRS CENSVRE Of a Masters Apologie for Doctour Featlie By L. I. B. of Art of Oxford Psal 67.31 Jncrepa feras arundinis AT DOWAY By LAVRENCE KELLAM M.DC.XXXV THE PREFACE IT was when I liued in Oxford and I think it is still the custome for him who defends in Deuinitie to make first a Supposition wherein such as come to heare that exercise may see the State of the Questiō which is to be disputed By this meanes the Defendant laies his Cause open to a faire tryall and diuers Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters are better inabled to vnderstand and vnderstanding to iudge betwixt him and his Opponent that vndertakes to perswade the contrarie I was thinking to conceaue my Preface in that manner like a Supposition it had beene to good purpose considering that some may come to see this Booke or Conference who being catechized by Puritās neuer knew the true State of the Question betwixt vs and them in the point of the Reall Presence But those with whō I am to deale will not permitt such a discourse excepting that it is against I know not what lawe My intention is not to write a Booke of the Blessed Sacrament that Argument deserues a better pen and is excellentlie treated by diuers worthie Catholike Deuines but to maintaine the iust honour of the defenders of it traduced scornefullie jeered by a Precisian on the behalf and by the consent of Doctour Featlie Whose nicenes shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedlie appertaine to the Sustentants part And yet I meane withall to keepe my self punctuallie to the matter without running out into new for that were to make the busines infinite or bringing Arguments for our tenet for they with whō I deale would then report that I chang parts and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant Doctor Featlie in a Challeng of his In his Challēg to M. Fisher. resembles a Controuertist to a Sawier who till he hath gonne thorough keepes himself to the same line and imputes vnto his Aduersarie that he neuer pierced into the heart of any Controuersie Whereas himself Master Featlie I meane was the man that moued the sawe out of the line and ranne into an other distinct matter when he was not able to giue satisfaction in the former which had beene the Cōtrouersie betwixt thē 2. Their disputation was of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages and he leauing that challengeth his Aduersarie to dispute of Communion in both kinds Which is a way to runne ouer Controuersies but not to make an end of Controuersies Logicians nūber it amongst the faults of a Disputant It is a tacite yeelding of the cause I haue taken a Ministers imporportunitie made me the Sawe into my hands and am if we regard the Controuersie vpon the vpper side my Aduersaries being still in errour be in the pit The lines Featlie drew they be his Arguments deliberatlie chosen by him for the best these which I am to meddle in If they do not leaue pulling wee shall in time come to the heart of this Controuersie So they keepe themselues to their owne lines The matter of the Conference was not Transubstantiation but the Reall presence onlie So my Lord of Chalcedon did expresse Supra pag. 7. himself and Master Featlie to the same purpose Doctor Smith saith D. Feat in his Relat pag. 288. he distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Reall presence and Transubstantiation determined the point in Question to be this whether the bodie and blood of Christ were trulie and substantiallie in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine My Lord Defended the affirmatiue videlicet that it is there trulie and substantiallie that is to say according to the substāce of the thing Master Featlie vndertooke the contrarie videlicet that it is not there trulie and substantiallie Feat pag. 289 not according to the substance of our Sauiours naturall bodie and blood The words of Institution which Featlie did obiect be these This is my bodie Matt. 26 this is my blood c. which wordes he saies must needes be taken in a sence that makes against the Reall presence In this proposition or enunciation Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie It is the like of the other wordes Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood there is to be considered the subiect the predicate or attribute the determination of the predicate and the copula or note of idētitie Four things in the four words The Subiect is Hoc the Predicate is Corpus the determination of it Meum the copula the verbe Est The Subiect or first word Hoc doth not of it self import bread rather then bodie or bodie rather then bread it is indifferent Significat saith the Doctour of the Schooles substantiam in communi sinc qualitate id est forma determinata It signifieth a substance in common without the qualitie that is the determinate forme Suppose a chalice before me and that I point towards it saying This is I may to make vp the proposition say gold or wine or blood without changing the first word This. If I adde blood it contracts and determines the subiect This which before was vncontracted and vndetermined to one particular thing if I saie wine it contracts it to an other if I saie gold it is contracted to a third This is blood this is wine this is gold The word Est is a verbe substantiue that signifies identitie or connexion which connexion or identitie cannot be conceaued without the extreames identified or connected which be the thinges signified by the subiect and the predicate And the references of the subiect to the attribute and the attribute to the subiect be founded it it Whence it comes that it is not possible to know what the Subiect determinatlie relates vnto being of it self indetermined till the predicate or attribute be also knowne because vntill then neither the terminus nor the ratio fundandi the connexion is knowne The same verbe or copula doth also consignifie the time for which the connexion is exercised which time presupposing the connexion for it is the modus of it and may varie the connexion perseuering Petrus est fuit erit albus doth presuppose likewise both the extreames This is manifest to him that lookes well on it because it presupposeth the connexion which connexion doth presuppose the saide extreames as before hath beene obserued Ipsū Est saith the Ipsa igitur secundum se dicta verba nomina sunt significant aliquid constituit enim qui dicit intellectum qui audit quiescit Sed si est vel non est nondum significat neque enim signum est rei esse vel non esse Nec si hoc ipsum Est purum dixeris ipsum enim nihil est Consignificat autem compositionem quandam quam sine compositis non est intelligere Arist.
and Chamier lib. 10. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligimus vt sit positum est pro significat In which way the wordes are thus to be interpreted Hoc this thing est doth signifie corpus meum my bodie A construction so absurd that the very Authors are ashamed of it and therefore couer it vnder metaphors clowdes of obscure speaches that it appeare not to the Reader D. Mortons pretence for it is this that the subiect is proper bread which bread saith he doth signifie but is not the bodie That it is bread he perswades himself because our Sauiour tooke bread and the Fathers sometimes call it bread Which is no good Argument for the Greg. Nyss orat catec c. 37. Ser. de Coen apud Cypr. Gaudent in exod tr 2 Cyril Hier. Catech. 4. Cyrill Alex Epist ad Calos Aug. Serm 28. de verb Dom. lib. 2. con aduers leg c. 9. Hier. Epist ad Hedib q. 2 Ambros Myst init c. 9. Chrysost Hom. 83 in Mat. 24. in Pri. ad Cor. Fathers when they speak of that which is heere after consecration expounde themselues as you will see hereafter for Doctor Featlie doth obiect the same of bread which is changed by the power of Omnipotēcie not in shape but in nature of supersubstantiall heauenlie not proper bread in which sence our Sauiour calls his flesh meate and himself bread Ioh. 6. Whereupon whē they take the word properlie they saie that it is not bread not that which nature made no sensible thing but the flesh of Christ the bodie which was crucified the mediatour the Lord of all Neither doth it follow that it is bread properly because he tooke such bread into his hands for he chāged it by his omnipotence Panis omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Oblata conuertons in Veritatem propriae carnis In illud quod est immortale transelementata corum quae apparent natura into flesh as they likewise teach vs. and our Sauiours words according to their natiue proper sence do D. Morton Instit of the Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 72. confessedlie import as much for they signifie that his bodie is now in that exteriour forme wherein before there was bread Which doth inuolue a change In a corporall feast suppose a Prince makes it that which was bought aliue is serued in before the guests And consequentlie it is not rigorouslie speaking the same thing though it be vulgarlie esteemed the same Homo mortuus quanquam figurae formam habet eandem tamen homo non est saies the Philosopher lib. 1. de Part Anim. c. 1. And elswhere he tels vs Homo mortuus dicitur aequiuocé Liuing and dead things haue not the same forme and therefore if you beleeue him be not the same things Vide eundem lib. 1. de Gener. t 23. not aliue In this spirituall feast exhibited by the Prince of heauen that which was brought into the Church not aliue is he is the Creators Sonne and himself omnipotent that makes it presented to the communicants his guests aliue Influit oblatis vim vitae S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos cōuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis He doth flow in to the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh Neither was he long about it but said the word Statim per verbum in corpus mutatur vt dictum est à Verbo hoc est corpus meum S. Greg. Nyssen Orat. catech c. 37. suddainlie the thing was donne Whereupon this ensued that his bodie was at once in two places In the one situallie as other bodies are in the other sacramentallie according to the manner of a spirit This as our greatest Aduersaries confesse doth vnauoideablie follow vpō the natiue and proper sence of our Sauiours words And Antiquitie so vnderstood and beleeued it affirming that verie bodie which was crucified for our sinnes to be vnder the S Aug. Conc 1. in Psal 33. l. 9. Conf. c. 13. Serm. ad Neoph. apud Bed in c. 10. ad Cor. In the 4. Argu. one place will be discussed S. Chrys Hom 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Cyrill Catec 4 S. Ansel in c. 11 ad Cor. forme or shape of bread and that blood which issued out of our Sauiours side the verie price of our Redemption to be in S. Chrys Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Aug. Epist 162. Serm. ad Neoph. S. Leo Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens sept .. S. Greg. mag lib. 4. Dial c. 58. S. Cyrill Catec 4. the chalice and thence powred into the mouthes of the Communicants They beleeued that the most precious bodie in heauen was at the same S. Chrysost l 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. Hom. 17. in Epist ad Heb. S. Greg. Nyss Orat. Catech c 17. S. Cyrill Alex. anathem 11. in Conc Ephes lib. 11 in Ioan. c 27. Conc. Nicen. 1. in Act. Vatic S. Cyrill Hieros catech 4. time in many places heere on earth that they had Iesus the Mediatour God and man he being at the same time in heauen heere in their S. Cyrill Catech. myst 5. S. Chrys Hom. 24. ad Cor. lib. 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 46. in Ioan. hands and receaued him with their S. Aug. l. 2. con Aduers leg c. 9. Tract 59. in Ioan. Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa S. Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 S. Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. S. Leo. Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens Sept. mouth The ground of which beleefe were the foresaid words and asseueration of our blessed Sauiour to whose Authoritie they had submitted their vnderstandings Take eate this is my bodie They did not presume to dispute with Him about the nature of quantitie or substāce or Or repute it absurd he should be in a mans bellie VVhat is better what purer what more glorious thē the blessed Trinitie and is not the blessed Trinitie in euerie place and now you stop your nose in euerie thing The bodie of our blessed Sauiour is immortall impassible and existeth in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit place they were sure he knew these things better then they did or by that little which man knowes or seemes to know define his Power Art but ingenuouslie honoured and willinglie heard Him as the Master of men and Angels in Coloss 2. whom are hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge To feare least the bodie which is substantiallie indiuiduall should be distracted into two bodies by this accidentall and superuenient manner of existencie is a fault in the braine liable to the name rather then any signe of a good and sincere iudgment It is in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit as before hath beene obserued and Spirits are not subiect to distraction by quantitie VVhen a man is beheded is his soule cut in two though that happen and whilst they are in it to be diuided One Angell is able to moue so to be
alloquitur haec definitio non placet age praesta te Magistrum nos doce quid aliud vocatio Dei esse possit quando Deus vocat dicit appellat nominat Hoc verbum Dei est cum inquit Hoc est corpus meum sicut in Genesi ait Fiat lux fit lux Deus est qui nominat seu vocat quicquid nominat id illico praesto est vt Psalm 33 testatur dixit facta sunt Ibidem Item Irenaeus ait Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore sanguine Domini alitur Hic iterum audimus corpus nostrum eo cibari corpore sanguine Domini vt in aeternum viuat non corrumpatur vt Haeretici somniabant Irenaeus loquitur de corporali manducatione cibatione corporis tamen vult cibum illum esse corpus sanguinem Domini Ibidem He brings there also the Sacramentarians Euasions and refutes them out of Irenaeus words cleere plaine in so much that it caÌ„not Si quispiam mihi persuadere potuisset in sacrameÌ„to praeter paneÌ„ verum ego captum me video nulla euadendi via relicta textus enim Euangelij nimis apereus est potens Epist ad Argentin habetur tomo 7. in Epist Farrag be auoided auouching withall that it was the Fathers tenet So likewise doth Melancthon Melancth l. de Ver. Corp. Quid fiet in tentatione cum disputabit conscientia quam habuerit caussam dissentiendi à recepta sententia in Ecclesia Tunc verba ista hoc est corpus meum fulmina erunt Ibidem Sequor saith he veteris ecclesiae sententiam quae affirmat adesse corpus in coena ac iudico hanc habere Scripturae testimonium I follow the sentence of the auncient Church which affirmes the bodie to be preseÌ„t in the supper I iudge it to haue the testimonie of Scripture Those who stood on Featlies side were such as by Apostacie had gonne out of the true Church Archidiaconus Andegauensis anno 1035. Docuit paruulos non esse baptizandos teste Guit mundo eiusdem temporis scriptore Hanc autem Haeresim esse constat vniuersalis ecclesiae testimonio idemque fatentur Angli Protestantes Berengarius who Malmesb. l. 3. recanted Sacerdos Pastor de Lutterworth anno 1371. Wickleff Archidiaconus VVittembergensis Lutheri discipulus Carolstadius Pastor Tigurinus Swinglius Ex monacho Apostata Oecolampadius Nouiodunensis Deus adeo hunc Haereticum percussit vt desperata salute daemonibus inuocatis iurans execrans blasphemans miserrimè animam malignam exhalarit Schlussel in Theol. Calu. fol. 72. idemque testatur Hieron Bolsecus in eius vita That Luther Caluin Swinglius Carolstadius Oecolampadius had beene Papists as they speake before they fell into their Heresies is declared out of their owne authors in the booke de Auth. Prot. eccles l. 2. c. 11. Caluin See the Censure pag. 274. Iudas and that great Apostata the See the Censure pag. 274. Deuil I do not mention Touching this Bertrame reade the Plea for the Reall Presence against Sir Humfrey Linde by I. O. Bertram because he that makes any speach in him Caluinisticallie ProtestaÌ„t in this matter doth withall make him coÌ„tradict himself it is the same of that Concerning this Homilie and the Author see the Prudentiall Balance l. 1. c 19. in Odo and Alfrick c. 22. n. 4. Homilie which is cited as Elfricks and thereby casts him of The Iudge of Controuersies is according to our Aduersaries themselues either the scripture or the Spirit If wee goe with the Controuersie to the Scripture to our Sauiour speaking in it the cause is ours This is my bodie which is broken for you Which words if they be certainlie true in a proper and literall sence then wee are to yeeld the whole cause reall Presence propitiatorie Sacrifice and Adoration saith D. MortoÌ„ the last who wrot in England before Waferer of this subiect I haue said oft and now repeate the same againe that the litterall sence or letter cannot be retained in these words of Christ Cited p. 293. This is my bodie without establishing the Papisticall transubstantiation saith Beza If we go with the Controuersie to the Spirit in the Church we gaine the Cause too for all knowne Churches in Luthers time did beleeue and professe it If to the Spirit in the first Protestantes Luther and his Disciples the Cause is ours If wee consider diligentlie the circumstances of the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my owne bodie that which is deliuered broken crucified for you and of the blood in like manner vt supra pag. 11. wee are more and more confirmed in our tenet If wee reade the Fathers wee finde theÌ„ to be ours the Lord of Plessis Mornay had obiected out of them by the help of his Ministers what he could but he is fullie answered by the worthie Cardinall Peron in a iust tome of this subiect onlie which booke he were to refute that would laie claime to Antiquitie in behalf of the Sacramentarian Heresie Moreouer that our tenet of the Reall presence of our Sauiours bodie vnder the signes was the tenet of Antiquitie the Church tells vs the Church I say in Luthers daies and before a thousand yeers together in which Church there haue beene innumerable great Schollers examining Recordes reading the Fathers comparing and considering the text of Scripture and this Church tells vs the Fathers their predecessors taught them as they teach vs. Why should wee not beleeue them in a matter so plainlie deliuered in the Scripture rather then Daniel Featlie or Oecolampadius or Iohn Caluin If you will moue vs with Authoritie bring greater Authoritie If you will moue vs with Scripture bring plainer Scripture and more worlds openlie in plaine termes interpreting it against vs. The Authoritie of one Deuine of a Nation will not serue against a world The Doctour obiecteth S. Augustine but against S. Augustine as hereafter will appeare He obiecteth Tertullian and Origen and against Tertullian and Origen they in this point were not diuided from the world But had Origen or Tertullian beene opposite in their opinioÌ„ who so mad as to follow them against so great an authoritie as the Church To oppose a lesse Authoritie to a greater thereby to think to winne the cause is absurd If Authoritie can moue the greater it is the more it moues To vrge against the Church the words of any in As when a man speakes of the practicall dictio or vocatio which is a making of the thing by saying it is or calling it by the name Ipse dixit facta sunt Lazare veni foras Adolescens tibi dieo surge to interprete hâ—s words of a meere speculatiue dictio or vocatio Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex
duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Irenaeus l 4 c 34. and l. 5. c 2. Quando ergo mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbū Dei fit Eucharistia c. The words are operatoria practicall as you will see more at large in the solution of the fift Arg p. 479. seqq S. Ierom vpon those words of S Matth Surgens imperauit ventis venti mar◠obediunt ei Ex hoc loco saith he intelligimus quod omnes creaturae sentiant creatorem Quas enim increpauit quibus imperauit sentiunt imperantem non errore Hareticorum qui omnia putant animantia sed maiestate conditoris quae apud nos insensibilia illi sensibilia sunt In c. 8. Matt. another sence then they did vtter them or to build an aduantage vpon a mistake in some For example what the word Hoc doth preciselie demonstrate S. Bonauenture did auouch the reall presence and transubstantiation as all Schollers know though he did expound Hoc of bread VVherefore your deduction from the like interpretation could you find it in one more auncient to the mans beleefe of a meere signe would not hold The sequele faild in him a Deuine And you though you know not peraduenture whether S. Peter when he said Tabitha rise did addresse his speach to the dead bodie calling that Tabitha Conuersus ad corpus dixit Tabitha surge or to the liue Person which vpon his word appeared or whether it did in the beginning of the speach stand indeterminatlie will graunt notwithstanding that in the end of the speach there was not a dead corse as in the beginning but a liue woman and this by vertue of his words instrumentallie and principallie by the operation of Gods omnipotencie which doth also worke heere as the Fathers tell vs. In these propositions Coeci vident mortui resurgunt qui in monumentis sunt audient votem c. there is as the Deuines saie sensus diuisus nice point or subtilitie wherein with cōsēt in the mysterie The thing imported by our Sauiours words properlie vnderstood it self there might be diuersitie of opinions is an euident signe of Hereticall pertinacie The Church by continuall exercise doth profit in the knowledg of such matters And as now amongst the moderne Deuines some do better interprete Gods word in obscure places and deliuer the truth in more accurate proper termes then others so was it if wee beleeue the S. Aug. de Praed Sanct. c. 14. Hier. Apol. adu Ruff. Fathers in the times primitiue wherein some did speake of matters by Protestants now beleeued lesse Fieri potest vt vel certe antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium meridianum Arius na ceretur innocenter quaedam minus caute loquuti sunt quae non possint peruersorum hominum calumniam declinare S. Hier Apol. aduers Ruff. lib. 2. warilie then others did It is well knowne also that the best Schollers and greatest Saincts were euer readie to submit themselues and their iudgment to the Iudgment of the Church with whom the Spirit of truth remaines to teach all truth foreuer Wherefore if it should haue happened that any of them had been mistaken in this matter as S. Cyprian was in the point Baptisme he could not without open wrong be obiected against the Church Especiallie considering that in that his generall submission of his iudgment he virtuallie retracted whateuer should be found in his writings contrarie to any determination of Hers. S. Aug. l 5. de Bapt. c. 17. l. 2 c. 4. You know S. Augustines Apologie for the Sainct but now mentioned whose opinion he reiected because it was against the definition of a Generall Councell Neither do I preferre my owne opinion before his but the iudgmēt or sentēce of the Holie Catholicke Church all which he was not and againe Neither durst wee affirme any such thing if wee were not well grounded vpon the most cōsenting or agreeable Authoritie of the Vniuersall Church vnto which vndoubtedlie he S. Cyprian would haue yeilded if as then the truth of this Question being cleered and declared had beene established by a Generall Councell So far touching the state of the Controuersie Disputed in the Conference The Apologist who doth addresse himself against Quādo minora maioribus coaequantur inferioris comparatio superioris iniuria est S. Hier. ad◠Iouin l. 1. my Lord is bitter and without any cause giuen him The title ouer euerie leafe is An Apologie for Doctor Featlie against the Bishop of Chalcedon The Obiect of my Censure is this Apologie which labours to discredit the Catholike Relation doth many times misreport and corrupt it which makes me represent it againe to the Reader entirelie I shall haue much adoe whilst I blott out Waferers Errours to keepe my pen from touching him that lies amongst his lies and heresies But the field of combat is no place of complement Flatterie euer a fault when it is practized to the disaduantage of Religiō becomes a crime APPROBATIO IN hoc libro cui titulus A RELECTION c. nihil est fidei Catholicae aut bonis moribus contrarium sed multa quae veritatem Catholicam de Reali praesentia confirmant Quapropter dignum censui qui praelo cōmittatur Actum Duaci 22. Maij. 1635. Georgius Coluenerius Sac. Theologiae Doct. eiusdem regius ordinariusque Professor Collegiatae Ecclesiae S. Petri Praepositus Vniuersitatis Duacensis Cancellarius librorum Censor THE ERRATA In the Praef. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 29. is my p. 90. import it p. 93. where you p 103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. are two so you shall haue p. 117. marg 108. p. 132. descāt p. 151. So now we p. 160. So much p. 163. the bodie is pres p. 172. perceaue p. 186. the figure the. p. 201. it is not bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 205. Chamier l. 10. de Euch. c. 2. p. 210. he gaue to be p 132. or a proper speach a negation of p. 248. call our p. 260. S. Tho. 2. 2. qu. 173. ar 2. p. 273 as black a. the conclusion p. 284. and trāssubst p. 300. thereby p. 306. speak p. 322. pag. 301. p. 349. returnest p. 396. and adm p. 410. visibile bodie p. 419. later immolation affirming p. 421. bread Moreouer p. 443. pronoune p. 147. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. his chaire p. 482. is conf p. 505. the words of consecration Hoc est corpus meum p. 516. refer his confessiō to sacrificing not to vnbloodie p. 519. Iesus was pag. 527. of lies 544. g p. 546. no other name p. 547. Pane vino deficiente licet in coena ijs vti quibus pro potu cibo communiter vtimur saies Scarpius cont 3. de Euch. q. 1. p. 1411. p. 569. to write them p. 587. whether M. T. G. B. p 588. merrie b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 184. peronatus M. Featlies Conference with D.
