The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Text 2

The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome · Text 2

p. 287THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION betweene M. Dan. Featly, Opponent, and D. Smith the younger, Respondent (now by the Pope intituled Bish. of Chalcedon, and Ordinary of all England) at Paris. Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo, touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament.

The Lawes of the Disputation.

1. That they should dispute calmely and peaceably.

2. That all impertinent discourses should be auoided.

3. That M. Featly at this time should onelyonly oppose, and D. Smith onelyonly answer.

THese Conditions agreed vponupon, it was thought fit both should set downe the state of the Question, and the points of difference between them: which D. Smith being Respondent, first vndertooke, distinguishing betweene the questions p. 288of Reall presence and of Transubstantion, and determining the point in question to bee this. Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine?

Which being done, hee entred into a large discourse, to set downe the proofes and confirmations of the affirmatiue, vsed by their Church:

Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law: and so, after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time, when the hearers should thinke good, D. Smith surceased.

And M. Featly explained the termes of the Question as followeth.

There are two termes, (said hee) in the question, Presence, and Reall: I distinguish of both.

First, The Scripture speaketh of a fourefold Fouresold presence; 1. diuine; 2. spirituall; 3. sacramentall; 4. corporall. Ephes. 3. 17.Eph 3:17presence of Christ, first, Diuine, according to which, he is present in all places. The second, Spirituall, according to which hee is said after a speciall manner to dwell in the faithfull. The third, Sacramentall, according to which, he is vnited to the Sacrament both mystically and effectually. For the Sacrament doth not onelyonly represent him, and his death to the eye of our body, but also truly present, and offer him, and all the benefits of his Passion to our soules. It doth not onelyonly signifie, but also by vertue of Christs promise, truly, and effectually exhibit p. 289Grace: The fourth, is carnall and corporall, of which those words are meant, aaVerbum care factum est, & babitauit in nobis.The Word was madeflesh, and dwelt among vsus.

Secondly, In like manner the word Reall is diuersly taken; 1. Sometime as it is opposed to that, which is fayned, and imaginary. Secondly, as it is opposed to that, which is meerely figuratiue, and barely representatiue. Thirdly, as it is opposed to that which is spirituall, and immateriall; in which sense, Reall, Materiall, and Corporall are co-incident.

We beleeue, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, Stat. Quaest.and that Really, in the two former significations of Reall, and the three first acceptions of Presence: we deny it in the last of both. In summe, Christ is there many wayes Really, not Corporally; that is, not according to the substance of his naturall body, shrouded vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine; which he thus prooued.

That doctrin which hath no foundation in the The maine Argument.Word of God, and is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church, and ouerthroweth the principles of right reason, implying palpable absurdities, and apparent contradictions, is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall:

But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is such:

Ergo, it is to be disclaimed.

D. Smith here denyed the minor.

Which Mast. Featly vndertooke to proue according to all the parts: but the time permitted p. 290to prosecute onelyonly the proofe of the first: which was, That the Papists hauehave no ground in Scripture for their Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament. And thus he proceeded.

First, if there be any ground in Scripture for this your opinion, certainely it is either in the words bbHoc est corpus meu….This is my body; or in those, the 6. of Ioh. 53. ccNisi carnem meam comederitis, &c.Vnlesse you eate my flesh, &c. vponupon which all Papish build their beliefe in this point.

But neither the one, nor the other are any sure ground for it:

Ergo, You hauehave none.

D. Smith in this Syllogisme, as in the former, denyed the assumption.

Which was thus confirmed.

If the words of the Institution, Hoc est, &c. and the other Iohn 6. are to be taken figuratiuely, and not in the proper sense: out of all question, they make nothing for the bodily presence, or carnall eating of Christ with the mouth.

But the words aboue alleadged in both places are to bee construed figuratiuely, and not properly according to the rigour of the letter; which I proue (saith he) by vncontrollable testimonies of Fathers, and euident arguments drawne from the circumstances of those texts.

And first he alledged a place of Tertullian, li. 4. cont. Marcionem cap. 40. ddAcceptum panem, & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illud fecit, Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est figura …orporis mei.The bread taken, and distributed vntounto his disciples, he made the same bis body, saying, this is my body, that is, a figure of my body; adding p. 291withal, that if D. Smith, or any other could being a more pregnant place for the figuratiue exposition out of any Protestant, hee would yeeld him the better.

D. Smith could bring none, but made this answer; eeEx Autographo. Verbailla Tertulliani sic sunt intelligenda: vt verba illa, id est (figur… corporis mei) reserenda sint ad illud vocabulum, Hoc, quod est subiectum propositionis Christi, & illud explanent: vt sensꝰ Tertulliani sit: Hoc, id est, figura corporis mei, est corpus meum.Those words of Tert. are so to be vnderstood, that the words (a figure of my body) are to be referred to the word (this) which is the subiect of Christs proposition, and doe explaine it so: that the meaning of Tertullian is: This that is a figure of my body, is my body; or: as he afterwards mended it, ffId quod erat vctus figura, est corpus meum.that which was of old a figure of my body, is now my body.

To which, M. Featly thus replyed. To rehearse this answer, is to refute it: if it bee lawfull vntounto a speech of three words to ad (id quod erat vetus) to the subiectum; and (corpus meum) to the praedicatum: and to referre the words (idest figura) not to the praedicatum, as all men do in the like; you may make quidlibet ex quolibet.

To this D. Smith answered out of Cyprian, that Tertullian was a very obscure Writer, and had a very ill gift in expressing his minde.