speakes very obscurelie and sometymes placeth his words so that it is hard to discerne amongst them which to which is referd In the place alleadged he doth not referre those words id est figura Corporis mei to Corpus meum but to Hoc And the sence or meaning of them is This which once was an old figure of my bodie is now my bodie And when Master Doctour Smith said he could bring out of Tertullian himselfe in the same place foure reasons prouing this was Tertullians meaning and withall cited other wordes of Tertullian wherein he doth after the same manner disorder the composition of the wordes Master Featlie would not suffer him to bring those reasons neither did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like sort inuerted the order of the words but onely said the order of the wordes alleadged was vnusuall and that it followes not they are heere disordered by this Author because he had done the like elsewhere Doctour Smith answeared that this kinde of confusion of wordes and difficultie in expounding himselfe was not vnusuall in a Tertullianus creber est in sentetijs sed difficilis in eloquendo S. Hieron loc cit Tertullian bringing instance thereof said withall that he did not inferre that Tertullian heere did speake so because he had done the like in other places but because he doth affoord in this very place foure seuerall reasons why he must be so vnderstoode whereof one he produced presently out of the words obiected For quoth he since Tertullian sayes that our Sauiour made breade his owne bodie he was not so forgetfull as immediately to adde that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his bodie This he seconded with another as that Tertullian presently after the foresaid wordes saith it had not beene a figure c. figura autem non fuisset by which wordes he shewes that he speakes of the figure which was before our Sauiour said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie And the booke of Tertullian being brought he shewed a third reason out of other wordes ensuing Vt autem sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas aderit Esaias c. and that thou mayest acknowledge in the wine an old figure of blood Esaie c. Out of which wordes he proued that when Tertullian spake of breade he spake of an old figure because he saith of the wine plainely that it was an old figure of blood and connecting this his proofe videlicet that wine had beene an old figure of blood with the former of breade he saith vt autem sanguinis veterem c. VVhere the particles autem and show that in both he speakes of a like that is to say an old legall figure and that he meāt that both wine was an old figure of our Sauiours bloode and breade an old figure of his bodie Now if Tertullian speake as hath beene proued of an old legall figure it is certaine he could not referre the word figure to the attribute or praedicatum Corpus meum my bodie for our Sauiour did not say that the Eucharisticall breade was an old and legall figure of his bodie but onlie to the subiect He was readie to vrge also had D. Feat permitted that which immediately followes in the same place Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam aduersum me cogitauerunt cogitatum dicentes venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet crucem in corpus eius Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declarauit corpus suum vocans panem But why he calleth bread his bodie and not a pōpiō rather which Marcion had in place of a heart not vnderstanding that it was an old figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremy they haue conspired against me saying come let vs cast wood on his bread to wit the crosse on his body The Illuminator therefore of antiquities hath declared sufficientlie what he would haue bread thē to haue signified calling his bodie bread In which wordes Tertullian speakes plainely of an old figure as appeares by veterem and tunc Moreouer Tertullian in all that booke proues that our Sauiour did fulfill diuers figures of the old Testament amongst others these of breade and wine which in the old lawe were figures of his bodie bloode Therefore whē he speakes of them of breade and wine as figures he speakes of old figures and so would not say that our Sauiour made breade to be a figure of his bodie for it is certaine that he did not make bread an old legall figure but that he made breade which was an old legall figure his bodie as Tertullian himselfe there speaketh In fine Master D. Smith tould Master Featley that of curtesie he would admitt the word figura figure to be referd to the word Corpus bodie that his argument might runne on and he make the best he could of it but the minister would not make vse of this his free offer And this was the issue of the first argumēt THE NOTES OF S. E. BY this discourse it doth appeare manifestly that Tertullian in the words obiected doth not oppose but approue our doctrine auouching a change in that which of old was a figure of our Sauiours bodie to wit bread into the same bodie our Sauiour by this meanes making it present in the shape of the figure which it doth fulfill and euen to the mouth and * Caro Corpore Christi vescitur De Resur carnis flesh according to the same author in another place Master Featleyes discourse of S. Cyprian calling Tertullian Master putts me in minde of some wordes after cited by my Lord in his answer to the 5. argument which the reader may take from one of the same age to let Antiquitie interprete Antiquitie as a further Comment vppon the meaning of Tertullian Serm. de Coena apud Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotence of the Word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the diuinitie lie hid so heere a diuine essence doth vnspeakeablie poure it self into a visible Sacrament Behold a presence brought about by change of the Substance or nature of that which was before according to Scripture a figure into the flesh or bodie the exteriour shape of the figure breade remayning and containing in it the foresaid holy substance as in our Sauiour God who is inuisible is really in the shape of man Neither is our cause any thing hurt by the placing of
those words id est figura Corporis mei whether they be ioyned in construction to the subiect hoc or to Corpus the praedicatum since he whose words they be doth admitt and teach a change whereby the figure is fulfild and therefore is no more an emptie figure according to that which was answered in the beginning of this argument Now to come to D. Featleyes relation first he demaundes a place for the figuratiue Protestant exposition out of any Protestant more pregnant then is this of Tertullian vpon the sight thereof he will if you take a Ministers word yeeld the better Answ Tertullian doth not exclude the presence of the bodie to the mouth or to the signes but doth teach it euen heere in this place which you thinke is against it as hath beene shewed already But your men exclude it as you may remember by that which you were tould in the beginning Confessio Czingerina Signa nō sunt substantia signatorum sed tantùm accipiunt nomina The signes Eucharisticall bread and wine are not the substance of the things signed bodie and blood but take their names onely The Heluetians Panis non est ipsummet Corpus Christi sed eius signum dumtaxat The Eucharisticall bread is not the verie bodie of Christ but a signe of it onely Zuinglius Panis figura tantummodo est the Eucharisticall bread is a figure onely And Praeter panem non est quicquam ampliùs There is not any thing besides bread These and many other of this kind and out of English authours too be cited by my Lord of Chalcedon Collat. Doct. Cath. li. 1. c. 10. ar 1. Secondly he saies the Words id est figura are to be referd to the praedicatum as all men doe in the like It was answered that Tertullian himselfe did not alwaies referre to the praedicatum what followes in that manner much lesse could it be truely said Mar. 9.17 Dicendo denique Christus mortuus est id est vnctus id quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit id est carnem Aduersus Praxean c. 29. that all without exception doe And to giue you an example in Tertullian he in his booke Aduersus Praxean speakes in the same forme saying Christus mortuus est id est vnctus Where that part of the speach id est vnctus is an explication of the subiect Christus And that the words id est figura in the other speach are so to be referd it was then proued out of Tertullian himselfe who questionles is a good interpretor of his owne minde and out of this verie place by diuers reasons Which reasons D. Featley was not able to disproue But the reader will say be it so let the wordes be ordered as you say hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum what reason haue you to adde more words in the proposition as quae fuit vetus making the sence to be This which was an old figure of my bodie is my bodie Answer In the proposition no words are added but in the explication of the proposition the word figure is determined according to the minde of Tertullian by the words vetus and quae fuit that you may know of what figure he speakes veterem istam fuisse figuram It is Tertullian doth tell the sence of Tertullian Thirdly Tertullian saies D. Featly could not be so dull as to thinke our Sauiour meant the bread Which Was in the old laWe a figure of his bodie is noW his bodie Answer He saies expresly that he our Sauiour made it his bodie Wherefore now bread according to Tertullian not remaining breade but changed is his bodie This Tertullian did beleeue and teach there in that place telling vs that breade was of old a figure of our Sauiours bodie non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis c. which he proues out of Ieremie and that this old figure bread was by our Sauiour made his bodie acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his body So now it was no more bread in substance but another thing It was a Serm. de Coen changed in nature b Greg. Nyss orat Catech transelemented c Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 4. Itaque illuminator Antiquitatum c. Cited p. 20. not bread in substance but the bodie To shewe that our Sauiour in assuming those elements breade and wine to consecrate therein his bodie and blood did intend to fulfill two old figures is the very scope and drift of Tertullian in that place and the partiall Scope of his booke as all may knowe that can reade and vnderstand latine and this according to Tertullian is the sence of our Sauiours words this thing in my hand made of breade an a Ierem. 11.19 old figure of my bodie is my bodie Out of this D. Featley in his relation striues to proue that the words of institution be figuratiue for saith he this proposition this figure is my bodie cannot be true but by a figure sith neither the substance of breade nor the accidents are properly the bodie of our Sauiour Answer The question is not whether there be any figure or no but whether heere be a figure excluding the veritie as you were tould in the beginning and your selfe vndertooke to proue Neither are those wordes you speake of this figure in my bodie the words of institution wherefore if there were a figure in them it would not follow there is a figure in the words of institution And if there were a figure in the words of institution it would not yet follow that it is a meere figure such a one as doth a Vide Tertull. l. 5. cōtr Marc. c. 20. Plane de substantia c. exclude the veritie for which kind of figure you dispute This the reader may conceaue if he call to minde those other wordes hic est calix c. Where Catholikes doe graunt a figure indeed but such a one as doth consist with the verity of the bloode To that expounding proposition made out of Tertullians comment vpon the word hoc which comment is this id est figura I answer that the word figure is there extended to signifie the thing made of a figure as in scripture the word a Gen. 3. dust is sometimes vsed to signifie the thing made of dust b Ioh. 2. water to signifie the thinge made of water and c Exod. 7. rod to signifie the thing made of a rod. Puluis es Virga deuorauit Gustauit aquam c. And in this sence the proposition is true for the thing made of bread an old figure is our Sauiours bodie and properly too for substance To the proofe videlicet neither the accidents of bread nor the substance of bread is properly called the bodie I answer that it is true withall it is true that the thing made of bread is properly the bodie d Tertul l. 4. contr Marc.
D. Featlie It is horrible to eate maÌ„s flesh what way soeuer D. Smith That is not true as appeares in mummie which because it is not in the proper shape of flesh is eaten without horrour D. Featley That is deade flesh wee speake of flesh that is aliue D. Smith It is not onely horrible to eate mans flesh because it is aliue but also because it is mans flesh in its proper shape for it were a horrour to eat of the deade bodie of a man and likewise because there is a kinde of violence offered to it in that it is torne and mangled with the teeth and eaten to the end wee be bodily nourished there by But in the eating of the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist there is no such matter for it is not there in its proper shape neither is there any violence offered to it in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies be thereby nourished and therefore there is indeed no horrour to eate it in that manner though it seeme horrible because in eating one carries himselfe so as in eating other meate I say therefore with S. Augustine that our Sauiours words vnlesse you eate the flesh c. be figuratiue according to the manner of eating because our cutting and mangling with our teeth doth not arriue vnto the bodie of our Sauiour in it selfe and that it is proper in regard of the thing because the flesh of Christ it selfe is taken into the mouth and by vitall instruments let downe into the stomake So that the foresâ—id speach of our Sauiour vnlesse you eate the flesh c. Is according to S. Augustine mixt of a proper and a figuratiue speach Accordinglie I admitt that in those other words This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one voide of truth and proprietie but a figure ioyned with truth and propriety because although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ truely really and properly according to the thing yet they doe not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other things are the things which they are said to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacrameÌ„tall manner and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shewe and represent the naturall manner of the same bodie in another place VVhich those words of our Sauiour declare doe this in remembrance of me and those other in the foresaid Chapter of S. Iohn the words which I speake vnto you be Spirit and life That is to say as S. Augustine doth expound (a) Expos in c. 6. Ioh. are to be vnderstoode spirituallie And (b) CoÌ„ in Ps 98. Sacramentum aliquod c. I haue commended vnto you a SacrameÌ„t c. And in another place Our (c) L. cont AdimaÌ„t c. 12. Lord doubted not to say this is my bodie when he gaue the signe of his bodie D. Featley None of yours doth acknowledge any figure in these words of our Sauiour this is my bodie D. Smith None of vs acknowledge that there is contained a naked figure voide of the truth and proprietie at the * Pag. 25. Protestants would haue it and yet none of vs denie that there is contâ—ined such a figure as withall hath with it the truth proprietie Yea Bellarmine doth sufficiently insinuate such a one lib. 2. de Euch. c. 24. 8. and S. Augustine in the place aboue cited and others Neither is it any way opposite to the truth of the Catholike faith Yet speaking absolutely and simpliciter it is not to be graunted that this speach hoc est corpus meuÌ„ this is my bodie is figuratiue both both because a proposition is absolutely and simplie to be esteemed rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner and therefore since that proposition is proper in regard of the thing it affirmeth it is absolutely to be said a proper speach as also because to be figuratiue seemes to haue adioyned vnto it a certaine negation either of the thing or of some manner of being of the thing therefore since a negation hath as Logicians terme it a malignant nature he that absolutely should say that proposition were figuratiue would seeme to say at least at these tymes that it were not proper which were false to affirme VVherefore it will be lawfull onely to say that there is in the foresaid proposition a certaine figure in regard of the manner as hath beene said before or that it is figuratiue according to the manner but not absolutely that it is figuratiue THE NOTES OF S. E. FOr the application of this discourse to the relation which D. Featly makes the learned need not any helpe I will only shew others how to doe it as before in the former argument D. Featly S. Augustine saith those words vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man seeme to commaund a sinne or horrible wickednesse it is therefore a figure Answer To eate it in it's proper forme and shape as some people haue donne mans flesh it is indeed horrible and being horrible that sence is to be reiected to eate it in an other forme as we doe in the Eucharist it is not horrible wherefore that sence is not according to S. Augustines rule to be reiected D. Featly Then S. Augustines argument is very weake Answer His discourse is good and shewes that our Sauiours speach vnlesse you eate c. is not to be taken according to the common sense of the words but in an other wherein there is not indeed wickednes and horrour D. Featly What then say you to S. Augustines conclusioÌ„ It is therefore a figure Answer It is a figure in regard of the manner for the manner of eating mans flesh which is commoÌ„lie apprehended were wicked and horrible but not in regard of the thing for to receaue into the mouth a mans flesh existent after another manner that is not wicked not horrible S. Augustine himselfe graunts that wee receaue a liue man Lib. 2. contr Adu leg c 9. lib. de Resur carn c. 8. Mediatorem Dâ—i hominum the Mediatour of God and men into our mouth And Tertullian whom before you did obiect saith Caro corpore vescitur the flesh eates the bodie D. Featlie A speach figuratiue according to the manner of eating and eating of a thinge not in propria forma are Schoole-delicacies where finde you any such thing in S. Augustine Answer Our Sauiour doth feede his Church with the delicacies which you speake of and in that maÌ„ner too The thing in his hande was in the forme of breade and it was his bodie So he tould his disciples Mat. 26. this is my bodie And S. Augustine beleeued it for he saith that our Sauiour had (a) Conc 1. in ps 33 himselfe in his owne hands when he commended his bodie to the Disciples that he did beare in his hands his owne bodie This was Corpus humanum in aliena
especiallie wee must exclude that figure which excludeth the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the Sacrament Againe And according to this figure did Tertullian and S. Augustine speake when they did expound our Lords words This is my bodie thus this is a figure of my bodie Cardinall Allen li. 1. de Euchar. c. 32. declaring the sence of S. Augustine in these words the Sacramēt of Christs bodie is in some sort Christs bodie c. He said so quoth the Cardinall because a thing being put out of its naturall manner of being and out of all naturall conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name and endued with strange accidents although it keepe it's substance yet because it wanteth the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and coceipt of man and are comprehended vnder the proper name it almost leeseth its proper name or if it keepe it yet not so provertie as if it kept its proper māner of being c. in so much as the bodie of Christ vnder the forme of breade is called and is the bodie of Christ by a certaine figure In which words he admitreth yea and in all that booke defendeth the reall presence yet withall in regard of the manner of being he doth admitt an impropriate or figure Suar. 3. p. disp 46. Sect 4. I adde saith he out of S. Anselme and out of that which I said before that albeit Christs bodie be truelie and substantiallie in this Sacrament yet in the māner of being it differeth from the naturall being of bodies which manner Christ hath in his proper forme and therefore according to this manner Christ may be said to be in this Sacrament either incorporallie or inuisiblie or lesse properlie or figuratiuelie And so the words which fignifie Christ to be here are in a manner sometimes said to containe a figure beeause according to this manner they haue an other sense then without this mysterie they should haue Gordon Controu 3. cap. 9. There are two kinds of figures some that wholie take a way the veritie of the thing which Christ promised and these wee admitt not others there are that take not a way the true presence of Christs bodie but rather confirme it and these wee most willinglie embrace for there is scarce any speech so proper in which there may not be found some figure either of word or speach where vpon the Councell of Trent sess 13. c. 1. disallo weth not all figures but only such as denie the truth of Christ flesh and blood Pitigianis in 4. dist 10. q. 1. ar 1. ad 2. Wee doe not exclude from the forme of this Sacrament all figuratiue and vnproper speaches for without doubt some are to be admitted especiallie in the forme of the blood but wee reiect only those which suffer not with them the reall presence of the bodie and blood in the Eucharist To spend time in citing more of these it is needles These had read the rest and he that is conuersant in our writers can presentlie turne to more Of ould when Berengarius had broached your heresie our Deuines then liuing taught the same When Frudegardus obiected to Paschasius that according to S. Augustine it is a figuratiue speach whē the Eucharist is called the body blood of Christ Paschas epist ad Frudeg he answereth thus These are Mysticall thinges in which is the verity of flesh and blood and none others thē Christs yet in a mysterie and figure Neither is it meruaile if this mysterie be a figure and the words of this mysterie be called a figuratiue speach seeing Christ himselfe is called of the Apostle Paul a Character or figure though he be the Veritie And Lanfranke Archbishop of Canterburie answering to Berengarius that obiected S. Augustines words the Sacrament of Christs bodie is in some sort the bodie of Christ The flesh Li. cont Bereng saies he and blood with which wee are daily nourished for to obtaine Gods mercie for our sinnes are called Christs body and blood not onely because they are thē in substance though differing much in qualities but also after that manner of speach where with a figure is termed by the name of the thing which it signifieth To the same purpose Suarez 3. p. tom 3. disp 46. Sect. 4. and Sanctes Repet 3. c. 4. doe cite these words of S. Anselme Christi benedictione panis fit corpus eius non significatiue tantùm sed etiam substantiuè neque enim ab hoc Sacramento figurā omnino excludimus neque eam folā admittimus By the benediction of Christ bread is made his bodie not significantly onely but also substantially for wee do neither wholly exclude a figure from this Sacrament nor admit a bare figure Before these againe the Fathers also did whith the reall presence to the mouth admit a figure in the manner calling the Eucharist an image an antitype a figure which speaches your selues not vnderstanding them obiect many times The reason of all is because our Sauiours bodie and blood haue not heere their naturall but a Sacramentall manner of existencie which manner of existence or being is not the proper being of such things And the formes vnder which they be doe signifie and therefore are significatiue the same as existent in their proper manner This came to passe by our Sauiours institution It is all one to signifie and to be significatiue to represēt to be representatiue who could order all as he thought good Hoc est corpus meū quod pro vobis tradetur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis fundetur If you should further aske me why our Sauiour were so delighted with signes or figures as to mixt then with propriety in this his great worke and Sacrament of the Church and this kinde of figure or image principally wherein the same for substance is in the representing and the represented I remit you to some greater cleark for an answer vnles this will serue that himselfe is the figure image of his Father and in substance all one with him VERBVM est DEVS substantialiter DEVS representatiué the eternall word is God substantially and God representatiuely Yea it selfe doth represent it selfe since it represents all that the Father doth vnderstand THE THIRD ARGVMENT D. Featly Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit saith if you follow the letter in these words vnlesse you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth therefore the words of Christ concerning this Sacrament are not to he expounded according to the letter D. Smith Origen speakes according to the Capharnaiticall letter that is to say according to that literall sence wherein the Capharnaits did vnderstand those words who as S. Augustine saies in Psal 4. in c. 6. Ioa. and S. Cyprian serm de Coena wee do not say the Capharnaiticall sence is indeede the sēce of those words but they mistaking thought it was vnderstood those words of our Sauiour so
as if wee were to eate the flesh of Christ after the same manner as we doe eate the flesh of beasts boiled or rosted cut and mangled In which sence if the letter be vnderstood it doth kill as Origen saith and as S. Augustine in the place aboue cited it imports a crime But seeing our Sauiour saith his flesh is truelie meate Ioan. 6. and that his words are Spirit and life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also Spirituallie or mysticallie VVhich thing wee rightlie doe when we say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist wee eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a Spirit THE NOTES OF S. E. HEere D. Featly without taking notice of what was tould him out of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian repeates againe that the Capharnaiticall manner of eating was the same with our eating of the flesh in the Sacrament whereas the difference is most cleere (a) S. Au. enar in Psal 98. They thought our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate (b) Ser. de coena Cyp. They imagined they were taught to eate it boild or rosted and cut in peeces Wee beleeue teach that it is receaued c work entire vnder the forme of bread And that Origen did admit and beleeue this our manner of receauing it these his words declare plainely When thou takest that holie and vncorrupted banquet Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa loca Euang. See D. Andr. Serm p. 476. Euerie MaÌ„ carries one of these houses about with him and the Mâ—ster of it is his soule when thou doest enioy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter vnder they roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthey that thou come vnder my roofe For where he enters vnworthily there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Here Origen declares that he beleeued our Sauiour all to be in the blessed Sacrament and will haue vs speake vnto him there as the Church doth in the Masse Domine non sum dignus c. Lord I am not worthy thou enter vnder my roofe He doth not call bread Lord acknowledging himselfe vnworthy it enter but Him that is in the exteriour forme of breade And herein he doth consent with S. Augustine before alledged who saith that wee receaue the Mediatour with our month and whith Tertullian Supra p. 78. Caro vescitur Christi corpore Flesh eateth the Bodie of Christ Moreouer suppose the soule be wicked notwistanding He Christ goes in this Authour saith but in whither not into the soule by meanes of faith that way you haue shut vp therefore you must confesse he goes in to the bodie at the mouth as S. Augustine tould you Who said also that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not with the minde sure Supr ap 79. he was then a Traitour but with the mouth D. Featly Should we eate with the mouth the flesh of man we should runne vpon the point of S. Cyrills reproofe In expos anath 11. Doest thou pronunce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiousty vrge the mindes of the faithfull with grosse and carnall imaginations Answer The grosse and carnall conceit of eating mans flesh he reiects the Sacramentall manner we speake of he did beleeue EueÌ„ in that anathematisme which you mentioÌ„ A 〈◊〉 1â— and which he there defeÌ„ds he saith the thing proposed on the altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is before the Preist is our Sauiours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne body So neere he tnought our Sauiours body was to the communicant Againe he saith that by meanes of the benediction coÌ„secration the Sonne of God as man is vnited to v◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporally Li. 11. in Ioan. c. 27. Ibid. Li. 10. c. 13. And that We doe receaue the Sonne of God corporally and substantially In an other place he saith the power of benediction doth bringe to passe that Iesus Christ dwelleth in vs corporallie with the coÌ„munication of the flesh of Christ. And the manner of compassing it is as he doth also teach (a) Epist ad Calo. In Answer to your marginall note about Bereng See the Answer to Bels challeÌ„g ar 2. c. 5. by conuerting breade and wine into the verity of flesh and blood D. Featly Doe those words nisi manducaueritis carnem vnlesse you eate the flesh sound after the Capharnaiticall straine Answer To flesh and blood they did and doe but the holy Ghost hath taught the Church an other way of eating flesh not in the proper but in another shape Mat. 26. Doe but harken and you shall heare the Ghospell mention eating a mans bodie in the forme of breade Take and eate this in my hand is my body THE FOVRTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie S. Augustine in Gratian dist 2. can hoc est saith As the heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the bodie of Christ when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ the Glosse addeth The heauenlie Sacrament which truelie doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie D. Smith Gratian first See Bellar Descriptor Eccles is not an authenticall Authour amongst vs much lesse the Glosse Secondlie I oppose other words of S. Augustine in the same place of Gratian where he saith that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti that is to saie the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ doth consist and is made of God and man Thirdlie I answer that S. Augustine in those words vnderstood that which is Sacramentum tantùm a Sacrament only D. Featlie S. Augustine speakes of that breade which he saith is the flesh of Christ but that which is Sacramentum tantùm is not the flesh of Christ therefore he doth not speake of that which is Sacramentum tantùm D. Smith The words of S. Augustine are not cited entirelie for epist 23. if that be the place Gratian meanes This place is quoted in the margine of Gratian he saith that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner and it is not inconuenient to say that that which is Sacramentum tantùm is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner according to which manner he saith baptisme is faith D. Featley Indeed Gratian
I confesse contradicts himselfe D. Smith VVhy then doe you reliè on such authoritie let vs on to sure testimonies THE NOTES OF S. E. TO cleere this discourse wherein D. Featlie hath vrged two Authorities togeather I will speake of each apart That Gratian held the reall presence it is out of question In that Distinction which you cite he brings diuers places out of the Fathers to shewe the manner of it as that the body is there indiuisiblie by chang of bread into it citing to this purpose S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Ierom S. Hilarie and others See can 35 41. 55. 69. 74. 77. 79. 82. 87. and not six lines before the place obiected he hath these words out of Prosper and S. Augustine directlie opposite to your tenet as p. 3 you put it downe Caro eius Christi est quaÌ„ forma panis opertaÌ„ in SacrameÌ„mento accipimus It is the flesh of Christ which wee receaue in the Sacrament couered with the forme of breade The words obiected were imperfectlie cited and them selues being read at large expound their authours meaning They be these As the heauenlie bread which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Preist is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in signifâ—ing mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The summe of Which analogie or coÌ„parisoÌ„ is this As the Eucharist is after a manner to wit mystice significatiue mysticallie significantlie the bodie crucifyed as crucifyed so Baptisme is faith after a maÌ„ner that is mystice significatiuè mystically significantlie Also as the actioÌ„ of vnbloodie immolation S Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4 c. 4. 5. videlicet consecration is the passion mysticè significatiue so the Sacramentall actioÌ„ Baptizing is faith mystice significatiuè He might haue added too S. Chry. HoÌ„ de prod Iud. Hom. 2. in 2 Ep. ad Tim. S. Hier. Ep. ad Heliod Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. 7. sess 7. can 6. that as the coÌ„secratorie action is signum practicum corporis sub aliena specie praesentis a practicall signe of the bodie present vnder another forme as making it so to be so the baptizing actioÌ„ is signum practicum fidei praesentis in baptizato a practicall signe of faith present in the baptized as making it so to be according to the fathers doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church Against this discourse it might be obiected that one and the same thing cannot represent it a The Manna as kept in the arke was a signe of it self as it fell in the desert selfe wherefore the bodie in the Eucharist cannot represent it selfe vpon the Crosse But this supposing the doctrine of the Gospell is not hard to be conceaued It being not hard to vnderstand how one the same thing being within two seuerall formes by the one may represent it selfe as in the other these references being not founded in the substance immediatelie but in the exteriour formes subiect to the eie which formes are distinct And in this case the forme wherein the reference of representation is founded is one with the other forme representatiuè in representation but the substance vnder the two formes is one and the same entitatiue in entitie or being The same indiuiduall bodie being reallie vnder both According to this discourse the sence of Gratians words as they are in him at leingth is this the heauenlie breade videlicet the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is after a certaine manner videlicet representatiue the body of Christ as visible and it is also the same flesh identice couered with the forme of breade And if against this you should obiect that he denies the heaueÌ„ly bread to be the body of Christ in truth rei veritate I would tell you that you mistake him for his words are the immolation of the flesh by the haÌ„ds of the Preist that is to say Consecration and the rest which the Preist doth at Masse vnto the hoast as breaking of it is called the passion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not indeed but in signifying mystery And certainely Consecration is not the passion of Christ rei veritate indeede and truely Neither was the Authour of the Glosse of your opinion but contrary for he held also the reall presence to the signes effected by transubstantiation In proofe whereof take these places out of him Ad prolationem istius hoc est corpus meum transubstantiatur panis in corpus Glossa de Consec dist 2. in can 35. Vpon the vtterance of these words This is my body the bread is transsubstaÌ„tiated into the body Vbi erat verus panis antè verum vinum modò sunt tantùm accidendia Ad can 41. where there was before true bread and true wine now there are onely accidents of bread and wine Ad prolationem verborum panis fit Corpus Christi vinum sanguis remanent tamen species panis vini sub quibus latent operiuntur caro sanguis ne in sumendo esset horror si species crudae viuae carnis crudi sanguinis appareret Ad can 55. At the vttering of the words the bread is made the bodie of Christ and wine the blood but the species of bread and wine do remaine vnder which species the flesh and blood do lie hid and are couered least there might be horrour in receauing if the species or shape of raw and liue flesh and of raw blood should appeare All these are the words of the Glosse whose authority you cited for your opinion with what conscience let the reader iudge In the words which are obiected he meant as the text which I haue expounded allreadie a CommeÌ„tatours aime is the meaning of his Authour though there be some thing therein also as appeareth by what I haue said in this place which he a Canonist did not accuratlie obserue My Lord Bishop in his answer to the words of S. Augustine whereunto Gratian pointed Epist 23. secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner said the Saint vnderstood them of that which is sacramentum tantùm a sacrament or signe onlie Against this Answer the Minister replied againe He had yet another explicatioÌ„ ready out of S Augustine too which the reader by this time doth reflecton grounding his argument on the words as he finds them in Gratian And it was answered and by comparing you shall find it true that Saint Augustines words are not in Gratian cited entirelie But suppose they were what then wherein do those Authours whom
it doth signifie 2. Replie When is this operatiue proposition verified Answer In that instant wherein the effect or thing signified is in being for then there is the terminus or extreame whereunro the conformitic doth relate and whereby it is defined not before Neither was the proposition before whollie vttered and therefore could not haue effect before Motus temp Generatio Forma instant When was the forme of your baptisme think you verified Ego te baptizo when it was or when it was not When the Parson said Ego or when he said te bap or ti or Zo. Had he stopt when he came to bap you know what I would inferre yet then te was past and gonne Esse consignificat compositionem quādam quā sine compositis non est intelligere Arist 1. Periher c. 3. To put a figure in the copula which thing you speake of by the waie there is no neede for it is naturall to vnion or composition in it's exercise to suppose the extreames consequentlie the copula may by institution directed according to nature signifie for that instant wherein both extreames are vttered and the speach compleate and especiallie in a practicall propositiō which is to verisie it self D. Featlie If Hoc stands for corpus bodie it would be tautologie Answer No more then this This is paper Featlie is a man God is wise Replie There is identitie Answer There is indeed identitie of the thing signified by the subiect and the attribute but there is not identitie in the manner of signifying And if identitie of the thing did suffice to tautologie and battologie as you pretend sub illis Montibus inquit erāt erant sub montibusillis this were tautologie and battologie God is wise iust omnipotent and eternall and were to be resolued after your new mannner thus God is God God God and God And whereas hetherto it hath bene taught in Schooles and and with great reason too that the Superiour predicamentall degrees are more vniuersall then the inferiou◠and therefore not to be confounded though they signifie the same thing now heereafter Vniuersities must all neglect art in speach read your predicament which before tymes hath beene Featlaeus homo animal viuens corpus substantia thus in English according to your Logick Featly Featlie Featlie Featlie Featlie FEATLY Where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals and bodies substances for so the supreame genus ought to be This must be graunted if as you would teach vs the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speach and if the distinction of a double identicall predication or acception be now to be reiected D. Featlie Belike the Apostles were ignorant that Christs bodie was his bodie and by vertue of those words he made his bodie his bodie Answer They did not knowe till they were tould that that thing in our Sauiours hand vnder the shape of breade was his bodie neither did he by those words make his bodie to be his bodie but he by them made his bodie to be vnder the shape of breade his omnipotencie to verifie them turning the substance of breade into it D. Featlie A proposition meerelie identicall quoad significatum proues nothing Answer That which is meerelie identicall is so for matter and manner too quoad significatum and quoad modum significandi this is not as you were tould and could not contradict it For matter a proposition may be identicall and proue too and such are those which define the Subiect as this a man is a reasonable creature And he that denies it can proue any thing shewes himselfe ignorant in the principles of science and knowes not what a demonstration is But why doe you talke heere of proofe our Sauiours proposition did not suppose what it signified videlicet his bodie vnder the forme of breade but did cause it and so did verifie it selfe If yours cannot what wonder you neither are omnipotent nor are vsed in such actions by him that is D. Featlie If I point at our Sauiours bodie in heauen and say this bodie is Christs bodie will it follow that breade is turned Answer No but something els it seemes is how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse THE SIXT ARGVMENT D. Featlie There is as much figure in the words of Christ consecrating the bread as in his words of the cuppe but in the later there is a manifest figure therefor in the former also D. Smith I denie the maior For in the later the chalice is said the blood of Christ which must be a figure because a chalice and blood are two distinct things and one thing cannot properlie be another thing In the former there are not signified two things and one of them said to be the other but the same thing is predicated vpon it selfe as if I should saie pointing at the table This is wood D. Featlie I speake not of the word calix but of that whith followes testamentum testament Bellar. li. 1. de Euchat c. 11. §. quantum ad alterum l. 1. de Missa c. 8. D. Smith I answer that the word testamentum is there taken properlie enough for not onely the last VVill of the testatour but euery authenticall signe of that VVill is also called a testament So wee call the Bible a testament Now the blood of Christ is an authenticall signe of his VVill. D. Featley No part of the Testatour can be called his testament but the blood of Christ is a part of Christ ergo D. Smith I answer that a part as the blood of the Testatour may be his testament if it be shed to signifie his last will As among barbarous people who did confirme their couenants or leagues with shedding their owne blood Alex. ab Alex. Gen. Dier li. 5 cap. 3. Salust Bell. Catil this their blood shed in signe of the couenant or league was an authentike testimonie of their said league And our Sauiour powring his bloode into the mouthes of the Apostles did confirme a couenant and authenticallie testifie his last VVill Heb. 9. as Moyses sprinkling the blood of a calfe vpon the Israelites did confirme the old testament D. Featlie If by testamentum in the words of the cup the bloode of Christ be vnderstood it will make this ridiculous sence This cup is my new blood in my blood And in like manner if the bodie be vnderstood by the word Hoc the sence will be The bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ D. Smith It will not follow that the sence is as you saie for though identitie in the thing signified be necessarie in euerie true proposition wherein it is said said This is This yet there must be diuersitie in the mannrr of signifying els it would be nugatorie And hence although homo a man and animal rationale a reasonable creature be reallie all one and the same thing signified by
the subiectum which is signified by the praedicatum when I saie homo est animal rationale a man is a reasonable creature yet the sence is not this homo est homo a man is a maÌ„ Because the manner of signifying is diuers and the thing is conceaued and signified another waie by the praedicatum then it was signified and conceaued by the subiectum though the thing signifyed be the same wherefore the sence of the proposition This is my bodie is this This thing is my bodie and the sence of the other This calice c. is this This drinke is an authenticall signe of my last VVil in my blood VVich sence though it be identicall according to the thing signified as the sence of euerie true proposition wherein it is said This is this ought to be yet is it not identicall according to the manner of signifying for the same thing is signifyed but vnder another conceit which diuers conceit doth not suffer it to be resolued into such a proposition as is identicall both according to the manner of signifâ—ing and according to the thing signified too as that is the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ THE NOTES OF S. E. THe dispute here is not about that inner sentence or decree whereby our blessed Sauiour disposed to such as perseuer In calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confirmauit Tertull. li. 4. coÌ„ Marc. c. 40. a Kingdome Luc. 22. 29. that of heauen but about an exteriour signe of the foresaid inner Will and the question is Whether the mysticall cup be such a testament or no. Not whether it be our Sauiours inner will that is not in question but whether it be a signe of it and such a signe as may be called a testament as a mans Will written in parchment is commonly called by that name testamentum Other propriety then is there wee looke not after Doctour Featly striues to proue it is not which if he (a) Liceâ— metaphora non sit admitteÌ„da in verbis consecrationis circa substantiam eius quod Deus in eo esse voluit tameÌ„ in aliis verbis quae potius sunt epitheta ipsius saÌ„guinis metaphoram admittere nullum incommoâ— dum est Si enim semel coÌ„stiterit verum sanguinem suum in sacramento nobis reliquisse quid poterit obesse hunc sanguinem vocare nouum testamentum vel quid aliud per metaphoram Vasq 3. p. Disp 199. n. 42. VVhere he hath another answer to this argument And you remember what hath beene said aboue to this purpose p. 54. c. could doe the tenet he vndertooke to disproue would notwithstanding subsist and still might be confirmed yea proued vnanswerably out of this place of Sainct Luke here obiected wherein wee are tould that this thing in the chalice was shed FOR VS and if FOR VS it was not wine but blood The name also testamentum taken and vnderstood in the sence aboue mentioned agrees vnto this thing very well For that authenticall signe or instrument whereby the Testator doth signifie his last Will is in that acception or sence well and fitly called testamentum and this is such a signe or instrument ordained by our Sauiour to signifie his last Will. Moreouer he our blessed Sauiour as S. Luke cap. 22. and S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. doe testifie and their testimony is true did affirme it to be the new testament wherefore since the speach may be vnderstood properly in the sence aboue specified wee must vnderstand it so The Doctour first is discontented as it seemes for hauing any figure at all graunted him as it was graunted in the answer D. Featly What priuiledge haue you more to set a figure vpon the words of consecration of the cup then we vpon the like of the breade Answer That of calix is a figure expounded in the same place by funditur is shed and elswere the thing is deliuered in proper termes hic est sanguis meus This is my blood Marc. 14. Neither did wee put it there the Euangelist did put it On the other words which are plaine and proper you saie you put a figure and it is such a one as takes away the veritie Wee may not be so bould with Scripture The word testamentum is taken properlie in the sence aboue mentioned and because that is not the first signification but a secondarie it was tould you it is taken satis proprie properlie enough D. Featlie No substantiall part of any testator is properlie his testament blood is a substantiall part of Christ ergo Answer The Maior is contrarie to the Gospell This drinke is my testament which drinke is shed for you Is shed FOR VS it was blood blood a testament and blood is a part you confesse 1. Replie Luc. 22 That in the calice was not blood Answer Euen now I proued it was for it was the thing shed for vs wherefore in substance it was not wine wine was not shed for vs but it was blood If you conceaue not this argument which is cleere take the thing immediatlie on our Sauiours word he is God and cannot lie This in the chalice is my blood Mar. 14.2 Replie That in the chalice which our Sauiour said was blood is not a testament Answer Our Sauiour saith it is and I beleeue Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the nâ—w testament 1. Cor. 11. Heere therefore is blood a testament blood not in forme of blood in propria specie but in aliena specie in forme of wine D. Featlie Will you saie that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it Answer Blood in propria specie in it's owne forme was not the testament nor to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of the testator Blood in aliena specie in forme of wine was our Sauiours testament and to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of him the testatour D. Featlie It is tautologie if that which is the testament be blood Answer No more then this Featlie is a man though that which the subiectum doth signifie be the same reallie with that which is signified by the praedicatum vnlesse I be mistaken and you be not reallie a man Neither is it all one to saie Featlie is a man and to saie a man is a man or Featlie is Featlie He hath not yet vnderstood Logick that cannot distinguish one of these propositions from the other D. Featlie The signe of Christs will is no more his will If testamentum be taken for the inner decree it is calix and sanguis testamenti if it be taken for an instrument signe of that decree it is calix testamentuÌ„ then the signe of his bodie is his bodie Answer The dispute is heere about our Sauiours words and he did not saie of that in his hand this is a signe or figure of my bodie but this is my bodie howbeit the
Eucharist being and by our Sauiours institution a Sacrament and a Sacrifice commemoratiue it is also a signe and a representation of his bodie as existent in propria specie in it owne shape as aboue you were tould But of the cup he said This chalice is the new testament And since wee may we must also take the word properlie not for his inner Will or decree it is that onlie significatiue significantlie but for an authentike signe of it as hath beene said before THE SEVENTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie Christ Math. 26. said the chalice is the fruite of the vine euen after consecration therefore the consecrated chalice is wine indeed D. Smith Those words were spoken by our Sauiour of the legall cup which he and his disciples dranke before consecration as S. Luke doth teach cleerelie cap. 22. And since it doth not appeare that our Sauiour repeated the same words of the Eucharisticall cup which he had said before of the Legall though S. Mathew relates them after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup there is more reason to saie that S. Matthew did not obserue order in relating our Sauiours words then to vnderstand those of the Eucharisticall cup which S. Luke doth teach plainelie to haue beene spoken of the Legall or common cup and S. Matthew telleth not expressie of which they were spoken but only relates them as I said after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup. Compare these Euangelists together and you wâ—ll see that one of the two in diuers other things doth not obserue the order in the relation Since therefore as I did insinuate before it is not verie likelie that the same words were spoken of both cups since that S. Luke teacheth plainelie that they were spoken of the common cup whereof S. Mathew makes no mention it is more likelie they were spoken of the common cup onelie and related by S. Mathew out of order D. Featlie Innocentius the Councell of VVormes and others expound the words of the Eucharisticall cup. D. Smith I answer that for the authoritie of some Fathers that opinion is probable and according to their exposition those words are to be vnderstood in the same manner as aboue wee haue expounded some Fathers that saie In the answer to the 5. arg bread is the bodie to wit bread changed in nature c. and so wee saie the fruite of the vine is the blood of Christ but the fruite changed not in shape but in nature the supersubstantiall fruite c. Moreouer many Fathers expound it of the common cup as S. Ierom S. Hier. in c. 26. Mat. Beda Theophil in c. 22. Luc. S. Bede and Theophilact He added afterwards that it was much to be admired why wee should gather what the Eucharist is out of words which it is vncertaine whether our Sauiour spake of the Eucharist or no rather theÌ„ out of those words which it is most certaine he did speake of the Eucharist as these This is my bodie this the cup c. As also out of those words which he did not vtter to tell vs what the Eucharist was but that he would not drinke any more either of that or of the common cup rather then out of those which he spake to no other end but to a Practicè simul efficieÌ„do neither did they or could they signifie the Eucharist is the bodie but making it withall for before the bodie was not in that forme or species signifie what the Eucharist is How much better doe Catholikes who out of words which it is certaine Christ spake of the Eucharist and spake them to the end onelie to signifie practice what the Eucharist is rather then out of other words which he spake to another end and which it is not altogether certaine he spake of the Eucharist doe gather what the Eucharist is and make these words the rule of expounding all others about the Question of the Eucharist THE NOTES OF S. E. HEre are two cleere solutions of D. Featlies argument according to the two seuerall opinions about the cup our Sauiour spake of Against the later he doth not make any new reply but amplifies onely what he had obiected The former he saith he did that is he thinkes he can in fringe as followeth D. Featly In those words in S. Mathew this fruite of the vine the demonstratiue this must haue relation to the cup of which S. Mathew spake before Answer It cannot if the fruite of the vine be taken for wine properly the reason whereof is euident by the words spoken of the Eucharisticall cup which immediatly goe before this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes wine properly was not shed to remisssion of sinnes the eucharisticall cup was as the Euangelist after our blessed Sauiour doth here affirme Quotidie in Sacrificits eius Christi Domini de genimine verae vitis vinea Sorec quae interpretatur electa rubentia musta calcamus S. Hierom Epist ad Hedib q. 2. and another yet more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This the chalice which is shed FOR you Therefore the Eucharisticall cup was not wine properly D. Featly Should I take a cup and after I had drunke of it say I would drinke no more of this you would vnderstand me of that which I dranke of last Answer Did I see the whole action I should iudge according to that I saw no doubt and S. Matthew seeing our Sauiours action did conceaue it well enough But should one or two tell me that D. Featly at the table hauing drunke beere and wine said he would drinke no more of this beere I had no reason to thinke he meant wine though wine were mentioned last before Now by the relation of S. Mathew and S. Luke if you attend vnto it well and remember all which they as the Organs of one infallible speaker the Holy Ghost deliuer it appeares that our blessed Sauiour dranke of two seuerall cups and that he called the one of them the fruite of the vine the other his blood and his testament auouching it to be shed for men Both were on the table before him and he did in one speach demonstrate the one telling what it was a strange cup for the contents S. Chrysostome cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the twice dreadfull chalice THIS the chalice the new testament in my blood c. in the other speach he demonstrated the other telling what that also was and distinguishing it by a short description from the other which was his testament his blood saying I will not drinke from hence foorth of THIS fruite of the vine D. Featly Will you make S. Mathew to write non sence to relate Christs words I will drinke no more of this and no where to expresse of what he spake or to what this this is to be referd Answer It is to be referd to the fruite of the
vine I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine and he is senceles that cannot see this reference it is so plaine If you desire to knowe more of this cup read S. Luke where the thing is more at large You are wont to saie Scripture must expound Scripture heere it doth so why doe not you beleeue what it tells you D. Featlie All the Fathers generallie vnderstand those words I will not drinke c. of the Sacrament Answer You were told that some doe and had answer giuen you according to that opinion which answer you haue not impugned that some doe not as S. Ierom S. Beade S. Anselme Theophilact whose opinion is better grounded as hath bene shewed Wherefore you did amplifie when you said all generallie vnderstood it of the Sacramentall cup. And when you come to verifie your words by naming those all you finde onelie fiue in all with one particular Councell all which held the reall presence and were opposite vnto you in the cause Let vs looke on them seuerallie Clement Cyprian Chrysostome the Authour de dogmatibus Pope Innocent and the Councell of Wormes First the Bishops in the Councell of Wormes were knowne Papists in communion with the See of Rome and at that tyme when by your owne confession the whole world beleeued the reall presence and Sacrifice of the Masse which they also professe euen in the Canon whence you would dispute and throroughout they shew themselues Papists acknowledging Confirmation Monkes Penance or Sacramentall Confession c. together with the Popes authoritie in calling Councells and determining controuersies appertaining to Religion The treatise de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus which you cite as S. Augustines is not his and you haue beene told alreadie what sainct Augustine said was in the Cup Ep. 162. euen the price of our Redemption He taught also that the holie victime whereby wee were redeemed l. 9. was dispenced from the Altar that Christ had his owne bodie in his owne hands Conf. c. 13. suprà pag. 45. and so caryed it after such a strange manner as no man euer before did or could beare himselfe that wee receaue the Mediatour Iesus Christ with our mouth Conc. 1. in Psal 33. l. 2. con◠Adu leg c. 9. and with our mouth drinke blood notwithstanding the seeming horrour Clement saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c as our Sauiour in the Gospell I am the true vine Io. 15. if he a vine his blood and especiallie as in the chalice may be called (a) See S. Ierome cited p. 111. m. wine S. Chrysostome saith in the place obiected that our Sauiour doth chang the things proposed that he doth nourish vs with his owne bodie that we receaue him and touch him and haue him in vs that Angels tremble when they see the thing wherewith wee are fed and exhorteth vs to beleeue it is as our Sauiour tould vs his bodie and not to trust our sence He saies also that is in the cup which did issue out of the side of our Sauiour S. Cyprian did openlie professe vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine Epist. 63. Neither can all your glosses obscure those words before alleadged Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro suppose I say the same of the wine genimen istud non effigie sed naturâ mutatum omnipotentia Verbi factum est sanguis That frute of the vine being changed not in shape but in nature is by the OMNIPOTENCE of the WORD made blood Innocentius tertius in the booke you cite expounds the Masse defends the reall presence and teacheth expreslie transubstantiation which he did also define in the greate and generall Laterane Councell D. Featlie What answer you to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope Answer I might as you see turne the demaund back to aske of you what you say to so many Fathers and a Pope in a Generall Councell But to forbeare making thrusts because you think that is not faire plaie in a defendant as there aret two Controuersies so you shall haue for answer two things first that all are against you in the matter of the Reall presence against which you are disputing which matter is defined by the Church openlie deliuered in the Scripture generallie acknowledged in Antiquitie and those whose authoritie is obiected did all beleeue it as we doe wherefore themselues were to answer your scruple would doe it easilie in manner aboue (a) In my Lords answer pag. 165. specified Secondlie the other Controuersie is not determined by the Church neither did the Councell that you speake of a Nationall Councell only determine and define it nor Innocentius propose it as matter of beleefe but only as a priuate Doctour makes his vse of it nor the Fathers generallie consent in it nor the Scripture openlie deliuer it but rather the contrarie Wherefore admitting it to be probable you are to thanke those Authours for the curtesie for you cannot get so much by waie of argument And he that could should not be contradicted on our part for persisting in the beleefe of the reall presence wee might indifferentlie defend The Reader may perceaue by the Ministers words more then the Minister would haue him to beleeue touching the euent of the conference either that it was or that it was not the consecrated cup which is meant by those words in S. Mathew D. Featlie D. Smith triumphed as if he had gotten the daie saying are these your demonstrations are these sufficient causes why you should seperate your selues from our Church and from your brethren the Lutherans Answer Had he not reason when your oppositions were all answered and the Dispute at an end The reasons mouing to leaue THE COMMVNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD should be vnauoidablie conuincing but hetherto there haue appeared none such nor euer will doe from the mouth of any Protestant THE BREAKING VP of the conference and the Ministers terguiersation ANd heere the conference ended hauing lasted neere seuen howers from noone till it was almost night Some daies after D. Smith hoping according to M. Featlies promise he should also haue a daie to propose the arguments for the Catholike tenet told M. Kneuet that he would be readie to dispute the next Tuesdaie being the tenth of September desiring him to giue M. Featlie notice of it the Sundaie before but though he went thrise that daie and twise the next vnto the house wherein M. Featlie did abode he could not speake with him F. l. 1. d. 1. c. c. v. c. 9. 44. At length hauing gotten to speake with him he warned him to prouide himselfe against the daie appointed but the minister began to pretend that he was to write letters and that there remained yet a great part of their arguments whereunto in equitie it should be answered or at least they should be proposed for the
bread is my bodie Whether in the holie Eucharist there be reallie our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce The Catholik Church takes his words as being dogmaticall properlie submitting her vnderstanding to the omnipotent veritie that spake them and affirmeth what he her God and Sauiour did affirme Master Featlie on the other side laboured to proue that the wordes were not to be construed and vnderstood properlie that the speach was meerelie figuratiue and that Christ is not there in the Eucharist according to the substance of his bodie or shrowded vnder the accidents of bread In which tenet you Master Waferer ioyne with him telling vs pag. 9. VVee these are your wordes denie such corporall presence of the body and blood as if the thing signified and represented were according to the naturall substance thereof contained vnder the shapes of the outward signes A figure you know was graunted the question was whether this figure had the veritie the bodie and blood of Christ in it or whether it were emptie of it Whether that which the Apostles receaued into their mouthes were a meere emptie figure of the bodie and blood of Christ or whether the thing within that Sacramentall signe or figure were as our Sauiours wordes in their proprietie import his bodie and his blood The Protestants that speak their minds plainelie preteÌ„d no more then a meere figure Their words are set downe in the Collation whither S. E. directed you See the Conference of the Catholiâ—k and Protestant Doctrine with the expresse wordâ— of Scripture extant in English pag. 266. seqq where they your Masters and the best learned on your side speake of the Eucharist your owne thus It is not the bodie of Christ not his very bodie not his bodie it self not his true bodie not his substantiall bodie not flesh not Christs true flesh but another thing and much different from Christs flesh not the thing it selfe of this mysterie not our spirituall foode It is nothing els but bread nothing but common bread nothing but a bare creature nothing but a bare signe or figure nothing but meere bread and wine Only a signe only a seale only a token only a testification only a symbol only a type of Christs bodie It only hath the name of Christs bodie it is only a simple ceremonie It is so the bodie of Christ as the Paschal lambe was Christ as the doue was the Holie Ghost as the water of baptisme was the blood of Christ It is the bodie of Christ only figuratiuelie by resemblance and no otherwise symbolicallie metonymicallie tropicallie significantlie no otherwise then a keie deliuered is a house the body It is present onlie by speculation meere imagination as our bodies are now present in heaueÌ„ Christ is no more coÌ„municated there in the supper then in the Gospell no more receaued in the Sacrament then in the word nothing more giueÌ„ in the supper then at preaching no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word yea the Sacrament is inferiour to the word and the memorie of Christ bodie is more fullie refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament All this and more hath beene told you out of the mouthes of your greatest Deuines and pillars of Protestancie The words and places are citeâ— in the ConfereÌ„ce l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a clowd of domesticall Protestant witnesses against your Oracle and you whose very names would shadow this leafe of paper Among them you shall find your Caluin Beza Peter Martyr and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit the Deuil it was Luther saies with your English Iuel Perkins Whittaker Cartwright c. each as learned as your Featlie Hereunto you replye nothing but insteed of a Replye haue calumniated my Lord and contradicted your self withall Saying Doctor Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon vs and goes away currant with it that wee hold as he hath proued signatis tabulis pag. 159. and your owne confession aboue cited may be added thereunto that there is in the wordes This is my bodie a meere figure But now forsooth you most plainelie affirme they be the rest of your wordes that the Sacramentall elements are not meere emptie signes wil you strike your owne fellowes in your choller of the bodie and blood of Christ but a true and liuelie figure of them As if a picture can not be a true picture and a liuelie picture and yet a meere picture or a figure be a true figure and a liuelie figure and yet a meere figure The legall figures which were according to the Apostle but egena elementa were meere figures yet some of them as liuelie yea more liuelie then your bread and wine The blood of the Testament and the Manna in the desert did signifie our Sauiours flesh and blood in as perfect a manner if you consider all the analogie to the full and the Agnus Paschalis dicitur esse Christus eadeÌ„ prorsus ratione qua panis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis tradituÌ„ Beza your admired patterne of Christianitie so you call him pag. 98. in 1. Corin. 5. Pascall lambe eaten at supper was a more liuelie figure flesh of flesh blood of blood killing of killing that laÌ„be without spot of our innocent Sauiour then bread and wyne there distributed if they were meere elementes with a reference to the thing represented the PassioÌ„ which was theÌ„ future respectiuelie to theÌ„ both vizt to the legall to the Sacramentall supper wherefore since you are forced by the authoritie of holie Scripture to graunt that the legall figure was not withstanding the the liuelines a meere figure it remaines that an other signe or figure though liuelie may be but a meere figure The liuelines of a picture is to represent ad viuum to the life and a picture the picture of the King may do so though it be nothing els but a meere picture which your owne fellowes acknowledg whilst they graunte as before hath beene told you that in the supper there is meere bread and wine a signe and seale onlie nothing els but bread and wyne which tenet you likewise hold in your mind as appeares in your whole pamphlet throughout but it is in is self so poore a thing so short of precedent figures (b) Caluin cited aboue pag. 156. yet the same Caluin saiâ—h cuÌ„ signa hic in mundo sint oculis cernaÌ„tur palpentur manibut Christus quatenus homo est non alibi quam in câ—â—lo quaerendus est Calu. in Confess de re Sacram art 21. so vnworthie of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Testament so contrarie to the proper sense of our Sauiours words and so vncapable of those high encomium's which the Fathers giue or attributes which they do predicatâ—on the blessed Sacrament that you are ashamed openlie to professe it still iugling with vs and in steed of answers which you pretend giuing vs words
nothing els as to the communicantes after faire promises of the bodie and blood of Christ present by (a) VVafer pag. 8â— Mor. p. 135. Gods omnipotence changing the exteriour elementes and penetrating into our soules according to the substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood you giue nothing but meere bread and wine Apologist Doctor Smith should haue proued that the same proposition may be true in a natiue genuâ—ne and proper sence though the wordes be vsed in a peregrine figuratiue and impropre sence Censure It was ridiculous enough to challeng at buckler onlie as he did who came into the feild to answer distinctions but to be an andabatarian in such a combat not daring to open his eies to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon is superlatiuelie absurde His populus ridet The word questioned for improprietie is corpus in this proposition hoc est corpus meum This word corpus doth directlie signifie if we speake as the chiefest Science doth conceaue it the (a) Fit conuersio totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. Ex vt sacramenti quantitas dimeÌ„siua corporis Christi non est in hoc sacrameÌ„to S. Tho. 3. p. q. 76 a. 4. proinde neque ea quae sequuntur quantitatem Ex vt realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiua corporis Christi omnia accidentia eius Ibidem vide eundem 1. p. q 76. a. 4· ad 1. substance or part of substance which requires three dimensions leingth breadth and thicknes according to which notion it is in the words of institution taken properlie and the proposition proper by the possessiue meum this word corpus bodie was determined to a mans not whose soeuer but our Sauiours The same word Corpus Bodie both in the apprehension of the vulgar as you may learne by present experience when you please and according to the Philosopher as heereafter shall appeare doth import withall the naturall manner of being of such a substance which manner is to be a thing extended according to the foresaid dimensions and a mans bodie to be a thing figured and visible which manner of being naturallie flowes out of that kind of substance and vsuallie comes into the conceit with it And in regard of this manner the proposition is improper for such an extension imported also commonlie by the word corpus is not there It is improper I say if you regard the manner of being vsuallie imported also by the word corpus bodie but proper if you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified by the same word If you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified the wordes are taken in their natiue genuine and proper sence and the proposition is in that kind natiue genuine proper If you regard the manner of being imported also vsuallie by the word the attribut is not taken properlie nor the proposition proper Had you opened your eies to look vpon the distinction which you answer RelatioÌ„ pag. 39. you might haue seene that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one voide of truth and proprietie because although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they doe not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other thinges are the thinges which they are sayed to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place Now though for words to be taken in their natiue sence and not to be taken in their natiue sence as long as it is secundum idem be contradiction yet to be taken in their natiue sence according to the substance of the thing directlie signified and not to be taken in their natiue sence according to the manner of being vsuallie imported also by them is not secundum idem nor any contradiction Apologist Good Master Doctor take notice that since a propâ—r speache is when wordes are taken in their genuine sence and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sence that to be taken in their natiue sence and not in their natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction because the sence would be natiue and not natiue Censure Against whom do you fight good Andabatarian who tould you that the speach was proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper absolutè simpliciter that the wordes were taken in their natiue sence and that they were not taken in their natiue sence that secundum idem they were and were not This is a fiction of your braine a chimericall goblin that your ignoraÌ„ce hath made for your argument to fight against Those against whoÌ„ you preteÌ„d to deale haue noe such thing they doe not saie the speach is proper absoluté simpliciter and that it is absolutè simpliciter figuratiue they say onlie that it is proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper secundum quid Which you will proue to be a contradiction when you proue this to be so Aethiops est niger Aethiops est albus secundum dentes and haue demonstrated against the logick rule that an argument holds well from secundum quid to simpliciter Open your eies braue challenger and read in great letters what they defend THE SPEACH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER AND FIGVRATIVE ONLY SECVNDVM QVID By this time hauing beene distempered with a giddines of vnderstanding so that you could hardlie peceaue what you were to doe you are reeld ouer the entrie into the matter of the first argument where you beginne to shew your Diuinitie and will reade a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is your self My L. had said figures some were not meere figures as were the legall but had the veritie ioyned with them of which kind he brought 3. the first an increated figure the sonne of God who is according to the Apostle the figure of his fathers substaÌ„ce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath it also with him yea and in him heereunto M. Mirth as followeth Apologist I graunt since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the Father who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same godhead and is not an other but the same God But I pray Sirs take notice that these wordes are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie so then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in his flesh he had the image of his fathers person ingrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies tell me then is this image the same with the
quod in hac sententia obscurum est si legas hoc modo numquid ergo hic quia in effigie eum Dei collocat aeque non erit Deus Christus vere si nec c. postea vere Deus predicatus this being not a meere emptie signe or figure but such a one as hath in it the substance of the thing signified and represented as your Doctor was told in the beginning And according to this Author our Sauiour turning the substance of bread into his bodie did by this meanes put the veritie within the figure and so left it such a figure as we speake of not emptie as before in Ieremies tyme but full The very same is imported by the the wordes which you cite in the first place representare is rem aliquam praesentem sistere to exhibite a thing present And our Sauiour by turning the substance of bread into his bodie doth thereby exhibite his bodie present vnder the figure of bread and so properlie doth represent it In this signification Orators Lawiers and Deuines vse the word and Tertullian himself very frequentlie as where he saith that our Sauiour a. Tertull de Resurr car represented the thinges foretold by the Prophets that the b. Ibid. generall Iudgment shall consist of a representation of all mankind that God (c) li. 4 con MarcioÌ„ See store of testimonies of this kind in Card. Peron pag. 211. 212. representing Christ said This is my sonne c. itaque iam representans eum And this is the natiue and proper signification of the word To exhibite a thing present in a signe or figure is not so properlie rem sistere praesentem as is the other exhibition of the thing in it self wherefore that signification is lesse proper yet in this sence also the word is heere verified for the Sacrament is a signe or figure of the bodie and it hath also the bodie in it Our Sauiour himself who did institute it was the figure of his Fathers substance and had his Father in him suprà pag. 178. The second place you bring is this panem corpus suum appellans where you suppose the word panem to be the subiect and to be taken properlie SubiectioÌ„ est in Grammaticae prior nominatinus de quo aliquid dicitur Grammatici vocant suppositum vocatura nonnullis antecedens quia in ipso sensu debet semper antecedere etsi in oratione interdum sequatur Deus erat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobilitas sola est atque vnica virtus Keker ex Melancth which if it could be proued would not yet serue your turne for we could easilie expound the wordes by others of the same Author before cited panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc c. The calling would I then say was practicall such as turned the bread into his bodie dicendo hoc est c. corpus suum illum fecit Dixit factum est he made it to be so and he made it dicendo Call to minde the Speaker and you will not think the thinge to him hard or difficult It is he per quem omnia facta sunt He that sendeth forth light Baruc. 3. and it goeth calleth it againe and it obeieth with trembling The starres haue giuen light in their watches and reioyced they were called and they sayd we are heere and they haue shined to him with cheerfullnes that made them Benedictâ—one etiam natura ipsa mutatur S. Ambr. de myst init c. 9. Ante verba Christi Calix est viui aequae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Idem Sacram. l 4. cap. 5. Inuenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem practice dixit S. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 3. Sacrificium verum plenum tunc offert Sacerdos in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse Ibidem And had there beene in this Father any obscure speaches touching this matter the diuine Prouidence hath not left vs without meanes to learne his minde for together with his booke there is come into our hands from Antiquitie such a comment Sermo de Coena that wee neede not studie long to finde it out Panis non effigie c. Did the word panem stand for Bakers bread I would say that this bread was by the wordes of consecration changed panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est c. and so no more bakers bread after consecration though before it were it is afterwards the bodie of Christ supernaturall heauenlie bread the bread of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemes bread it is in the shape of bread but in substaÌ„ce it not bread Cyrill Qui est à terra panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 percipiens vocationeÌ„ Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena c Caelesti the bread which hath being from the earth receauing the call or inuocation of God is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the earthlie and the heauenlie Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. This answer you see is readie if that supposition of yours could be made good But your obiection is not so farre aduanced as to require an answer and you are engaged in a further busines being to proue that when the consecration is donne the bakers bread remaines according to this Author which is contrarie to his words before alleadged corpus suuÌ„ illum panem fecit the bodie of Christ is not you know bakers bread and by consecration our Sauiour did this Hoc est corpus meum dicendo By the order of the wordes you cannot get aduantage as before I did insinuate now confirme it by this that indifferentlie he puts either first lib. 3. contra Mar. c. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans and lib. 4. cap. 40. corpus suum vocans panem See the margent aboue pag. 191. Wherefore omitting that dispute which is not heere materiall let vs inquire what the word panem be it the subiect or the predicate doth signifie in that propositioÌ„ Whereunto it is easelie answered out of the same Author that it signifies not proper but mysticall not earthlie but Heauenlie bread The veritie of which answer appeares by the scope of his discourse He is expounding an obscure place of antiquitie found in Ieremie the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius which wordes are vttered in the person of the Iewes By lignum he meanes the Crosse that eius is referd to our Sauiour of whom the Iewes spake mittamus lignum let vs cast wood vpon let vs crucifie panem eius the word panem and that word onlie is obscure If it be taken for earthlie bakers bread the seÌ„se would be let vs crucifie bakers bread which could not be the sence What bread then is this which they threaten
emptie of his bodie or in Ieremies time as he was God Tertullians word being Deus sic enim Deus in Euangelio c. vt hinc iam eum id est Deum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse mark also the preterit if I say he as God be said in Ieremies time to haue giuen to bread to be the figure of his bodie yet should you not haue translated the wordes so as you do I do not speake of translating dedisse he gaue I suppose you meant dedit but of translating the word suppose dedit he gaue to be Which translation in other matter your self would not endure Sempronius Lepido dedit asinum were this Lepidus a frinde of yours you would not turne dedit he aue to be In the margine pag. 23. S. E. had cited other words of Tertullian for a further exposition of his meaning Caro corpore vescitur and these next you glosse Apologist the meaning of Tertullian in those wordes caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur is that the bodie receauing in the outward element which otherwhere he cals the figure of his bodie the soule presentlie apprehends the thing signified vzt the bodie of Christ Censure See Masters a golden exposition cleere natiue proper subtile accurate The bodie eates the flesh that is the soule doth apprehend it O monstrous wit able to make quidlibet ex quolibet I can not sufficientlie admire I am astonished when I consider thy streingth and perspicacitie Before I knew thou couldst make coÌ„tradictions which omnipotencie it self cannot and now I see thou canst finde senses where they be not But Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula sensus Whilst you were looking beyond the obiect of Gods power to tell vs what he cannot do you did not consider that Tertullian being in that book whence the wordes are cited to defend the Resurrection of bodies which Hereticks did impugne chieflie out of the basenes of flesh and it 's origen at first corruption at last as appeares by the fourth châ—pter of that booke he on the contrarie speakes much in commendation of it Vituperationem laudatione depâ—llas ita nos rhetoricari quoque prouocant haeretici c. you may refute and repell the dispraise of a thing by the praise and commendation of it and Hereticks prouoake vs to plaie the Rhethoricians in this kind so he ca. 5. where he beginns to praise it continuing to the tenth chapter in the middest of of which discourse hauing spoken in the praise of humane flesh in common he betakes himself to speake of the dignitie of the flesh of Christians particularly So much quoth he be said out of the publik forme as it were of humane condition in the behalf of flesh let vs consider now how great a prerogatiue this friuolous as Hereticks in contempt stile it and base substance hath from God in as much as it is the forme of Christian men Porro si vniuersa per carnem subiacent anima carni quoque subiaceÌ„t c. Et hac quidem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffraguim carni procurauerim videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma quanta huic subtantia heretici friuolae ac sordidae apud Deum praerogatiua sit si sufficeret illi quod nulla ommino anima salutem possit adipisci nisi dum est in carne crediderit adeo caro salutis est cardo de qua cum anima Deo allegitur ipsa est quae efficit vt anima allegi possit Sed caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro vaguitur vt anima consecretur Caro signatur vt anima muniatur Caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu alluminetur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Tertullian de Resurrect carnis cap. 7. 8. Obiter aduertet Lector quot in hac vna sententia Tertullianus indicat sacramenta and there come in the wordes aboue cited wherein as appeares both by the wordes them selues and also by the scope of his discourse it is euident that he meanes to say the flesh euen that which Hereticks vilified doth receaue into it self by the mouth the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ to the end the soule by the worthie receauing of it be diuinelie fatned the flesh saies he caro vescitur and what doth it eate a meere signe or figure bakers bread is this the greate prerogatiue no vescitur corpore the bodie it self that his sacred and diuine bodie his creature man by his bodilie mouth the flesh doth eate and thereby the whole hath benefite the soule grace so he receaue woorthelie in time glorie and the bodie as other auncients haue more clearlie expressed themselues immortalitie He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In another place he saith the hands also touch it wherein he doth agree with S. Augustine De Idol n. 31. 34. out of whom the next argument was taken who saith our Sauiour had his owne bodie euen that which was crucified in his owne hands and that we receaue it with our mouth Citat inserius Apologist He D. Smith or S. E saith he hath good reason to referre that which followes the propostion this is my bodie vzt the figure of my bodie to the subiect his and not to the predicate bodie because it may be shewed otherwhere in him that what followes the proposition in that manner must be referred to the subiiect and not the predicate Censure This is willfullie to mystake and misreport when D. Featlie in the conference had said it did not follow that Tertullian in the place obiected had disordered his words because he had done the like elswhere pag. 17. my Lord answered as you find in the Relation that he did not inferre that Tertullian did heere speake so because he had donne the like in other places but because he doth affoorde in this verie place cited four seuerall reasons why he must be soe vnderstood which thing was inculcated againe by S. E. so that you doe manifestlie impose against your owne knowledge when you tell vs the authour saies he hath good reason to referre c. because it may be shewed other where in him that what followes c. In the end of this your first section you bring a place out of the Sermon de vnctione which makes against your self and for vs as will appeare to him that reades it Dedit itaque D.N. in mensa in qua vltimuÌ„ cum Apostolis participauit conuiuium propriis manibus panem vinum in cruce verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas vera synceritas exponeret gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis quibus rationibus
causae effectibus conuenitent diuersa nomina vel species ad vnam reducerentur essentiam significantia significata eisdē vocabulis censerentur His gratiae supernae priuilegiis esu sanctificati panis refecti c. to which purpose I haue cited the wordes at leingth in the margine He speakes of consecrated bread esu sanctificati panis refecti and saith the bread is flesh and the wine blood vt exponeret gentibus quomodo vinum panis caro esset sanguis and that diuers species are reduced to one essence which is donne by turning the bread into the bodie whence it comes that this thing hath both names it is called bread as being made of bread and being in the exteriour forme of bread and it is also the bodie it self which bodie is the thing signified by the sacrament and is reallie according to the substāce in it This chāge of the signe into the thing signified and the being of the same thing that which was signified now vnder the forme of bread is more cleerelie deliuered by the same Author in a former sermon de Coena Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia that bread which our Lord gaue the Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh and as in the person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the diuinitie lie hid so heere a Diuine essence doth vnspeakablie powre it self into a visible sacrament Some graue Deuines think this Author to be saint Cyprian that glorious martyr and prelate of the Church Primitiue other writers amongst whom is Erasmus esteeme him at least a very learned man of that Age and so much appeares by the work it self Ad D. Corneliū Papam c. titulus Ego quidē nec a meipso neque ab alio quaero nomē neque enim aliquid me existimo esse cum nihil sim qui hoc a vobis maxima supplicatione quaesiui vt non essem quod sū c. in Praefat. operis dedicated to Cornelius then Pope He was a Catholike Father as all know saies your patron Mortō pag. 125. yet you but an infant at the time of this Conference pag. 2. hauing not what to answer to the forsaid words wherein he hath expressed himself so plainely against your Heresie as nothing can be imagined more plaine and opposite call him before you in the peremptorie termes of a Pedant and vouchsafing his work no better words then bastard and surreptitious brat will needs giue him the ferula because he did not compound his Orations by your Thomasius Dictionarie or call vpon you to teach him what words were then in vse in honore vocabula what out of date verborum vetus interit aetas what had not obtained the Grammarians leaue to passe being as yet strang and new cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis The best is and it is well for him that he is so far of your Master-ship cannot reach him ferulae manum subduxit Being now come to the end of this argument which you would haue grounded in Tertullian I cannot omit to tell you that your owne great Euangelist Martin Luther examining the same words in his book entituled Defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae accipite comedite hoc est corpus meum contra phanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus concludes that in them Tertullian doth auouch the presence of the bodie it self Debent demonstrare quod dictum Tertulliani non tantum possit sed omnino necesse sit in eam sententiam quam ipsi Sacramentarii habent accipi Quod si non faciunt iure eos mendaces falsarios accusamus cum glorientur se suae causae certissimos esse manifestissimam veritatem habere Luth. Def. verb caenae pag. 406. Tertullian is affirmat Christum in caena panem corpus suum fecisse secundum verba sua Hoc est corpus meum Hic nullum verbum ambiguum aut amphibolou audias nam panem facere corpus suum expresse clare signate dicitur Ibidem Vocabulum figura obscurum ambiguum est Ibidem Quod si Oecolampalius demonstrare non potest figuram hic imaginem significare manifeste deprehenditur deprauator Tertulliani falsarius cum suo corporis signo occumbit Quando autem demonstrauerit ad calendas Graecas cum cuculus in Lusciniam mutatus fuerit Ibidem in the sacrament satis aperté videmus Tertulliani sententiam esse quod verum naturale Christi corpus sit in pane coenae pag. 407. and that the sence which Oecolampadius then and Featlie now would put vpon the words is forced and violent Tertulliani dictum violenter in suam opinionem trahit vt figura hic coactè sonet signum contra suam naturam cùm tamen nec possit nec id Tertullianus admittat pag. 406. He is large and spends diuers pages in examining Tertullians mind and was your Masters Master the great light and Euangelist and Reformer top-full of the Spirit Protestant Refute him first If you slight him primarium Euangelij propugnatorem Swinglius Sacramentariorum post Diabolum Princeps Cum autem panis sit figura corporis Christi plane necessarium est vt verum Christi corpus vere ibi adsit vbi figura eius est quae ex pane per verbum figura eius facta est Est haec alia verborum interpretario qua contendit esse figuram corporis praesentis Hanc esse Tertulliani sententiam mihi exploratissimum est nec verba eius quicquam obscuritatis perplexitatis habent pag. 407. Ex his liquido constat Tertullianum omnino velle vt in pane sit corpus quod pro nobis datum est ne oporteat asseuerari merum panem pro nobis esse datum Ibidem Ex his omnibus luce meridiana clarius est vt mea fert opinio quod Tertullianus figuram hic non eo sensu vsurpet quo Oerolampadius pro simulachro aut signo sed pro re visibili quam eo nominat figuram corporis Christi quod ei corpus Christi insit aut subsit Ididem M. D. Smith told M. Featlie that of curtesie he vvould admit the vvord figura to be referd to corpus that his argument might runne on and he make the best he could of it In the relation supra pag. 22. in Exegesi fol 335. take it not in ill part if others heereafter forbeare to look more vpon your scriblings allreadie confuted and condemned by the Leader of your Sect. The second Argument was of Saint Augustines words of eating the flesh of the sonne of man Figura est c. lib. 3. de doct Christiana And it was answered that this eating is figuratiue according to the manner
it exceedes mans capacitie Elephants are ouer head and eares and Emmets wade thorough the same water Apologist Euerie punie can tell you that though bread seemes onlie bread to the eie and in sustance be nothing els yet in it's spirituall vse and signification it 's the bodie of our Sauiour not that Christs bodie is present vnder the accidentall formes of the element though it be therewith spirituallie eaten This I confesse to be a mysterie but if you demaunde what it is I le answer you as Octauius did Caecilius when he expected to heare what God was Nobis ad intellectum pectus angustum est c. so if you expecte to heare exactlie what this mysterie is I answer it is a Mysterie and if I could perfectlie disclose it's secretes and shew you what it were then t were no Mysterie Censure Magnum sibi fatuitas quaedam videtur esse mysterium saint Cyrill saies Is it not belike some Chimera you speak of that is so clearlie dark and darklie cleare But master Waferer what difficultie were there to conceaue bread-a-figure bread-a-signe are you confounded at the mysteries of an Iuie-bush or a letter they be signes as vnlike the thinges they signifie as bread is vnlike flesh or wine vnlike blood Or if God should please to tell vs he would giue him grace that receaued bread the signe worthelie what vnconceauable matter were there in in this is it not easie to conceaue that he is able to do so or that if he promise he wil performe it These forsooth you call mysteries inexplicable vnconceauable mysteries least when Catholikes obiect the Fathers admiring indeede our Sauiours being in the Sacrament you be without the fantom of an answer Apologist Doctor Smith saith that a figuratiue speach seemes to haue adioyned vnto it a certaine negation but there is non egation in a figuratiue speach as figuratiue saue onlie the negation of or translation from the natiue signification which helps to confirme what I said before that a proper sence and a figuratiue are as much as natiue and not natiue proper and not proper Censure Before indeed you complained of those who said you pleaded for a meere figure in the words Hoc est corpus meum and if you be remembred Apol. pag. 9. you saie Doctour Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon you that you held there is in them a meere figure which former speach of yours is not confirmed but contradicted rather if now you say that a speach any way figuratiue hath a negation of (a) Do those hold the same who say Nobis vo biscum de obiecto conuenit all proprietie or a proper speach a gation of all impropreitie For were that so the one of theÌ„ were meerelie in all respects proper the other meerelie whollie figuratiue which thing you there denie You know Wee do not say that the same speach is either purelie or absolutlie both proper and improper but we say that it may be proper according to the thing signified and figuratiue in regard of the maÌ„ner of the same thing as you were told before which is farre from contradiction in the vnderstanding of him that vnderstands what a contradiction is as for an Ethiopian to be absolutlie said black and yet secundum quid according to his teeth white is no contradiction but a truth in the iudgment of euerie one that euer saw those men That a figuratiue or improper speach hath a negation ioyned to it as farre as it is figuratiue or improper it is manifest for the word improper signifieth a priuation and a priuation doth participate of a negation Priuatio saies the Philosopher in his Metaphysick contradictio quaedam est lib 10. t 15. aut impossibilitas determinata siue simul accepta cum susceptiuo I said as farre as it is figuratiue or improper whence it followes that if it be purelie figuratiue it hath ioyned to it a perfect or whole negation of proprietie as in this your example Herod is a fox if it be figuratiue onlie as it is related or compared to the manner of the thing signified it hath not ioyned to it a negation of the thing but of the manner onlie and consequentlie the speach may still remaine proper as farre as concerneth the substance of the thing which substance is by it directlie signified as in our example This is my bodie which wordes in asmuch as they signifie the substance of our Sauiours bodie be verified properlie though they be not properlie verified according to the manner which the same wordes if they were taken fullie in their whole vsuall sence would also import When you say that in a figuratiue speach as figuratiue there is no negation saue onlie the negation of or translation from the natiue signification you say true considering the force of that your as But froÌ„ thence you can no more inferre what you pretend vzt that it is absolutly figuratiue then one might inferre of an Ethiopian that because he is white secundum quid according to his teeth Ergo he is absolutlie white Apologist Doctor Smith laies downe this rule that a proposition is absolutlie and simplie to be esteemed proper or figuratiue rather from the thing which iâ— affirmeth then from the manner which rule is absurd for there is the same thing affirmed in a figuratiue proposition which is in a proper Censure Heere is a trick of legerdemain cunninglie vsed to steale away the truth before proued and approued The iugling will appeare if your discourse be put in forme The reason first There is the same thing affirmed in a figuratiue propositioÌ„ which is in a proper as Herodes est vulpes Herodes est calâ—idus they be your examples then your inference Ergo it is abâ—urd to saie that a proposition which is proper in regarde of the thing signified by it and improper in regard of the manner of the same thing vsuallie also signified by the word is absolutlie simplie to be esteemed proper or figuratiue rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner to wit of the same thing who sees not the incohereÌ„ce of this argumeÌ„t that you labour to destroy one truth with an other The Controuersie was and is about a mixt proposition such a one as in regard of the thing directlie signified is proper and improper in regard of the manner of the thing It was said and maintained against Doctor Featlie that this Hoc est corpus meum is such a proposition and your self must needes graunt it to be so vnlesse you will haue it to be meerelie figuratiue or meerelie proper both which you disauow as aboue hath beene declared If it be not meerlie figuratiue nor meerlie proper then sure it is mixt for a figuratiue speach pure and vnmixt is meerlie figuratiue Moreouer this proposition being not meerlie figuratiue is proper as farre as it regards the substaÌ„ce of the thing signified according to the tenet of the Catholike
Church which holds and beleeues the bodie signified properlie by those words to be reallie and trulie there according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce of the thing which euen according to your owne rule is enough to make the speach proper in that sence for you saye that proposition is proper in which the predicate doth in i'ts natiue sence signifie that thing which agrees to the subiect the same proposition in as much as it is compared to the manner of the thing is figuratiue and improper for the bodie hath not in the Sacrament the common manner of a bodie as extension of parts in order to place and visibilitie but another manner as your Doctor was also told Which being so the Question was touching the modus loquendi Whether this mixt proposition being proper in regard of the substance and improper in regard of the manner or generallie Whether a proposition which is proper in regard of the substance improper in regard of the manner be flatlie and simplie to be said proper or improper Whereunto it was answered and well that a proposition is absolutlie and simplie to be esteemeed proper or figuratiue proper or improper rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner and consequentlie since the proposition hoc est corpus meum is proper in regard of the thing it affirmeth it is absolutelie to be said a proper speach The reason of the rule is manifest for the denominatioÌ„ is to be taken from that which is the principall and the thing doubtles is more principall then the manner of the thing the substance more principall then it 's accidentall manner an Ethiopian though he be white secundum quid is absolutelie or sine addito said black Your owne rule before cited confirmes all this but this is not the first time you fight against your self we know the same thing may be signified by diuers propositions whereof some be proper others figuratiue as in holie Scripture we find the Diuine perfections to be signified sometimes by proper speaches and sometimes by metaphoricall But the Question was Whether one and the same proposition not diuers but one being proper in regard of the thing signified and improper and figuratiue in regard of the manner were to be called absolutlie sine addito proper and onlie secundum quid according to the manner figuratiue As if it had beene demaunded whether one that is white onlie secundum dentes and all the rest black be flatlie or simplie to be said white or black the Answer was that the proposition hauing in it the foresaide mixture was rather to be saide proper and the man rather to be saide black which is true notwithstanding that there be other meÌ„ some white some black and other propositions some figuratiue some proper respecting the same thing Apologist No proposition is figuratiue according to the thing signified Censure You meane that it hath not that denomination as it is vnder a reference to that thing Before you said it I thought otherwise and shall do so still euen of that which you bring for Instance Herodes est vulpes that your proposition is figuratiue in comparison to the thing signified which is Herods Wilines this wilines of Herod the proposition doth signifie and affirme not properlie it is not the proper significatioÌ„ of vulpes but metaphoricallie and by translating the word to signifie that wherein Herod hath some kind of analogie or agreement with a foxe Orators look not for Metaphors in things but in words Ad vnum verbum contracta similitudo as you know by the nature of metaphors out of Aristotle Tullie and others And because vulpes the predicate doth not properlie but metaphoricallie signifie that thing which is affirmed vpon Herod therefore is the proposition figuratiue and improper euen by coÌ„parison to that thing it is an improper signe of that which you would haue me to conceaue The word indeed hath an other significatioÌ„ which is that we call proper which your dictionarie leads you to but according to the thing which answers to that it 's proper signification the proposition is not verified In all other pure figuratiue propositions you shall find the same and therefore you must alter your vnlearned assertion that no proposition is figuratiue according to the thing signified and all your discourse that depends vpon it wherein impertinentlie to the matter in QuestioÌ„ you compare one materiall obiect or thing to seuerall propositions whereas you should compare one proposition to the principall and proper or secundarie and improper obiect of it's termes The proper obiect of this word or signe vulpes is a foxe it signifies that thing properlie and taking it as it signifies to vs that thing the proposition is false the improper obiect whereunto by translation it is extended is a wilie fellowe and taking it in this sense the proposition is true neither are these thinges in this manner signified one and the same thing vnles a wilie man perchance be properlie with you a foxe Moreouer the manner of signifying in wordes is either proprius natiue proper Sensus sacrae Scripturae literalis mysticus Sensus literalis proprius improprius Sensus mysticus alleg tropol anagoric vt infra or improprius and translatitius metaphoricall and improper Euerie word that hath a metaphoricall signification hath a proper also as appeares by the etymologie of the name and the way to know in which sense the proposition wherein it stands is verified and consequentlie whether it be taken in the proper or the metaphoricall sence is to compare it to the thing Herod is a fox Mirth is a locust If you compare the proposition in it's proper signification to the thing it is improportionable difforme and false if you compare the same material proposition in it's metaphoricall signification to the thing it is proportionable conforme true Wherevpon we conclude the speach to be metaphoricall If the proposition be according to the natiue sence verified vpon or in the thing we say that it is proper as these other Herod is wilie Mirth is an Heretick If it be verified according to the substance of the thing properlie signified not according to the manner it will then be called proper absoluté sine addito taking the denomination froÌ„ that which is principall For wee say that a thing is white or not white not because all is so but because the greatest or most parts be so Dicimus enim aliquid essâ— album aut non album non quia totum esâ— tale saith the Philosopher 6. Phys. tex 38. sed quia maximae partes eius plures sunt talâ—s though not omnibus modis in regard of the improprietie annexed respectiuelie to the manner as this hoc est corpus meum Before I leaue this point I must put you againe in mind how you do still weaken your owne opinion more more and fight against your fellowes whilst you contend that heere corpus the predicate
is taken improperlie It is true that if it were taken improperlie according to the thing signified by it the proposition were figuratiue or improper but it is false euen in the iudgment of the learnedest of your owne men so ignorant you are in the cause you vndertake that it is so taken The word corpus I repeate the same againe is not taken improperlie according to the thing by it signified not as the word vulpes in your proposition which is your great Masters instance in this very matter Herodes est vulpes no. But properlie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that substance quam cruci affixam in sepulchro depositam Verbū suscitauit à mortuis de qua suscitata dictum est videte manus meas pedes meos contrectate me videte nam Spiritus carnem ossa non habet prout me conspicitis habere quam denique transtulit in coelos inde reddendam terris postremo aduentu denique quicquid dici potest ad describendū circumscriben dūque suis veris proprietatibus illud ipsum indiuiduum for that substance which being nailed to the Crosse and laid in the sepulcher the Word raised from the dead of which substance it is said See my hands and my feete feele me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see I haue Moreouer that substance which h◠caried into heauen to render it againe a◠the last comming and finallie what eue◠can be said to describe and circumscribe the very same indiuiduall substance with it's true propertie So your Chamier l. 10. c. 2. confessing Corpus to be by our Sauiour taken litterallie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in a borrowed but in the natiue sence howeuer you Master waferer will haue it not to be taken heere in it's natiue but in a borrowed sence and the proposition this which you speake of therefore to be figuratiue because the word that is the predicate is so taken I omit to note further how you be troubled with an equiuocation of a speach figuratiue according to the manner hauing not wit enough to distinguish the modus essendi which is in the obiect from the modus significandi which is in the word or speach or to know vnder what referēce a word hath proprietie vnder what it hath not how and when these denominations be pure or vnpermixte But I haue now giuen you occasion enough for for a Scholler to reflect vpō the matter On you go to seeke and if you cannot finde to make absurdities Pugnantia secum Frontibus aduersis componere Apologist S. E. seekes to iustifie that answer of his Lords of a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action for he saith that the same speech may be proper and figuratiue as a garment of a mingled colour is white and black but let him know that it is not the same speech if either the signification or the manner of signifying be changed Censure you and your Doctour in his Relatiō purposelie inuolue things that in thēselues are cleere My Lord had said not of a figure but of a speach that of our Sauiour vnles you eate the flesh c. that according to S. Augustine it was mixt which he declared at large in the Conference M. Featlie himself takes notice of it telling vs that he said our Sauiours speech Feat Relat. pag. 294 vnles you eate c. is proper and figuratiue according to S. Augustin figuratiue according to the manner of eating but according to the matter it self proper and so it is a mixt speach of a proper and a figuratiue thus your Doctor himself at last relates it obscuring the same againe presentlie in the accommodation of the distinction to the thing in Question What that is which you would teach S. E. touching the speach of our Sauiour which is not meerelie figuratiue euen by your owne confession neither I nor you know The Holie Bible is still the same though there be in it both proprietie of speach and figures A mingled garment is still one though there be in it white and black and a proposition which is verified improperlie according to the manner of the obiects being which is vsuallie by the wordes consequentlie as it were imported and properlie according to the substance of the thing directlie signified is still one and the same proposition Apologist Why doth S. E. instance in that proposition 1. Cor. 15. it is sowne a naturall bodie it is raised a spiritual to proue that a proper sence and a figuratiue may be in one proposition Censure It had beene requisite you had first beene able to vnderstand what is said before you began to take vpon you to refute it S. E. brings examples to shew that it is not peculiar to S. Augustine onlie to call a thing spirituall in regard of the manner though substantiallie or according to the substance it be not so for in like manner Sainct Ierome doth call on Sauiours flesh which is flesh indeed and reallie spirituall in regard of the manner which in the Sacrament it hath Spiritualis atque diuina caro de qua Christus dixit Caro mea vere est cibus c. And S. Paul for the like reason doth call the bodie after it is risen againe spirituall seminatur corpus animale surgit corpus spirituale Confer pag. 47. His words are And as S. Austine heere calls this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue So doth S. Ierome call the flesh of our Sauiour in the Eucharist spirituall in regard of the manner though the substance of flesh be not a Spirit and the Apostle tearmes the bodie spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the Resurrection though for substance it consistes of matter still and by corporeum differ from a spirit intrinsicallie as much thē as it doth nowe So he Next vnto this willfull mistake you enter into a discourse of diuerse senses in one and the same place which discourse laies your ignorance more open but is little to the matter of the Conference That there are not two senses a figuratiue and a proper in one place of Scripture you will proue VVaf. pag. 36. you say If you meant to proue that one and the same place cannot be figuratiue secundum quid in regard of the māner absolutè proper as hath beene defended before in seuerall occasions you quicklie forget what you meant to do or were not able to do what faine you would haue donne for you bring not anie argument at all to make it good Of litterall senses in generall you write something confusedlie and seeme to denie there may be manie in one place or text of Scripture but not one argument appeares to proue the thing which wanted proofe vzt that one and the same place could not be figuratiue secundum quid and proper absolutè or simpliciter If you meant to
proue that one the same proposition could not be proper absoluté simpliciter and improper or figuratiue absoluté simpliciter your labour was impertinent since the proposition in Question was neuer said by my Lord or S. E. to be such neither haue they said that any other proposition had the two sences mentioned in that manner That the same man may be white secundum quid and absoluté black the same speach improper secundum quid and absoluté proper hath beene said and the speach obiected hoc est corpus meum is such That this or anie other is absoluté proper and absoluté figuratiue or improper or the same man absolute white and absolutè black is the meteor of your braine which like an Ignis fatuus leads your argument still out of the right way The sence of a place of Scripture is either literall or mysticall Some places haue both as that Abraham (a) It is written that Abraham had two sonnes the one by a bond-maid the other by a freewoman But he who was of the bond-woman was borne after the flesh but he of the free-woman by promise 24. which things are said by an Allegorie for these are the two testaments the one from the mount Sina which gendreth to bondage which is Agar c. 26. But Hierusalem which is aboue is free which is the mother of vs all c. Now wee brethren according as Isaac are the children of promise 29 but as then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit euen so it is now Ad Galat. 4. duos filios habuit vnam de ancilla vnam de libera sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem Gal. 4. The mysticall sense is threefold allegoricall tropologicall and anagogicall and the same place may some times haue all three For example in the place now cited and as it is expounded by the Apostle there is the Allegoricall Haec sunt duo testamenta c. v. 24. the Anagogicall illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem c. v. 26. and the tropological sed quomodo tunc is qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum quisecundum spiritum ita nunc v. 29. Concerning literall senses it is the tenet of S. Augustine lib. 12. Confes that there may be diuers tWo three four or more in the same words and since a word may haue many significations why might not the Holie Ghost vnderstanding all verities and all significations of all words vse the same words in the same speach as that in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth in many significations at once This speach in Isaie generationem eius quis enarrabit the Fathers vnderstand sometimes of the temporall sometimes of the eternall generation of our Sauiour and that of God the Father in the Psalmes Filius meus es tu Ego hodie genui te the Apostle takes in one sense Act. 13. and in an other sense Heb. 1. Touching the mixture of proper figuratiue it hath beene tould you that the same place may be proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue secundum quid you crie out for one such and do not mark that before your face you haue alreadie two nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis c. and hoc est corpus meum That this is proper according to the substance of the thing signified we proue by the common rule of interpreting the Scripture when it proposeth dogmaticallie matters of Diuine beleefe and the same is confirmed to vs abundantlie by other places of Holie Scripture which do concerne this Sacrament and sacrifice and by the testimonie of the Holie Ghost in the Catholik and vniuersall Church which did euer beleeue it since our Sauiour truth it self spake these wordes That the same speach is figuratiue improper in regard of and respectiuelie to the manner of the thing which māner vsuallie the word corpus doth import it is euident for the bodie hath not in the sacrament extension of parts in order to place but is there all in euerie part of the dimensiōs of bread according to the manner of a Spirit When M. Mirth had come thus farre imagining poore man that he had got some victorie he puts a crowne vpon his head and snatching the trumpet giues notice of a new battle wherein he meanes to set vpon the little digression of S. E. which digression he cruellie dismembers and spurnes the pieces of it ouer the rest this Section to and fro contemptiblie I cannot without pittie see the thing so misused perhaps if the parts be gathered together the discourse may stand againe and affright him in the middest of his triumph Apologist Next I will runne ouer againe this section and page by page will answer the daintie subtilities of Master S. E. and iustifie our Doctors discourse against his Notes Censure If you will proue your tenet you must ouer againe and a thousand times againe and then will find your self as the mill-horse doth after all his labour euen there in the end where you were in the beginning Did not this appeare in your Doctors first argument and in this you now prosecute which is the second can you do more then he but now forsooth you will answer page by page and in matter of Logick Philosophie We haue lost allreadie to much time in hearing your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this though the matter come neerer to your cap will most liklie be lost also but you teach wee must harken you will answer subtilities you say page by page that is exactlie Fortasse cupressum Scis simulare Apologist you say words do signifie conceptions I would haue you know there is a great deale of differēce betwixt conceptio and conceptus Censure Satis pro imperio What S. E. meant by a conception you haue presentlie in his next words The conceptiō is an Image representing the thing which wee think on This Image vitallie proceeding in the minde is properlie in English named a conception of the vnderstanding Confer pag. 8. Some name your Mastership will allow it in our language such as may distinguish it from the obiect or the thing conceaued I pray you turne your Dictionarie and find what name this is turne to which word you please conceptus or conceptio S. E. vsed neither but onlie said words do signifie the conceptions of the mind which English you cauilling at should haue mended seeing you will needes make your self his Master and haue taught him and your owne Dictionarie to speake it better in good English and such english as doth not equallie signifie things obiected whether they be feigned or not feigned For proofe of this Assertion words do signifie the conceptions of the mind he needed not your helpe hauing cited in the margine these words of Aristotle which it seemes you do not vnderstand sunt ergo ea quae sunt in
voce earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae neither had he neede of Smiglecius hauing cited the Commentators interpretation which is cleare enough dictiones significant primó intentiones quae sunt in anima Apologist you tell how the species which together with the vnderstanding concurre to the framing of verbum mentis are sent into the mind or vnderstanding by way of sence but you are deceaued these species which concurre with the vnderstanding to frame verbum mentis are species intelligibiles and the obiect sends no species into the eie or anie other sence but sensible species and those sensible species are not sent into the vnderstanding by way of sence Censure It would haue well become a Master Master Waferer if he finds a fault to shew the way to mend it and if you do not shew that it is indeed a fault howeuer your sillie Pupils may be content to beleeue it on your word without euidence of reason and will profit accordinglie in their studies your aduersaries in the matter will not If the species of paper be not sent into your mind by paper and by the way of sence how came it thether did you know what was in this Censure before you reade it are you able to make vs a particular description of that part of the world which is not yet discouered and to write vs their historie it seemes you can for you gather not your knowledge by waie of sence your Intellect by priuiledge was otherwise stored from the beginning which is the reason why you teach diuinitie before you learnd it and talke non-sence so familiarlie whilst others comming more nakedlie into the world with their Quo omnia fieri the passiue or possible and quo omnia facere the ageÌ„t are faine to learne before they teach and to abstract from the phantasmes which exteriour obiectes by the sence cause in them the formes of thinges whereby they may conceaue or vnderstand Aristotle thought that the possible vnderstanding or intellect is Arist. 3. de Anima â— 4. 13. as a painters table that hath yet no picture in it and his reason doth demonstrate what he saith In this table the Soule whose instruments all the powers be doth with her actiue intellect as with a spirituall hand describe the species of that which is represented and offered to her by the phantasie then doth vse it the same species to conceaue intellectuallie the obiect of it Imaginatio aliud est a sensu arationatione Arist 2. de Animat t. 153. which obiect it had onlie imagined or by the phantasie conceaued before The phantasme of it selfe was not able to describe the foresaid species or Image in the spirituall table which the soule hath as wanting actiuitie in this higher kind but there is in the soule power enough to make it A faire picture in a transparent glasse-window is not of it self able to make it's species in the aire or in your eie but light comming vpon it the species is made so heere the picture which is in the Imagination cannot of it self worke a species in your vnderstaÌ„ding but the spirituall light comming on it Species impressa the species is imprinted This way according to the Philosopher the species comes into our mind and from the thing conceaued First into the exteriour sence from thence not the same species numero but in equiualeÌ„ce the same into the interiour sence and still further till at last being purged of it's materiall conditions or abstracted from them it arriues in the vnderstanding where it is not corporeall as in the senses but spirituall according to the nature of the power wherein it is receaued and is not a sensible specie that is seruing for the sense to know by but an intellectiue species as being in the vnderstanding and seruing it to conceaue the thing that was offered to the sense a man paper QuoniaÌ„ autem vt in vniuersa natura est aliquid alterum materia cuique geners quod iaâ—o sic est quod potentia est illa omnia alterum causa effectinum eo quod omnia efficiat quae res vsu venit in arte si cum materia comparetur ita etiam in anima hae adsint differentiae necesse est Atque est quidam intellectus talis quod omnia fiat quidam quod omnia faciat veluti habitus perinde ac lumen nam lumen quoque quodammodo sacit actu colores eos qui sunt potentia colores Arist 3 de Anima t. 17. 18. In nobis intellectus agens possibilis est per comparationem ad phantasmata quae quidem comparantur ad intellectum possibilem vt colores ad visum ad intellectum autem agentem vt colores ad lumen vt patet teâ—tio de Anima S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 54. a. 4. whitenes Apologist That which presents it self to the eie saith S. E. is not the pure essence or quidditie of a thing as they speake in Schooles it is an extended coloured thing which thing we do see and coÌ„ceaue and name agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach the signe of it And do they in the Schooles indeed say that we do conceaue a man as we see him not in the pure esseÌ„ce or quidditie of a maÌ„ but as an extended or coloured thing and do wee agree that this word maÌ„ shall be a signe of that extended coloured thing Censure Had you meant to make such a comment you should haue left out the text by which the Reader presentlie seeth your mistak Doth S. E. tell you that in schooles we do not conceaue a man in the pure essence and quidditie of a man he knowes well enough how a man is coÌ„ceaued both in the schooles of Metaphysick which doth abstract from sensible matter in the Schooles of naturall Philosophie which doth not abstract from it but it seemes that you do not and therefore if you were yet to begge your grace for Master you were in danger to be put back least the Vniuersitie in your ignorance should be disgraced And the rather because you do not vnderstand a peece of plaine English which you take vpon you to refute In S. E. thus it is That which presents it self to the eie to be seen marke that Confer pag. 51. to the eie is not the pure essence or quidditie of a thing as they speake in schooles and you by experience know it but it is a thing sensible and to be perceaued with this organe and facultie mark that also with this organ this organ and this eie is not our vnderstanding one would think it is an extended coloured thing which thing we do see and conceaue and name I pray you haue not you a name did your Godfather if you be Chrisned vnderstand or conceaue the thing he named or did he not conceaue it how knowes he you his God sonne from an other man or woman agreeing that such or such
a word shall be in speach a signe of it Apologist Looking on a man saith S. E. we conceaue in our minde his figure colour c you had neede put in c. representing all in one image we subordinate as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word man Now I perceaue you dreame that the sensible obiectes come into the vnderstāding which makes you tell vs of an extended coloured thing Censure If S. E. can dreame so well it seemes that his dreames are better then your watchings and that he can discourse of Philosophie in his sleepe better then you can do whē you prepare your papers for the print That which first of all moues our vnderstanding whilst it is heere in our bodie is a sensible thing sending into it a species in manner aboue specified Were all such remoued out of the world and that a man by no sence at all euer perceaued any thing his tabula picturae aptata that he brought with him into the world would be in the end as naked as it was in the beginning of his life When he hath once gotten the species of some things he can finde out some others as by the effect he finds a cause by Creatures God Rom. 1. Inuisibi ia ipsius D i a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta a cōspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus diuinitas but first his vnderstanding must be moued by something that offers it self vnto the sence whose nature it abstractes from the materiall or indiuiduall conditions and so directlie conceaues it S. Thom. 1. p. q. 84. a. 6. being able also by reflection at least to cōceaue singulars which the sence perceaues directlie The parcell which you cite out of S. E. is so maimed that it hath lost all sence but I will presentlie restore it Apologist Heare what your owne wordes say this word man signifies a man is a thing not in his pure essence and quidditie as they speake in schooles but an extended coloured figured thing c. Is not this a prittie brat of your owne conception and laid at the Schooles like a bastard to see who will father it either blush your self or giue me leaue to laugh I thought before that all that this name homo doth import were animal rationale sure I am the definition doth answer perfectlie to the definitum is exactlie true without respect had to colour or figure Censure The whirlewind in your braines hath so confounded the species of things that all is now troubled which comes from you whether you relate or dispute wherefore I must looke vpon S. E. his booke thence transcribe his wordes which you cauill at Next vnto those by me before cited he said thus Looking on a man we cōceaue in our mind his figure 〈…〉 51. colour c. representing all in one Image to which Image we subordinate as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word a man Where he saith you see that this word man is imposed to signifie that sensible thing whose Image we had conceaued in our mind and to such things men vse to giue names Aske your neighbour what a calf or ā oxe or a bull signifies and he will tell you of a sensible figured thing the same substance may be successiuelie all excepte there be oxen with you that neuer were calues and aske a scholler he will still tell you there is difference betwixt an oxe and a calf they be not synonyma you are not a child you think yet are a man what is become of your other substance that indiuiduall substance which longe agoe you had or is it still the same But either S. E. must blush or he must giue you leaue to laugh What needs the disiunctiue M. Waferer he may blush and you laugh too neither neede you his leaue to laugh where and when you will Though much laughing in others be no good cognizance it agrees with you so well that it were inciuilitie to denie you the vse of it your priuiledge and naturall propertie for you are Mirth And he may blush and so may Alban-Hall and Oxford and your Mother all may blush and haue cause to blush in you the first in an aduersarie the second in a pupill the third in a graduate and the fourth in a sonne But whilst you laugh do not distracte me too for I am studying hard and seriouslie vpon a Question which your discouse hath occasioned in my mind and my poore inuention hath searched all the species and formes in her litle closet to find a solution for it and none will serue vnlesse peraduenture one which she hath put aside I can not well propose it in common but I will softlie tell it you Sir this it is Whether your mother were a man S. E. Doctor was not deceaued Forma dat nomē esse the reason of doubt which occurres out of your discourse and not to doe her any wrong I haue indeede no other reason to moue such a doubt though sometimes her sonne doth argue without reason is because if the definition of a man all that the word or name doth signifie do agree to her the name also doth and may be verified on her now the definition of a man Animal rationale which you would haue your Reader to beleeue is all that the word signifies doth agree to her for I suppose your mother was some reasonable creature whence it followes vnles you will diuorce the definition and definitum that the name which doth signifie that definition and that onlie if you saie true without respecte had to colour or figure or any other accidens doth agree to your mother VVaf. pag. 41. and consequentlie this is true that your mother is a man A man I say that is the word in Question that was the word of S. E. in his example and if it be graunted once that it signifies more then the substance or quidditie more then animal rationale as it must do if it signifies not your mother aswell as you then his discourse is currant and your exception both vnlearned and impertinent he did not instance in the latine word homo he meant to giue the Readers who do not all vnderstand latine an example of that he had said in our owne language which hath names also you might haue knowne too that some latine wordes signifie more then some other English or latin do that be taken some times for the same homo signifies more then vir May it please your learned Mastership to consider with your self how this argument may be satisfied but let none els know The forme I laide aside was the species of an hermaphrodite I suppose you will make no further speach of it Lapidi dictum puto Apologist You S. E. adde that without colour and quantitie the name is not perfectlie answerable to the intellectuall image as if the vnderstanding did conceaue man as coloured
est ex pane vino vt vnione cum eo quod est immortale sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis Haec autem dat virtute benedictionis in illud quod est immortale nempe corpus suum transelementatae eorum quae apparent natura Cyrillus Episcopus Hierosol Cathechesi 4. Aquam olim in vinum conuertit in Cana Galileae quod vinum cum quandam habeat cum sanguine propinquitatem facilè in illum transmutatur eum patum dignum existimabimus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutet infra Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi Seculo 3. Sermo de Coena apud Cyprianum Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non essigie sed natura mutatus omni potentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in Persona Verbi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Origenes l. 8. contra Celsum Nos qui rerum omnium conditori placere studemus cum precibus gratiarum pro beneficiis acceptis actione oblatos panes edimus corpus iam per precationem factos sanctum quoddam sanctificans Et hom 5. in diuers Quando sanctum â—â—bum illudque incorruptum accipis epulum quando pane vitae poculo frueris manducas bibis corpus sanguinem Domini tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilianâ— temetipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Vbi enim indigné ingreditur ibi ad iudicium ingreditut recipientis Seculo 2. Tertullianus l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit l. de resurrect carn Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Irenaeus Episcopus l. 4. aduers Haeres c. 34 Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Seculo 1. Paulus Apostolus pri Corinth 11. Ego enim accepi à Domino quod tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte trade batur accepit panem gratias agens fregit dixit Accipite manducate HOC EST CORPVS MEVM quod pro vobis tradetur Qui manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans CORPVS Domini Retinuit Antiquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentorum ordo sub aspectabili panis forma Sub illa fuit ante consecrationem vera panis natura accepit panem cui successit sub eadem forma corpus Domini verum hoc est corpus quod pro vobis A deo que sub illa specie vel aspectabili forma facta mutatio Aduersariorum Confessio Beza de Coena con VVestphal Hoc quidem saepe diximus quod nunc quoque repetam retineri reipsa non posse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Christi verbis Hoc est corpus meum quin transsubstantiatio Papistica statuatur Morton Institut Sacram. l. 2 ca. 1 pag. 72. VVhat necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words This is my body will best appeare in the after-examination of the diuers consequences of your owne sense to wit your doctrine of transsubstantiation corporall and materiall presence propitiatotie sacrifice and proper adoration all which are dependants vpon your Romish exposition of the former words of Christ The issue will be this that if the words be certainlie true in a proper and litterall sence then wee are to yeild to you the whole cause So he S. E. had said that Berengarius broched your (a) About the yeere of our Lord 1060. the denying of transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresie and in that number was first one Berengarius who liued about â—â— 1060. Fox pag. 1121 Brier heresie and this you Master Waferer take heynouslie telling vs that you haue it from the Apostles If you had said that one of them Iudas was of your opinion you might peraduenture haue found Scripture for it in the 6. of S. Iohn where after our Sauiour had said the bread which he meant to giue was his flesh that flesh which he would giue also for the life or redemption of the world the Iewes began to dispute of the modus how that could be quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum how can this man giue vs his flesh to eate whervpon our Sauiour told them that his flesh was meat indeed and that his blood was drink indeed and that they were to eate this flesh and to drink this blood heereat some of the Disciples were scaÌ„dalized and said as you do durus est hic sermo this is a hard speach they had not the patieÌ„ce to heare of it they beleeued not and amongst those was the man I spake of Sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes quis traditurus esset eum there are some of you that beleeue not For Iesus knew from the beginning who they were that beleeued not and who should betray him you know the man he was of your opinion yet Berengarius being the first that taught it openlie as a doctrine he may well be said to haue broached it first and if insteed of the word opinion or heresie you put in Sacrament that it runne thus Berengarius broached your Sacrament it may be no metaphor for it is wine that is in your communion cup nothing els but wine Heere is an end of your second Section I will leaue you now alone in your recreation roome and go speake with others at the dore you shall heare of me againe by that time you haue stepped into your third Section where if you can compose your self thereunto we will be more seriouse It is not my labour it was your Mothers to breed Mirth Nobis non licet esse tam disertis Qui Musas colimus seueriores Master Mirth is a merrie man he can laugh out anothers eies and his owne it seemes is not laughing the cause be not fullie open he hath studied so long in the Vniuersitie and talkt there so much of homo that he hath forgotten part of his owne mother tounge I haue beene disputing with him about a peece of it and would haue left him sooner being wearie in the verie beginning dat sine mente sonum to heere so manie words with so litle sence but that he would haue taken occasion thereby to make the presse labour againe in the edition of an other as impertinent a discourse not omitting
to appoint his title-pages to stand and proclaime me coward at euerie corner-poste in LondoÌ„ where the players put vp their bills vnles I come the second time to the Comedie must I call it or Mirth's Tragedie Our dispute was about the significatioÌ„ of this English word man whether it doth onlie signifie the substance the quid as they speake in schooles animal rationale or whether it doth import or bring into the vnderstanding of him that heares or reades it and knowes our language and in that kind signifie more then animal rationale It is an easie Question and scarce a Question but that he will make it so which euerie English man or woman or child may determine The child hath not yet learned to speake and the old woman dotes that knowes not the difference betwixt these two names man and woman and should one write the storie of his Petegrie changing these names expressing the female by the word man the male by woman schollers would think that he were madde If you looke into the laÌ„guage you shall finde the like in other wordes Those who gaue to thinges their English names came not to the students in Metaphysick to haue them first abstracted Men were and had societie and could speake before they met to build Schooles The Scottish and Welsh and Irish were not inuented in Vniuersities and they which made bricks at Babell were not all Masters of Art I neuer hard that a soule in it self had any sex or that animal rationale metaphysicallie abstracted from all accideÌ„tes was an hermaphrodite though those words haue a good sence in them forma dat nomen esse and ratio quam significat nomen est definitio Before such absurdities were inferd out of these words it would be demaunded what is this definitio What this forme manie formalities haue names which haue not proper definitioÌ„s rationale sensible corporeum and other differences haue none and the prima genera substantia quantitas ad aliquid and the rest non habent genera therefore no proper definition Neither are the substantiall differences of things so knowne as that without taking into our vnderstanding their properties which are of another kind or predicament we can vnfold or conceaue them Wherof he may presentlie haue proofe sufficient that would but endeuour himself or put another you Master Waferer to define the seuerall species of liuing thinges beastes trees flowers c. When naturall things were by man first named in vulgar language their definitions or notions which they who named them conceaued were proportionable to their nature which did occurre to the sence inuested with certaine proprieties neuer otherwise in which case the Philosopher himself saies it is hard to make (a) Quaecunque apparent aduenientia in diuersis specie vt circulus in aere ligno lapide haec quidem manifesta esse videntur quoniam nihil substantiae circuli aes neque lapis est propterea quod ab eis separetur Quae verò non videntur separari nihil quidem prohibet similiter his se habere quemadmodum si circuli omnes viderentur aenei Nihil enim minus aes esset ipsius formae Difficile tamen est hoc mente auferre Vt puta forma hominis semper in carnibus ossibus talibus partibus apparet Vtrum igitur sint etiam haeâ— partes formae rationis an non sed materia Verùm quoniam non adueniunt etiam in alâ—us non possumus separare Cum autem hoc videatur quidem contingere quando verò non est manifestum Aristot 7. Metaphysâ—t 37 Formae naturales licet possint intelligi absque materia noÌ„ tamen facile quoniam esse non possunt sine determinatis ac propriis materiis quarum sunt vt homo licet possit abstrahi ab his carnibus his ossibus non tamen à carnibus ossibus simpliciter Commentator ibidem Formae naturales difficilè abstrahuntur intellectu a suis materiis impossibile est enim intelligere hominem sine carne ossibus Ibidem Non potest intellectus abstrahere eas in imaginatione à materia Ibidem abstraction neither was a Metaphysicall one necessarie to the first imposition of the word or name since the thing conceaued with it's properties is sufficientlie distinguished from other thinges and capable enough of a different name or signe in this manner the Latine word Homo to speake of that language too for your sake needed to suppose no other notion then that which might be gathered by obseruing a mans motion discourse figure contenaunce and other accidents found in all men that came to notice and not in any other thing but in maÌ„ TheÌ„ further as meÌ„ came to the knowledge of the Metaphysick and therbey were able to abstract a substance froÌ„ sensible properties and figure and quantitie the name was applied to signifie that abstracted thing also yet so that it left not to be withall that it was before Whence it comes to passe that the same word signifiing according to diuers abstractions more or lesse may be sayd to be or not to be entirelie verified in the same thing Aristotle in his first de Anima puts a difference betwixt the Logician the naturall Philosopher in their manner of defining Differenter definiet naturalis Dialecticus c. where he saith the Logician defines by the forme the Philosopher by the matter and brings an example of each In the sixt of his Metaphysicks he shewes how the Naturall Philosophers way of defining is DiffereÌ„ter definiet Naturalis Dialecticus vnumquodque ipsorum Vt ira quid est Hic enim appetitum recontristationis aut aliquid huiusmodi Ille autem feruorem sanguinis aut calidi circa cor Horum autem Hic quidem assignat materiam Ille veró formam rationem Ratio enim haec ipsius rei Necesse autem esse hanc in materia huiusmodi si erit Sicut domus haec quidem ratio c. Arist. l 1. de Animat 16. Qui accipit materiam in definitione dimittit formam diminuté accipit qui autem accipit formam dimittit materiam existimatur quod dimittit aliquid non necessarium sed non est ita quoniam forma debet accipit in definitionibus secundum dispositiones in quibus existit Commentator Ibidem diuers froÌ„ that of the Mathematician or the Metaphysick The Naturarall Philosopher doth in his definition abstract from indiuiduall matter which he calls vltima 7. Meâ— â— 35 others signata for his definition must be constant and vniuersall otherwise it would not serue his turne to make a demonstration but he doth not abstract from sensible matter or that which is affected with sensibâ—e qualities as the other two doe (a) Arist l 6 Metaphys t 2. vide Commentat Ibidem Eorum quae definiuntur ipsorum quid est quaedam quidem ita sunt vt ipsum simum quaedam vt ipsum
concauum Differunt autē haec quoniam simum quidem vna acceptum est eum materia est enim simum conca◠us nasus concauitas vero absque materia sensibili Si cuucta igitur naturalia ita vt simum dicuntur vt nasus oculus facies caro os omnino animal folium radix In definitione enim carnis ossis oportet quod ponatur calidum frigidum aliquo modo cōtemperatū similiter in aliis S. Tho. ibidem Aristot cortex omnino planta nullius enim eorum ratio absque motu sed semper habet materiam manifestum est quomodo in naturalibus oportet ipsum quid est quaerere definire cur etiam de quadam anima speculari Naturalis est quaecunque non sine materia Accordinglie he doth elswhere define a (b) li. 2. de Anima t. 4. 5. Actus primus corporis organici c. soule and as for singulars he saith they cannot be defined (c) Aristot l. 7. Metaphys t. 35. Totius verò vt circuli huius singularium alicuius sensibilis aut intelligibilis dico autem intelligibiles quidem vt Mathematicos sensibiles verò vt aeneos ligneos horum inquam non est definitio sed intellectione aut sensu cognoscuntur cum verò abeant ab actu non est manifestum vtrum sint al. -quando an non sint tamen semper dicuntur cognoscuntur vniuersali ratione Materia vero per seipsam incognita Materia verò quaedam sensibilis quaedam intelligibilis sensibilis quidem vt aes lignum quaecunque mobilis materia intelligibilis verò quae in sēsibilibus existit non prout sensibilia vt puta ipsa mathematica The metaphysick doth abstract from all these three matters signata sensibili intelligibili he can abstract a substance from quantitie sensible qualities and indiuiduation and accordinglie define it without expressing any of them in the intellectuall or adding them in the vocall definition Thus far in common Now to come to our particular cause The Science which contemplates a substantiall bodie and according to whose abstraction it was named is Naturall Philosophie which Science according to the knowne doctrine of the schooles wherunto the best Peripateticks and the greatest schoolmen also do subscibe doth not abstract from sensible matter but defines by it It abstractes à materia signata and according to this abstraction way of defining doth impose names to things naturall ratio quam significat nomen est definitio Wherfore this Latine word corpus and this English word bodie it is the like of all others imposed according to this abstraction in the iudgment of the Naturall Philosopher do not abstract from such matter but do signifie a thing sensible And if the thing wherein they be verified be not such he doth not esteeme the speach to be entirelie proper because the words import or brīg into his vnderstāding such a thing howbeit the speaker is not tied to this notion for he may vse another kind of abstractiō according Materia est duplex scilicet communis signata vel indiuidualis Communis quidem vt caro os indiuidualis autem vt hae carnes haec ossa Intellectus igitur abstrahit speciem rei naturalis à materia sensibili indiuiduali non autem à materia sensibili communi Sicut speciem hominis abstrahit ab his carnibus his ossibus quae non sunt de ratione speciei sed partes indiuidui vt dicitur in septimo Metaphysicorum t. 34. 35. ideo sine eis considerari potest Sed species hominis non potest abstrahi per intellectum à carnibus ossibus Species autem mathematicae possunt abstrahi per intellectum à materia sensibili non solū indiuidual sed etiam communi non tamen à materia intelligibili communi sed solum indiuiduali Materia enim sensibilis dicitur materia corporalis secundum quod subiacet qualitatibus sensibilibus scilicet calido frigido duro molli huiusmodi Materia verò intelligibilis dicitur substantia secundum quod subiacet quantitati Manifestum est autem quod quantitas priùs inest substantiae quà m qualitates sensibiles Vnde quantitates vt numeri dimensiones figurae quae sunt terminationes quantitatum possunt considerari absque qualitatibus sensibilibus quod est eas abstrahere à materia sensibili non tamen possunt considerari sine intellectu substantiae quantitati subiectae quod esset eas abstrahi à materia intelligibili communi Possunt tamen considerari sine hac vel illa substantia quod est eas abstrahi à materia intelligibili indiuiduali Quaedam verò sunt quae possunt abstrahi etiam à materia intelligibili communi sicut ens vnum potentia acrus alia huiusmodi quae etiam esse possunt absque omni materia vt patet in substantiis immaterialibus S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 85. a. 1. ad 2. to that may peake his mind Heereby appeares the truth of those passages against which M. Waferer most ignorantlie did cauill as that of S. E. pag. 51. That which presents it self to the eie to be seene is not a pure essence or quidditie as they speake in Schooles but it is a thing sensible and to be perceaued by this organ and facultie it is an extended coloured thing which wee do see and conceaue agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach a signe of it and the rest which you may reade in him And of Cardinall Allen pag. 57. A thing being put out of it's naturall manner of being and out of 〈◊〉 naturall conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name and endowed with strange accidentes although it keepe it's substance yet because it wants the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and conceit of man and are comprehended vnder the proper name it almost leeseth it's proper name or if it keepe it yet not so properlie as if it kept it's proper manner of being And of my Lord pag. 39. I admit that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one void of the truth proprietie but a figure ioyned with the truth and with proprietie because allthough they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they do not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other things are the things that they are said to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place In which wordes there be two things more specified the one is that the Sacramentall manner of existence is figuratiuelie the naturall manner of existence which also came to passe by the Institution
as appeares more fullie in the Gospell do this in remembrance of me The other that the wordes This is my bodie do likwise insinuate the spirituall manner of existence which the bodie hath heere in the sacrament for they do not signifie the bodie in what manner soeuer or abstracted I speake of the proposition not of corpus which is a simple tearme but they signifie determinatlie our Sauiours bodie with this kind of existence which it hath in the species or forme of bread Out of the former distinction of a double abstraction if you should heare an vnderstanding man denie that there is any kind of improprietie in the word corpus you were to know that he takes it according to the Metaphysicall abstraction in which senâ—â— the terme is entirlie proper as before was obserued not according to the Physicall So easilie you may recoÌ„cile him with the others cited by S. E. and thereby see how little it doth import the maine whether in the word there be or be not admitted a kind of improprietie In the word I say or terme for it is one thing to speake of that single word and an other thing to speake of the proposition whose sence I haue vnfolded as far as occasion hath beene offered and shall doe further as I shall finde cause I must now to M. Waferer againe who is gotten to his next section and there expects me The third argument was about the killing letter out of Origen who by the killing letter meant as it was Answered not the Catholike sence but the Capharnaiticall Apologist S. E. makes a noise with the Capharnaiticall straine as if it differed from their carnall eating but I referre the Reader for satisfaction to D. Featlie his Conference which vnanswerablie conuinceth their shifts of weaknes and obstinacie Censure Vide Bellar. li. 2. c. 8. §. tertius lâ—eus Sunt certi denique fines quos vltra citraque nequit consistere rectum Had you setled a litle your countenance whilst you were alone it would haue mended the matter something for much laughter doth not well consist with Magisteriall grauitie but to put on a brasen face â—â—d auouch to the Reader what by reading without further studie or instruction he knowes to be otherwise is an extreame more absurde What kind of eating the Capharnaiets did meane my Lord told your Doctor out of the Fathers and S. E. repeated the it againe They thought S. Augustine saith that our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate Carnaliter putarunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus illis wherunto Chamier your great Panstratist from whom now theÌ„ you borrow matter for your Pamphlet subscribes in these wordes Et hoc quidem verum quod ipsa lectio indicat and Quis non videt lo what Andabatarians he makes you two Doctor Featlie and your self Cham. lib. 11. c. 19. n. 30. in hanc formam argumentatos esse Capharnaitas Omne corpus carnaliter manducandum laniandum est at secundum ChristuÌ„ eius corpus carnaliter est manducanduÌ„ Ergo idem laniandum est This is true as one may see by the verie reading of the place Who sees not that the Caphernaits argued in this manner Euerie bodie that is carnallie to be eaten is to be cut or torne in peices but according to Christ his bodie is carnallie to be eaten therefore it is to be cut or torne in peices So they as your Master Chamier tells you wheras we beleeue that the bodie of our Blessed Sauiour is receaued whole and entire vnder the forme of bread as S. E. told you in his Notes and my Lord in the Conference defended against your Doctor Is there no difference M. Waferer betwixt these two betwixt eating of flesh in it's proper shape and receauing it in the forme of bread betwixt receauing a bodie whole entire and eating but a peece Belike there is no difference with you betwixt all and some betwixt a part and the whole betwixt a liue and a dead thing betwixt a corporall and a spirituall manner of existence betwixt the exteriour formes of flesh and bread who would haue thought a man of your name nature could be so melancholie as not to discerne this But you are not your self disposed therefore send him that will haue satisfaction to Doctor Featlies Conference Suppose he go Intererit multuÌ„ Is there more then was when S.E. read it ouer Nothing at all But S. E. hath not Answered why so good M. Waferer Because it vnanswerablie conuinces those shifts that is S. Augustins exposition of weaknes Is that all S. Augustine might be weake to grapple with a Lion and obstinacie Away with this melancholie M. Waferer what may Featlie dissent from your Oracle Chamier and from the Scripture interpreted by his Spirit and from Sainct Austin and other auncient Fathers and from the Catholick and vniuersall Church with commendations and S. Austin not dissent from Featlie without obstinacie What Vertigo brings this about may nothing be said for him nothing answered in his behalf No for the Doctors Argument doth Vnanswereablie conuince And who dares looke such an Argument in the face S.E. belike ran away let 's see that first for if he durst abide greater Scholers neede not feare The Doctors obiection I will put downe all as he relates and hath amplified it himself and will compare it with the Answer that was made Featlie Origen saith Hom. 7. in Leuiticum If you follow the letter in these words vnles you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth Answer He speakes of the litterall sence wherein the Capharnaites vnderstood those wordes not of that wherein the Church doth vnderstand them This answer you may read more at large in the Relation pag. 63. Featlie what is litera Capharnaitica the litterall sence wherein the Capharnaites vnderstood the words Answer They thought as S. Augustine saith that our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate quod precisurus esset particulus quasdam de corpore suo this being the common obuious carnall way of vnderstanding such a speach They neuer thought of receauing a mans bodie whole vnder the forme of bread which is the sence left vnto the Church by the Apostles and confirmed by the Hole Ghost the Spirit of Truth The words be not meant of dead naked flesh they containe Spirit and life Pieces of flesh not vnited to the Diuine Person such as they thought he would haue them take and carnall eating of such pieces in their proper shape and forme profites nothing to saluation the thing were horrible in it self It is the Spirit the Diuinitie giues a quickning vertue to that which is vnited to the word Cyr. Al. Anath 11 and this same word doth teach another sence which is the verie life of that letter and doth also in it's kind giue life to the receauer Spiritus est
qui viuificat Caro non prodest quicquam verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt Let Saint Augustine speake againe Non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem verbis illis aliquam gratiam cooperientem sed proâ— voluerunt ita intellexerunt more hominum quia poterat Iesus aut hoc disponebat Iesus carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus in se Durus est inquiunt hic sermo which imagination of cutting in peeces and consuming it our Sauiour as he saies refutes in the next words Si ergo videritis filium hominis c. Illi putabant saies he erogaturum corpus suum concisum vt suprà ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum VTIQVEINTEGRVM Where he doth oppose integritie to chopping or cutting into peeces He goes on Certe vel tunc videbitis quia non EO MODO quo putatis erogabit corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non CONSVMETVR morsibus And againe afterwards in the same place Magister bone quomodo caro non prodest quicquam cum tu dixeris nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum non habebit in se vitam c. Non prodest quic quam sed quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem quippe sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur S. Augu. tract 27. in Ioan. non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They beleeued him not affirming a great matter and couering a grace vnder those words but as they listed so they vnderstood and as men vse to do because Iesus could or disposed it so that he would distribute vnto those who beleeued in him the flesh which the word had put on cut in peices as it were This say they is a hard saying Ibidem They thought he would giue them his bodie cut in peices he said he would ascend into heauen intire verilie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bona gratia de vocabuli suppositione vide Theologos Vide Turrian de Euch. tr 2. c. 13 19. not cut in peices Surelie then at least you shall see that he will not giue his bodie eo modo quo putatis in that manner you imagine then at least you will vnderstand that his grace will not by bitts be consumed Good Master how doth the flesh profit nothing when as thy self hast said Vnles a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him c. It profiteth nothing but as they vnderstood for they imagined it as it is torne in peices in the carkasse or sould in the butchers shop S. Aug. Ibidem not as it is quickned with the spirit Featlie For ought appeares by Scriâ—ture or any auncient record the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words groslie and carnallie as you do which you and thay should haue taken spirituallie my wordes are Spirit and life Answer Seeing our Sauiour I repeate my Lords words saith his flesh is trulie meate and that his words are trulie life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also spirituallie or mysticallie which thing we rightlie doe when wee say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist we eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it as the Capharnaites did conceaue but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a meete Spirit Thus farre my Lord who did also declare out of S. Augustine whose antiquitie I suppose Featlie will not call into question out of another more auncient then he what kind of eating the Capharnaites did vnderstand Quidam quia non credebant nec poterant intelligere abierunt retrò Serm. de Coe Cypr. quia horrendum eis ncfarium videbatur vesci carne humana existimantes hoc eo modo dici vt carnem eius vel elixam vel assam sectamque membratim edere docerentur cum illius personae caro SI IN FRVSTA PARTIRETVR non omni humano generi posset sufficere qua semel consumpta VIDERETVR INTERIISSE mark this by the way RELIGIO cui nequaquam vlterius VICTIMA superesset Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi caro sanguis non prodest quicquam quia sicut Magister exposuit verba haec spiritus vita sunt nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tantae profunditatis penetrat nisi fides accedat you heard S. Augustine before Putauerunt quod precisurus esset Dominus particulas de corpore suo Carnem veluti concisam distribuere quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur Some because they did not beleeue nor could vnderstand went back for that it seemed to theÌ„ wicked and horrible to eate mans flesh thinking it was meant they should eate it roasted or boiled and chopt in peices whereas the flesh of that person Christ were it diuided into portions or bitts would not serue all mankind and being once consumed Religion would seeme to haue perished withall no victime or sacrifice then remaining But in such thoughts as these flesh and blood profiteth nothing for as our Master himself hath expounded these words are spirit and life and vnles faith comes in the carnall sence penetrateth not vnto the vnderstanding of so great a depth Breiflie they meant the common carnall way of eating flesh in it's owne forme and shape peece after peece whereby the thing eateÌ„ by degrees is consumed Of which kind of eating our Sauiours words were not indeed to be vnderstood for his bodie was not to be cut in peeces and to be consumed nor in it's proper shape to be deuoured but to be receaued in another shape and still to remaine whole entire Featlie There is no such thing as that which in this answer is attributed to the Capharnaites implied in the litterall meaning of these words vnles you eate my flesh nor can be gathered from any circumstance of the text Answer The Question is not whether that be the true sence of the letter wee know it is not but whether the Capharnaites did vnderstand or conceaue it so And that they did it hath beene prooued first by the testimonie of S. Augustine and he not alone neither Secondlie by the confession of your owne Chamier out of whose quiuer you take the chiefest of your bolts who thinks them blinde that by reading the place perceaue it not Thirdlie our Sauiour himselfe correcting them doth insinuate what they meant by telling theÌ„ caro the carnall meaning of his words noÌ„ prodest quicquam doth nothing auaile there is a higher meaning which the Spirit the inteâ—â—our man and by faith onlie can perceaue in them Spiritus est qui viuificat flesh apart and separate from
the Word who for vs was made flesh giues not spirituall or eternall life You mistake in thinking he meanes to let it be consumed with eating or cut in peeces he will keepe it still in the sight of men appeare againe ascend immortall impassible entire Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem vtique integrum saith S. Augustin you will then see that he vnderstands and can effecte more then you are able to conceaue and therefore merited to be beleeued in this and that he meant not to haue his flesh consumed cut in peeces and eaten that way which you imagine Fourthlie they the Capharnaits meant that eating which the word eate doth first signifie which at the hearing of it meÌ„ commoÌ„lie do coÌ„ceaue see aboue pag. 2 3 not reflecting vpoÌ„ that peculiar notioÌ„ which our Sauiour tooke it in which notion by Philosophers had neuer beene thought vpon Featlie A man might eate flesh according to the rigour of the letter though he neither buy it in the market nor cut it Answer For buying there is no difficultie but I pray you Master Featlie was it euer heard that one man did with his mouth eate an others bodie in its owne shape and forme without cutting or tearing did the Anthropophagi swallow men whole their mouthes then were great greater theÌ„ the Capharnaites who were as other men and therefore thought not of that way but of the common Neither did they think of eating a mans bodie entire in the forme of bread that eating of mans flesh neither the Philosophers nor those who gaue the name anthropophagie to man eating nor those Iewes the Capharnaits euer had seene or could haue inuented it was the Eternall wisdome who did not reproue but ordaine it as appeares more distinctlie in the Institution of the B. Sacrament which we speake of This thing in my hand in the exteriour forme of bread is my bodie the verie same that shall be deliuered scourged nailed on a crosse wounded for you take and eate it Featlie The horrour of the sinne of anthropophagie or eating mans flesh is not in buying mans flesh nor in cutting it but in eating it with the mouth and chamming it with the teeth If wee should do so in the Sacrament wee should follow the killing letter Origen speaketh of and runne vpon the point of Saint Cyrills sharp reproof doest thou pronounce the SacrameÌ„t to be man eating and doest thou irreligiouslie vrge the minds of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations Answer Grosse and carnall eating eating peece by peece eating by the mouth a mans bodie in it's proper forme that horrible anthropophagie we detest What and how wee eate according to our Sauiours Institution you haue beene told ouer and ouer and in the former ArgumeÌ„t this matter of anthropophagie is discussed Suprà pag. 67. Reade the Notes againe they stand good Neither is any new thing heere obiected but onlie wee are told and it is forsooth a great mysterie that the sinne of Anthropophagie or eating mans flesh is not in buying nor in cutting it that is to say to buy or cut is not to eate Sure a learned obseruation Featlie I oppose against your Interpretation S. Chrysostome who saith To take Scripture according to the letter is to take it according to the sound of the words To which Doctor Smith replyed when I see the words of Chrysostome I will answer them you shall when you please quoth Master Featlie Answer Neither is heere any thing new what this word eate and eating mans flesh See pag. 301. seqq do sound in the eares of men neuer instructed in the ChristiaÌ„ schoole who knows not But why did not Doctor Featlie if he thought the words worth the reading cite the place could he not find it out in all the time betwixt the Conference and the printing of Relation which were neere twentie yeeres Featlie Now I appeale to the Eare of all that are heare present whether these wordes nisi manducaueritis carnem sound after Doctor Smiths Caperniticall straine I heare nothing but the eating of the flesh which you do as properlie as the Capernites could conceaue with the mouth and teeth Answer And I apeale to the Iudgment of all that reade this Censure or the Relation of S. E. which hath the same in substance all whether this vnanswerable Argument be not answered And whether S. Augustine whose exposition it was that by this vnanswerable Argument was impugned be not freed from that vnworthie imputatioÌ„ wherewith the PedaÌ„t chargeth the maintainer of weaknes obstinacie In the margine Featlie cites the Confession of Berengarius S. E. in his margine it being a quarrell onlie on the by cites the place where he may find my Lords Answer in his booke against a prating Minister of Raschall who take his owne wordes for I can not imitate his elegancie challenged all English Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes in the world tagge and ragge to answer his confused sillie bookes or anie piece or parcel of â—hem which bookes since you seeme not to know so much M. Waferer I now tell you were answered his Babel was surprised Bell confounded A further Answer to that marginall citation then a marginall citation S. E. did not esteeme necessarie especiallie considering that the said Confession was not obiected in the Conference Neither could it beseeme so great a ChaÌ„pion as you proclaime your Doctour to stricke wheÌ„ he was out of the feild and to your owne disaduantage you sollicite a melius inquirendum Featle pag. 296. margine For casting my eie vpon it I finde that your Doctor deales not in it fairelie He refers the words tractari frangi dentibus atteri to Corpus nakedlie putting it thus Credo corpus D. N. I. C. sensualiter in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri whereas Berengarius in his Confession doth not so the Confession which is recited heere in this margine Ego Berengarius consentio Sanctae Romanae Apostolicae Sedi orae corde profite or de Sacramentis Dominicae mense eandem fidem me tenere quam D. Ven. Papa Nicolaus haec sancta Synodus authoritate Euangelica Apostolica tenendam tradidit mihiquo firmauit scilicet panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D. N. Iesu Christi esse sensualiter non solum sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri iurans per sanctam homousion Trinitatem per haec sancta Christi Euangelia De Consecr distin 2. c. 42. hath whithin it 's owne termes an explication if wee looke well vpon it which explication that you may see the better I will first take the sense of the Confession into partes and then looke vpon the connexion or coherence of the wordes which donne the Reader may reflect againe
vpon it as it is in it self altogether The first part of the sense is this Profiteor panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse I professe that the bread and wine be after consecration not a sacrament only but also the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere is I do not say all the wordes but one part of the seÌ„ce importiÌ„g that the coÌ„secrated bread wine be a Sacrament not onlie a Sacrament but also the true bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ so that vnder the name of consecrated bread it is the like of consecrated wyne Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two thinges the visible Sacrament by which he meanes the species and the bodie which is inuisible Non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam corpus you know the force of the particles and can resolue the proposition I suppose according to the rules of Logick The like you haue in the Canon Hoc est which afterwards the Doctor obiecteth Contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N.I. C. carne Wee contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ And in ould Irenaeus Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which hath being from the earth receauing the inuocation of God being consecrated is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the eartlie the species and the heauenlie the bodie And another ould Father before cited Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape there is the species remaining but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh there is the inuisible substance the flesh or bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ If you finde in authors teritur with corpus otherwhile you finde a caution with it Sub vtraque specie sub vtriusque speciei particula singula totus est Christus Iesus sumitur residens in coelo sedens ad dextram Patris ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento deÌ„tibus teritur secundum species integer manet Manducatur non corrumpitur Immolatur non motitur Stephan Eduen lo. de Saciam Altar c. 15. vixit circa annuÌ„ 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctificantur ineffabiliter incomprehensibiliter mirabiliter operante superna potentia conuerti in essentiam Dominici Corporis reseruatis ipsatum rerum speciebus quibusdam aliis qualitatibus ne percipientes cruda cruenta horrerent vt credentes fidei proemia ampliora perciperent ipso tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immortali inuiolato integro incontaminato illaeso vt verè dici possit ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere tamen non ipsum ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proptietatem atque virtutem non ipsum si spectes panis vinique speciem caeteraque superius comprehensa Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denominatur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist Vixâ— circa annum 1059. cum Bérengario disputauit I proceede vnto The second part of the sence Profiteor panem eundem sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri I professe that the consecrated bread is sensiblie touched with the bands of Priests broken and by the faithfull chewed not in sacrament onlie but in verie deed This is the second part of I do not saie the words but the sence wherin you will haue more adoe to finde a difficultie then I shall haue to finde the solution The QuestioÌ„ is not what other men say of them but what is contained manifestlie in them which the wordes if they be supposed to stand thus offer of themselues That the Preist doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand and his mouth and his tongue euerie one knowes and our Sauiours bodie being therein reallie in rei veritate not in signo tantuÌ„ he doth also touch it more then the woman touched it who toucht immediatlie but his garment yet you can not denie but that indeede and trulie she did touch it Some denied then that any had donne it and our Sauiour himself confuted them and affirmed and proued it The historie is in the Ghospell A woman that had a bloodie flux came behinde our Sauiour and touched his garment the border of it he demaunded who it was that had touched him they denied that anie had done it Negantibus omnibus c. he stood in it still that it was so And a woman came behind him and touched the border of his garment and immediatly her isâ—ue of blood stanched And Iesus 〈◊〉 who touched me When all denied Peter and they that were with him said Master the multitude throng thee And Iesus said somebodie hath touched me for I perceaue that vertue is gonne out of me And when the woman sawe that the was not hid she came trembling and falling downe before him she declared vnto him before all the people for what cause 〈◊〉 had touched him Luc 8. tetigit me aliquis and proued it nam ego noui virtutem de me exijsse where vpon the woman fell vpon her knees at his feete and confest it It is not necessarie when wee saie wee touch or see a thing that euerie thing in it euerie essentiall part be according to it self an obiect of the sense or that the sense perceaue euerie part of it that is sensible He who lookes you in the face saith he sees you though the rest of your bodie be within your cloathes and if you being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cataphract in your protestantish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should for feare pull downe your beuer before you come into the list your Aduersarie for all that might light vpon your vnlesse you bring with you Giges his ring so to make your self inuisible as other of your Champions it seemes did manie hundred yeares together for none of them appeared vnles it were to Swinglius one Ater an albus he knew not and an other to Luther With a great voice I see a man yet my eie doth not discerne the substance of his soule or his matter or his sauour and by touching him I doe not feele his colour or discerne his forme from his matter Wee should end manie controuersies in Philosophie soone if soules could be seene
with eies and matter touched There is a distinction amongst the Peripatetiks of perse and per accidens appliable to many thinges and per accidens is said manie waies M. Mirth which had you learned you might haue beene a better Scholler then many be and more worthie of your cap. You haue heard the sence of Berengarius I come now to looke vpon the coherence of his wordes which one cannot mistake in as far it appartaines to the former part Consentio autem S. R. Ap. Sedi ore corde profite or c. scilicet panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D. N. I. C. esse The sumne whereof is this Profiteor panem vinum post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum esse sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem The later part is this sensualiter non solum sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri where though he do not repeate the word panem yet the construction of the sentence doth inforce the repetition of it Profiteor panem esse corpus manibus sacerdotum tractari what the same panem This is the natiue construction of the wordes The coniunction doth but couple diuers attributes est corpus tangitur atteritur leauing the subiect still vnchanged as if I should say Petrus est substantia currit discurrit Substantia and currens and discurrens were attributes and Petrus the subiectum to them all If anie should demaund how corpus and Sacramentum both can be predicated vpon this subiect panis I desire him first of all to looke againe vpon the former part and he shall see directlie without all controuersie that it is so Profite or panem vinum post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem esse Supra pag. 239 there both are affirmed and the like is in the Canon Hoc est before also cited whereunto may be added the wordes of S. Ireneus And the thing is easilie conceaued for the Consecrated heauenlie bread the Eucharist the Blessed Sacrament hath the exteriour forme of bread it is a Sacrament and within that forme or exteriour signe it hath the bodie of our Sauiour it containes or concludes both vnder the name Berengarius Qui dicit panis vinum altatis solummodo sunt Sacramenta vel panis vinum altaris solummodo sunt verum corpus Christi sanguis modis omnibus panem vinum superesse constituit â—anfrancus Nihil horum Romana Synodus or dendum esse decreuit nec Humbertus Episcopus ad confitendum vel iurandum horum tibi aliquid tradidit Prior quidem sententia per quam dicitur panis vinum altaris solummodo Sacramenta sunt tua est tuorumque sequacium Posterior verò quae enunciat panis vinum altatis solummodo sunt verum Christi corpus sanguis nullius hominum est Nam tu veritatem carnis sanguinis negas Ecclesia Christi sic panem in carnem vinum credâ—t conuerti in sanguinem vt tamen salubriter credat veraciter recognoscat Sacramentum esse Dominicae passionis diuinae propitiationis concordiae vnitatis postremò assumptae de Virgine carnis sanguinis singula suis distinctisque modis Lanfrancus lib. de Sacrament Altaris aduersus Berentium wherefore both together may well be affirmed on it And if Berengarius had affirmed the one onelie abstracting from but not denying the other abstrahâ—ntium non est mendacium as when I say the Heauenlie bread is the bodie of our Sauiour Panis consecratus est corpus Christi and stop there it had beene easie in this case also to giue the true sense for sometimes the word panis and Sacramentum and Eucharistia supponunt pro corpore connotande speciâ—s as Deuines well remember To saâ—e nothing of that figuratiue kind of speach wherein the part is elegantlie taken for the whole I presume you know the distinctioÌ„ betwixt suppositio and significatio or the whole for the part which figure if wee should vse in speaking of this mysterie as S. Iohn did in speaking of the Incarnation Verbum caro factum est wee should not exclude but include and confirme the reall presence as he doth the Incarnation in the wordes but now cited Neither be wee so scrupulous as neuer to vse a figure in this matter of the blessed SacrameÌ„t though none without contradicting God him self can auouch in it or in the wordes of Institution a meere figure But to returne againe to the Profession you may perceaue now if you will but set aside your humor of partialitie and iudge according to the plaine sense and construction which the words offer that what some other suppose a Schoole-man might haue expressed in a larger discourse saying for example that the bodie not according to it 's owne forme and nature but according to the Sacramentall species and figure wherein it is is touched with hands and teeth euen that Berengarius in fewer wordes doth professe in saying the consecrated bread is touched with hands and teeth making the subiect of his speach bread which word bread he had immediatlie before professed to signifie both the species or Sacrament and the bodie and therefore chooseth rather the same word be resumed againe when he speaketh of touching then to put corpus in place of it least the Reader by that occasion considering the thing signified by it apart not as in that Sacramentall forme might mistake him Which now if he attend to his wordes and their construction and coherence he cannot do being not able to finde whereunto tractari and atteri be related or what is in the speach the subiect of touching or chewing till he comes to panem in the beginning where he findes withall that it signifies both corpus and the species together And did panis which is to be resumed in the second part as I haue shewed stand there in that second part for corpus connotando species or by a Synecdoche stand it self signifying the Whole for a part yet still the same warines doth appeare in that tangi and atteri were not attributed to the bodie but as signified by a name bringing the species withall into the hearers mind by a name signifying the whole and not standing for a part but as it is within the whole The honour of which prudent circumspection is not indeed due to Berengarius but to those who conceaued drew the forme Consider now the speaches Master Waferer and see how they differ that which Featlie puts in his margine as Berengarius wordes Credo orpus Domini c. manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri and Berengarius his owne wordes as they are to be ordered according to the right Syntaxis Profiteor de Sacramentis Panem he
delicta ante exomologesin factam criminis mark this by the waye for Confession ante purgatam conscientiam haue pressed in amongst communicantes to receaue and thereby offerd violence as he spekes to the bodie and blood of Iesus-Christ But wee need not goe so far to fetch examples the example of him wee were but now speaking of Iudas being notorious and most fearfull He had receaued vnworthilie and quicklie after his crime being enormous the Diuine Iustice permitted the Deuil to take possession of him and to vse him in the betraying of the sonne of God and after in the vtter vndoing of him self Our blessed Sauiour knowing this did signifie it in the reaching of a peece of bread Ioan. 13. Luc. 22. Cum intinxisset panem dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae Et post buxellam introiuit in eum Satanas When he had dipped in the bread he gaue it to Iudas Iscariotes the sonne of Simon and after the sop Satan entred into him After which exiuit continuo he presentlie went out about the treason this was panis Domini quem manducabat contra Dominum the poena the execution of the Diuine Iustice did accompanie it he had before made himself liable hereunto but heere beganne the manifest execution and by a new act of ingratitude in resoluing to betraie his Lord and Master who had admitted him to his table and with his owne hand reached him bread he merited so we sometimes vse the word that the execution should beginne at this instant or moment Which ingratitude was so great that God in the Prophet at the forsight of it could not as it were forbeare to complaine long before Psal 40. August tract 59. in Ioan. qui edebat panes meos Saint Augustine reades in the place obiected panem meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magnificauit super me supplantationem mine owne familiar freind in whom I trusted he that did eate of my bread hath greatlie troden me vnder foote And this buccella this panis Domini was not the Sacrament according to S. Augustine Non vt putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit intelligendum est enim quodiam omnibus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis sui See S August tract 62. in Ioan. vbi ipse Iudas erat S. Tho. 3 p. q. 81 art 2 Card. Peron Passag S. Aug. pag. 226 S. Aug tract 62 in Ioan. Quid autem erat panis traditori datus nisi demonstracio cui gratiae fuisset ingratus Intrauit autem Satanas post hunc panem in Domini traditorem vt sibi iam plenius possideret in quem prius intrauerat vt deciperet S. Augu. Ibidem sicut Sanctus Lucas euidentissime narrat Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est vbi secundum narrationem Ioannis apertissimè Dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit traditorem Iudas did not then receaue the bodie of our Lord as some who read negligentlie do think for wee must vnderstand that our Lord had alreadie giuen the Sacrament of his bodie and blood to them all where Iudas also was as Saint Luke most plainelie relateth and then afterwards this hapned where according to the relation of Saint Iohn our Lord by the morsell dipped and giuen did manifestlie designe the partie that would betraie him So he in his CoÌ„mentarie vpon S. Iohn where he hath more to this purpose By this heere cited it is cleere what he meant by panis Domini he is his owne interpreter What he meant by panis Dominus and Mediator Dei hominum you know too not bread not a meere signe or figure not the Sacramentall element as you speake with a reference to the bodie or grace that is not panis Dominus bread the Lord it is not Mediator Dei hominum the Mediator of God and men Who then it followes Homo Christus Iesus Vide suprà in Praefat. pag ... See againe the words of S. Chrysostome pag. 349 S. Cyrill pag. 350. and Origen pag. 65. I will not heere dispute what the more learned of your men Bilson Hooker Andrewes c. some of them be cited by Montague in his Appeale c. 30 â—old in this point whereon depend others of great waight Either they take the words Hoc est corpus meum in their a. If they do not the proposition is with theÌ„ meerelie figuratiue Feat Pag 294 VVafer pag. 35. vido sup pag. 159. as it is wâ—th others pag. 163. natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or they do not If they do not the difference is in obiecte since wee do As betwixt vs and Arians about these Words Ego Pater vnum sumus there is difference in obiecto If they take them in their natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are consequentlie to admit your b Morâ—oÌ„â—â—â—ed aboue pag 293. Patron tells you the consequeÌ„ces which you Puritans denie amongst which consequences you may finde the modus Nobis vobiscum de obiecto conuenit saith Andrewes to Bellarmine Per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant c. Tertull. aduers Valentin Citatur inferius in solutione Arg. quinti. Do Consilium vt apertè fidem Ecclesiae praedices aut loquaris vt credis Dispensatio etenim ac libratio ista prudens verborum indoctos decipere potest Cautus auditor lector citò deprehendet insidias cuniculos quibus veritas subuertitur apertè in luce demonstrabit Et Ariani quos optimé nosti multò tempore propter scandalum nominis homousion se damnare simulabant venenaque erroris circumliniebant melle verborum Sed tandem coluber se tortuosus aperuit noxium caput quod spiris totius corporis tegebatur spirituali mucrone confossum est S. Hieron Aduerr Ioan Hierosol Ep. ad Pammach Quod si quando vrgeri coeperint aut subscribendum eis fuerit aut exeundum de Ecclesia miras strophas videas Sic verba temperant sic ordinem vertunt ambigua quaeque concinnant vt nostram aduersariorum confessionem teneant vt aliter haereticus aliter catholicus audiat quasi non eodem spiritu Apollo Delphicus atque Loxias oracula fuderit Craeso Pyrrho diuersis temporibus sed pari illudens stropha Exempli causa pauca subijciam Credimus inquiunt resurrectionem futuram corporum Hoc si bené dicatur pura confessio est Sed quia corpora sunt coelestia terrestria aër iste aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur corpus ponunt non carnem vt orthodoxus corpus audiens carnem putet haereticus spiritum recognoscat Haec est eorum prima decipula quae si deprehensa fuerit instruunt alios dolos â—nnocentiam simulant maliciosos nos vocant quasi simpliciter credentes aiunt Credimus resurrectionem carnis Hoc veró cùm dixerint vulgus indoctum putat sibi sufficere maximé
substantiall indiuidualitie of the bodie for the bodie was before and will be the same after when they be not at all how then could it be concluded that two of them be two substantiall indiuidualities they neither are substantiall indiuidualities which is as easie to be proued as it is easie to proue that your vbication in this place where you are which you may be without when you will is not that whereby you are substantiallie distinct from other mē nor out of their pluralitie doth there ensue a pluralitie in the bodie their subiect for accidēts take not away their proper subiect so to be without any but are in it and these presences which we speake of are accidents not of a bodie in common what euer bodie but of this indiuiduall bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ Featlie pag. 140 This way failing your Doctor he takes another to proue against Master Wood a substantiall dualitie in the bodie out of the motion of it for if the same bodie be vnder two seuerall dimensions it might be he thinks the terminus à quo and the terminus ad quem of the same direct motion be moued from it self which is saith he a contradiction But neither can he bring about his intent this waie That which is the subiect of locall motion or the thing which properlie is moued when the Priest for example takes an hoaste out of the pixe are the dimēsions of bread which dimensions haue localitie or situall extension and are in loco in a place whose definition you heard before out of the Philosopher the terminus à quo of which motion is not our Sauiours bodie but the pixe where it was and the terminus ad quem is the communicants mouth wherein he puts it Our Sauiours bodie which is in those dimensions is not in loco per se but per accidens that is to saie though that accident place which is terminus continentis c. doth not affect in in it self yet is it in the dimensions of bread which dimensions are so affected And as it is per accidens in loco so is it locallie moued per accidens not per se The Sacrament is not locus the place of the bodie properly speaking neither is it the bodie commensurated to the place of the species The bodie is not there after the manner of a bodie extended situallie but rather according to the manner of a Spirit though not altogether that way neither but another more vndetermined and supernaturall way whereof the Philosopher wanting faith had no knowledge The Soule Aristotle saith is in loco per accidens 4. Phys t. 45. and his Commentator there Anima est in loco quia sublectum eius quod est corpus est in loco And the Soule is moued per accidens because the bodie or the part wherein it is vnited is moued this motion being nothing els but a successiue comparison to place Motis nobis necessarium est quae in nobis sunt omnia simul moueri saies Aristotle 2. Topic. loco 24. and 4. Phys t. 31. Motum autem aliud mouetur per se aliud mouetur per accidens illud quod mouetur per accidens aliud est quod potest moueri per se verbi gratia membra hominis clauus in naui aliud non potest sed semper mouetur per accidēs verbi gratia albedo cognitio ista enim non mutant sua loca nisi quia illa in quibus sunt transferuntur The connexion or vnion of the Soule vnto the bodie disposed wee know by nature and by reason of this connexion it comes to passe that mouing the bodie vnto a place the soule consequentlie is also there The connexiō of the bodie of our Sauiour with the species is reuealed and made by the forme of consecration which is practicall This in the shape of bread is my bodie And the Councels acknowledge it when they say it is contained in the species sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continetur Conc. Later sub Innocent 3 c. firmiter §. vna est Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 1. 3 so the Lateran Councell and the Councell of Trent in the same tenour In sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento continetur verè realiter substantialiter corpus c. and sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus separatione facta totus Christus continetur So that a double relation is vnderstood there one of the bodie to the species another of the species to the bodie which remaine so that no force in nature can dissolue or separate them whilst the species remaine vncorrupted and this by vertue and power of consecration and of the diuine omnipotence This for the an est of this vnion or connexion the modus of it in particular sainct Thomas saith is ineffabilis It sufficeth to know there is such a connexion by which it comes to passe that mouing the species to a place the bodie of our Sauiour is also there for the species and the bodie cannot be separated or diuorced And as it is there in place in the sence aboue specified namelie per accidens so is it moued per accidens It is further to be noted that when a thing one in it self is multiplex secundum esse I take the word heere in a great latitude it may be moued and not moued secundum diuersa The Sonne of God our blessed Sauiour who is in himself one vnum Ens was moued according to his humane forme Vado ad Patrem quia Pater maior me est Ioa. 14. and according to his diuine forme he was immoueable Your soule which is but one may be moued in your arme and vnmoued in your breast and your bodie may be moued according to one accidentall forme as qualitie though it be not at the same time moued according to another VVere this in English he that is no Scholler could not vnderstand it suppose quantitie Cum aliquid est vnum subiecto saith our Doctour S. Thomas multiplex secundum esse nihil prohibet secundum aliquid moueri secundum aliquid immobile permanere sicut corpori est aliud esse album aliud esse magnum vnde potest moueri secundum albedinem permanere immobile secundum magnitudinem 3. p. qu. 76. a. 6. And in the same place answering an Obiection which was made to proue that our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament mobiliter quia nobis motis mouentur ea omnia quae sunt in nobis as before was said out of Aristotle he answers Dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de motu per accidens quo ad motum nostri mouentur ea quae in nobis sunt aliter tamen ea quae per se possunt esse in loco sicut corpora aliter ea quae per se non possunt esse in loco sicut formae spirituales substantiae Ad quem modum potest reduci quod dicimus Christum
Catholikes that neuer sawe Master of Art in his habit It is onli◠Christs bodie in the Eucharist as it is crucified in the Eucharist But it is onlie sacramentallie meaning in a signe crucified in the Eucharist Ergo it is onlie sacramentallie meaning a signe in the Eucharist For the Solution whereof if you demaund of anie Catholicke i◠our Sauiours bodie crucified in the Eucharist he tels you No. demaund againe is it there indeed reallie he Answers yes so I haue beene taught and I beleeue it And heereby Master Waferer though he knowes not the termes of Art He denies that which is your Maior A Scholler will tell you further of another sence of the word shed whē it is attributed to the Sacramentall cup and of the word broken when it is attributed to the bodie which you did not reflect vpon when you made your Argument The bodie blood of our Sauiour the lambe sacrificed for the world are heere in the species of things inanimate which existence by reason of the exteriour formes giues occasion when wee speake of the sacred actions that are exercised towards or about them to vse that kind of speach which was proper to sacrifices of that kind whereof some were solid and drie others liquid among the solid was bread which was broken to signifie the soueraigne dominion of Almightie God Leuit. 2. among the liquid was wine which to the same end was powred out vpon the Altar hence those words powred out or shed and broken are vsed to signifie the action of sacrifycing when the things offered or sacrificed be in formes inanimate of bread or wine and euen by our Sauiour himself This is my bodie which is broken for you 1 Cor. 11. this is my blood of the new testament which is powred out or shed for many Matt. 26. This breaking for and shedding for is vnbloodie sacrifycing Which Caluin espied also and confessed when he expounded the breaking in S. Paul Calu in Epi pri Cor. panis quem frangimus frangi saies he interpretor immolari But the Apologist obiectes againe out of the word shed Howeuer it be shed saith he it moueth being powred out if it moue it is in a place if in a place then either circumscriptiuelie or definitiuelie Heere it appeares that as before I noted he speakes of shedding according to the ordinarie common acception of the word without reflecting on the other acception according to which neither this nor the former Obiectiō hath any kind of apparēce For a thing may by consecration be put vpō the Altar in the forme of wine without any locall motion of it And this presenting of it on the altar by turning not it into an other thing but wine into it donne to signifie the soueraigne dominion of allmightie God is one part of the sacrification which wee call vnbloody the other part is the putting of the bodie on the altar by consecratiō in the shape of bread and both these make one representation of the bloodie sacrifice and oblation on the Crosse But you are not yet accustomed to consider how words are extended by reason of analogie in the matters to an equiuocall kind of signification whereof in the mysteries of Christianitie yea and in other matters too there are frequent examples wherefore I come neerer to your conceptiō and in answer to your doubt tell you first that as a thing may be in place either per se or per accidens so may it be said locallie to be moued either per se or per accidens your soule in your hand and the blood of our Sauiour heere Supra pag. 471 seqq are in loco per accidens I told you before more of this Secōdlie those two modi which you speake of do not sufficientlie distinguish or expound that which wee call being in a place God is in the world yet neither of these two waies and our Sauiours bodie in the Sacrament though not either of these wayes which you speake of The veritie of Gods word doth inforce a presence distinct from both those and to suppose there is none distinct is in you that are Christned an hereticall begging of the Question Insteed of a third replie you demaund whether wee beleeue that thing in the Sacrament which you describe by transubstantiated bread wine to be the price of our Redemption I answer that I beleeue Iesus Christ who told vs that that thing in his hands in the forme of bread was his bodie deliuered for our sinnes and that thing in the chalice his blood shed for vs. This Master Waferer though you shrink and crie Alas fond faith is part of my Creede That our Sauiour was borne of the Virgine Marie is most certaine I beleeue it And I beleeue him haue I not cause that was so borne I willinglie ioyne with Antiquitie with the Catholike and vniuersall Church of this Prince of peace this Emmanuel this Virgins-Sonne this Heire apparent of all that God hath Ioan. 16. who trulie said Omnia quaecunque habet Pater mea sunt euen his Diuinitie his knowledge his omnipotēcie wherby He Iesus he was able to make good his promise the bread which I will giue is my flesh to verifie what he did affirme this in forme of bread is my bodie Whilst you censured this faith as fond did not your conscience trouble you Master Waferer and whē you named the price of our redemption in the cup did not your memorie suggest vnto you those words of S. Augustine before discussed where he said that Iudas the traitour and a Deuill drank it Iudas that tooke it not by the waie or meanes of faith but onlie with his mouth yet he tooke it he tooke that himself an infidell quod fideles cognouerunt precium nostrum That precium was not in the cup before consecration S. Ambr. lib. 5. de Sacr. c 5. but after it was there Heare another as ancient and his Catechist when he came into the Church Ante verba Christi calix est vini aquae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Before the words of Christ the Chalice is full of wine and water but when the words of Christ haue wrought there in the Chalice is made the blood which redeemed the people Apol. pag. 89 So he But Master Waferer wiser then he Alas fond faith if so you beleeue Lord help your vnbeleefe This is all the little he had in this matter to replie he had wearied himself it seemes in the former Section his string was broken too he could not shoote rouing bolts as before he did and therefore is now contented to lie downe Will you see how he lies hauing nothing els to do till he goes into the next Section I will loose a little time in counting how manie lies I finde heere in one page the first of this Section taking in that the sence be cōpleate
two lines out of the former almost two lines of the later least I be forced abruptlie to break him of I beginne as he doth with the Synopsis of the matter Apologist This Section refutes their construction of those words The cup is the new testament in my blood Censure One Apologist Shewes that there is no substantiall change wrought by them Censure Two Apologist That there is not identitie materiall he meanes in them vzt of the blood and the thing whereinto the wine is changed Censure Three So farre the Synopsis Now the Discourse Apologist By vertue of the words This is my blood of the new Testament This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood He who will first conclude a substantiall change and then consequentlie He will presume identitie in them but both vntrulie Censure Four And yet there is fauour too For first in the text out oâ— which S. E. if you meane him defends and auouches the Reall presence of the blood there is more then you cite he insisteth on words by you omitted Your Doctour had obiected that no substaÌ„tiall part of any testatour could be properlie his testameÌ„t in that seÌ„ce wherein my Lord heer tooke the words S. E. answers that this assertion of you Doctour is contrarie to the Gospell which importes as much as this This drink in forme of wine is my testament which drinke is shed for you hence he doth auouch If shed for vs it was blood blood a testament and blood is â— part The text he cites is in Saint Luke whither he refers you to reade the wordes of our Sauiour which be theâ— This the Chalice the new testament in my blood which it shed for manie vnto remission of sinnes Secondlie in that you he the chang of wine into blood the identitie of blood with the thing â—nto which wine is changed be not â—â—ulie auouched out of the text you â—peak at one time two vntruthes Apologist I will distinctlie giue answere to this confused Section Censure Let this passe without a Note though the Discourse in the â—ection as he cals it be distinct and â—leere not confused and this Apologist so farre froÌ„ giuing a distinct answer that he doth not answer Apologist Doctor Smith and his Second admit what vpon further try all they denie a figure in those wordes of the â—up Censure Fiue Apologist Aske them how they vnderstand these words this cup is the new testament and they replie properlie enough What then is the new Testament it cannot be denied but that it is the last and eternall will of Christ the testatour c. now how a cup which is no other theâ— the work of an artificer can be saiâ— properlie to be this let who will iudge Censure Six They do not saie that the artificiall cup is either the interiour will or the authentick signe of it as he who will iudge may see pag. 100. seqq Apologist But they proceede to affirme it the cup which is no other then the worke of an artificer properlie to be called a Testament because saie they it is an authenticall signe of his will Censure Seauen Iudge now Courteous Reader whether this be a man to write books anâ— teach Diuinitie I will not saie he is either witles or willfullie malicious tâ— vent such things in print the bookâ— being yet extant which he doth thuâ— impugne but the learnedst freind hâ— hath will as easilie maintaine thaâ— black is white as defend his innocencie vnles for I will not think him to be as he termes S. E. cup-hardie as he was an infant by his Relation at the time of the Conference so yet he bee indeed an Innocent I haue gonne ouer but six and thirtie lines all lying together or lying alltogether and allreadie repent me of the losse not of my labour for without labour I found what I lookt for but of time Should a man runne ouer all your booke in this manner Master Waferer he would finde this nastie Centon made to couer your needie cause as full of lyes as a slouenlie beggars breech is full of though you pretend to be a sworne enimie to that vice and so farre that because equiuocation doth seeme to resemble it soÌ„what you bitterlie declaime against equiuocation too and challenge more credit to your bare affirmation theÌ„â— Catholike is able to deserue sending vs this insinuation publikelie by the print Let me tell you a Protestant hath more reason to be beleeued on his bare word VVafer pag. 97. then a Papist because the Protestants religion ties him to speake the truth from his heart without any mentall reseruation but the Papists doctrine teacheth him a pretie kind of deceipt called equiuocation and will not stick to license the loudest lie so it be aduantagiouâ— to the cause of Rome And he too Saint Ierome saies to me seemes an Hypocrite who saith vnto his brother staie let me take a motâ— out of thine eie Our Sauiour himselâ— stiles him so Hypocrite first cast thâ— beame out of thine owne You tell thâ— Church of Rome there is in heâ— doctrine a prettie kind of deceit called equiuocation which you arâ— offering nicelie to take out anâ— cannot see the monstrous lies thaâ— lie in your owne booke to whicâ— for they come out of your moutâ— vpon the paper as thick as waspâ— out of a nest whilst you are speâ—king of a prettie deceit which yoâ— your self impose you adde an other in your book that the Papists doctrine will not stick to licence the loudest lie But who licencied your Book Master Waferer whose approbat had you to it I should haâ—e thought none but the Father â—ies would haue liked it it is â—o enormouslie peccant against faith and good manners so full of â—ies in matters of both kinds had I not heard six monthes â—nd more before the printer maâ—e it a coate where the babe was â—t nurse with other circumstances which are knowne to Mistrisse Featâ—ie The seuenth Argument was taken out of that place of S. Mathew where the cup our Sauiour drank of is called the fruit of the vine It was answered that there were two cups the Legall and the Sacramentall and that those wordes as appeares by by the relation of Saint Luke were meant of the Legall cup though it had beene easie to answer the Argument had theâ— beene vnderstood of the Sacrâ—mentall M. Featlie would haue the word spoken of the sacramentall cup a. These words in S. Matt. This fruite of the vine must haue relation 〈◊〉 the Cup of which S. Matt. spake before But S. Matt spake of no Cup before but the cup of the new Testament therefore c. Featlie Relat. pag 302. oâ—lie of no other cup then that of the new Testament And he had his Answer Now Waferer seeing it proued in the Relation that they were spokeÌ„ of the Legall cup and Featlies Arguments being impertinent vnles they be spoken of the Sacramentall saies that Christ spake them vndoubtedlie of
the men wee looke for Where is the Catalogue of Protestantish Churches in all former Ages You tell vs of Christians in Europe in Affricke in Asia and in America the new world This wee knew before The Quaere was of yours where were they To say that these some haue deposed their Errours doth not answer the demaund but shewes it is not answered For the thing lookt after is a Catalogue of such Churches as you will iustifie and which the Fathers would haue allowed as Orthodox of Hereticall Churches euerie one can easilie make a Catalogue there be many i. By S. Aug. S. Epiphan Pratel Gualter c Catalogues allreadie made whereas if you confesse that these Churches haue deposed their errour errours oecumenicallie condemned you confesse withall a thing otherwise k. By the Authors aboue cited it is manifest The Nestorians held against the Councell of Ephesus and refused it And the Iacobites Armenians Abassins and Aegyptians all spotted with Eutichianisme refused that of Chalcedon euident that once they did maintaine them and if so then by the iudgment of the l. Euticheans and Nestorians were condemned by the Catholike and Vniuersall Church whole Christian world the men were not Orthodox Howbeit had they become sound and Orthodox it followes not that they would haue subscribed to your Articles or were Protestant yea the contrarie would follow They haue beene indeed m. Iacobites Nestorians Abassins Russits Greeks and Armenians haue made ouertures of returning into Communion with the See of Rome The particulars are in Miraeus lib 1. c 18. returning to the bodie from which they separated themselues the Catholike and Vniuersall Church and were againe n. The Graecians Armenians and Indians were vnited to the Church in the Councell of Florence Acta Conc. Flor. in Decret Eug. Platina Chalcondas Aemilius Vnder the name of Indians are the Abassins and Aegyptians Prat. Gord. Vide Sand. Monarc an 1432. pag 556. vnited some of theÌ„ which doth likewise hinder their standing in your Catalogue But you cannot possiblie finde them in a state wherein write them yours much lesse can you truely say they professed your Religion that which is now currant in England many o. The demaund is of Protestants in all ages men whole Churches or one Church and you must not forge your Euidence hundred yeeres together How many and which do still persist in their ould Heresie or Schisme there is no neede to looke since the men were not Protestant The fewer the better no doubt for you know that p. Galat. 5. Schismatickes and q. Tit. 3. Hereretickes how r. Matth. 20. great so euer the multitudes of them be be not saued Å¿. S. Aug. Epist 152. hoc solo scelere Whosoeuer is deuided from the Catholicke Church how laudablie soeuer he seeme to liue for this onlie crime that he is separated from the vnitie of Christ he shall be excluded from life and the wrath of God shall remaine vppon him M. Waferer where are you mille â—ui Siculis errant in montibus you think I fell into this discourse for want of a particular answer to that you said in your Doctors commendation Repeate it if you please againe and I will discharge the debt Apologist What this booke speakes of Doctor Featlie who will regard since it contrarilie appeares to the world and and can yet be iustified to the doubtfull by witnesses now liuing that he often discouered your Fishers hookes and tooke him with his owne angle he hath euer beene Musket proof he allwaies put Sweetes mouth out of relish Eglestons simples could not work with him Censure Heere you serue in fantasticallie after your manner the Catalogue of Protestants no but of your Doctors Conferences And the first not in time but in the booke is that with the 2. Fathers of the Societie His Cause which was and but of late engendred ex putri materia comming to molest and infect the world out of the nastie sinke of damned Errours and pretending to great Antiquitie with good and honourable descent was called vpon to giue account thereof and of such as had knowne and entertained it formerlie in all ages thorough which it saies it came At the sight of which QuestioÌ„ after many shifts and much wriggling it became speachles and out of weaknes falling to the ground was giuing vp the foule ghost When lo the Doctour to restore and relieue it bestirs himself and puts out the Relation which you point at and after it Additions and Aremonstrance and A Discussion A defence An Answer A Replie Another Replie c. So many that the volume by the continuall agitation of his sting his stile I should saie grew to be as bigge as pestilent Magnum de modico malum scorpium terra suppurat tot venena quot ingenia tot pernicies quot species Nicander scribit pingit tamen vnus omnium violentiae gestus de cauda nocere quae cauda erit quodcunque de posthumo corporis propagatur verberat The name of this b. is in the forhead in red and black characters The Romish Fisher caught and held in his owne Net But laqueus contritus est The a. This is your booke Sâ—â—tes illa nodorum veâ—â—nata intrinietus venula subtilis arâ—uato impetu insurgeÌ„s hamatilo spiculum inâ—â—mmo tormenti ratione restrangeÌ„s booke Master Waferer though M. Fishers Question be not was b A Replie to D. white and D. Featlie anno 1625. answered I adde that it hath beene proued by the confession of the learnedest of of Protestants and such as haue laboured to finde out Protestant predepecessors that before Luther there were c. De authore Essentia Protestanticae Ecclesiae Religionis Auth. R.S. Parisiis anno 1619. none So hard a thing it was for your Doctour though he set a face on it and promised a buttery d. Featlie in the Conference pag 14. booke of names to shew the Catalogue And in the comparison of your doctrine to the Scripture it hath appeared that you e. The Conference of the Catholike and Protestant Doctrine with the expresse words of holie Scripture by R. S.D D. and extant now in English See al o the Anchor oâ— Christian faith by D. VVorthinghton contradict it directlie in many places in so much that you refuse to stand vnto the natiue and f. Suprà pag. 293 proper sence of Gods words So easie had it beene for M. Fisher had he beene willing to diuert from the Question proposed in writing to haue answered the Doctors g. I charg you as you will answer it before Chrisâ— answeâ— now VVhether you beleeue that Christ his Apostles tâ—ught our faith or yours Featlie Relatâ— pag. 29. coniuration The next of those you point at is the Conference with M. Musket whereof wee spake pag. 376. seqq looke there The third is his Conference in writing that it is I suppose you