Whereunto it was reioyned; If he bee obscure in other places, what is that to this which is most cleere to any, that will not shut his eyes? discredit not Tertullian, whom Cyprian so highly esteemed, that hee let no day passe without reading some part of his workes, calling for him by the name of his Master: Da Magistrum, Tertullianum videlicet significans.Hier. Ca…al. vir: illustr.

Secondly, he replyed, that how ill soeuer a gift Tertullian might hauehave in expressing his p. 292owne minde, he could not be so dull in conceiuing our Sauiours mind, as to make this to bee the meaning of our Sauiours words;) This is my body,) that is, the bread which was a figure of my body in the old Law, is now my body: seeing that our Sauiour speaketh neuer a word there, nor hath any relation at all to any figure of the old Testament, neither in the words going before, nor comming after.

Thirdly, admitting this most strange, and forced interpretation; yet out of this place of Tertullian, I inferre necessarily, that the words of the Institution be figuratiue. For this Proposition. The figure, or that which was the figure of my body, is my body (which is your exposition of Tertullian) cannot be true, but by a figure: sith panis, and corpus Christi, are disparata; which cannot properly be one affirmed of the other; Let the Pronoune demonstratiue, Hoc, stand for figura corporis mei, as you will hauehave it, and adde thereunto the copula and praedicatum, you faine, est corpus meum, saying, figura corporis mei est corpus meum: you must needs fly to a figure to make this Proposition true. For whether you put the Bread, or the accidents to be the onelyonly figures of Christs body, all is one: sith neither Bread, nor the accidents of Bread can bee truly, and properly said to be Christs body.

Here D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of the Institution. These are his owne words; ggEx autogr. Ego agnos…o, quòd in verbis, hoc est corpus meum, est figura, sed non mera figura, aut figura vacua à veritate, quae figuratur.I acknowledge, that in these words this is my body, is a figure, but not a meere figure p. 293or a figure voyde of that truth, which is figured by it.

Thus they grew to an issue, Master Featly affirming, that hee demanded no more, then to hauehave him grant, that there is a figure in these words, hoc est corpus meum, (which Bellarmine, and all other Papists disclaime, as quite ouerthrowing their opinion of the Reall presence.) For (quoth he) as for your distinction of a meere figure, and not meere in speech, it is nothing, but a meere fiction of your owne braine; as if you shuld say, This is a shadow, but not a meere shadow.

Secondly, hee insisted vponupon the words of S. Augustine; hhAugust. de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. pag. 23. edit. Parisiensis. Si autem flagitium, aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem, aut benificentiam vetare, figurata est locutio. ex. gr. Nisi manducaue…is (inquit) carnem fil…j hominis, & sanguinem bibe…îtis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere: figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suauiter, & vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa, & vulnerata sit.But if the scripture seeme to command a sinne, or an horrible wickednesse, or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figuratiue. For example: vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. seemes to command a sinne or horrible wickednes; it is a figure therefore, &c. Three things (said he) are to be obserued in this testimony. First, that Saint Augustine maketh choise of these words of our Sauiour, as a most knowne example of a figuratiue speech. Secondly, that he not onelyonly affirmeth it to be a figuratiue speech, but confirmeth it also by an argument. iiFlagitium vid…tur iubere, figura est ergo. Praecipiens recondendum in memoria, &c.Thirdly, that he sheweth what figure it is, and expoundeth it conformably to the doctrin of the Protestants, and contrary to the now Church of Rome.

Hereunto D. Smith first answered, that it was no horrible, nor wicked thing to eat mans flesh, since we vsually eate it in Mummy.

What (said M. F. not the flesh of a liue man?

p. 294kkSub aliena specie.Not (said D. Smith) vnderunder another shape or forme.

Say you so, (quoth M. Featly) Then indeed Saint Augustines argument is but very weake, if it be not horrible to eate a liue man, though masked or disguized. What then say you to S. Augustines conclusion? D. Smith answered, llFigura est eogo. s…u figurata locutio, Respondeo, quòd est figura mixta ex propria & figurata actione.It is a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action.…. Resp. ex Autog.

mmProp…ia figurata. Replic.A proper figuratiue speech or action, quoth M. Featly; This is, as if a man should say, a white blacke colour; or a true false answer. I pray you expound your selfe, D. Smith, and shew vsus, how the selfe same speech can be figuratiue and proper, that is, proper and improper. For in my vnderstanding, eueryevery figuratiue speech is improper; and if it be taken in the proper sense of words, is alwayes either vntrue, or impertinent. Let vsus heare therefore your proper doctrine of an improper proper speech.

Thus (quoth he) I explicate my selfe; nnEx Autogr. Locutio Christi, nisi manducaueritis, &c. est secundùm Augustinum prapria, & figurata: figurata qu…ad modum …dendi, scilicet in propriâ sorma, quoed rem est propria, scilicet quoad substantiam ca…nis Christi, & i…a mixta est figurata & prop…ia locutione.Christs 2 Resp.speech; vnlesse you eate my flesh, is proper and figuratiue, according to Saint Austin: figuratiue according to the manner of eating, viz. in the proper forme: but according to the matter it selfe, it is proper, viz. according to the substance of Christs flesh, and so it is a speech mixed of a proper and figuratiue.

Hereunto M. Featly replyed; A speech figuratiue according to the manner of eating; and eating of a thing not in propria forma, are Schoole-delicacies. Where find you any such thing in S. Augustine? or what is this to proue, that a speech, which may not be properly taken (such is eueryevery figuratiue) may bee properly taken, p. 295and so be figurata and propria both? It is most certaine, that Saint Augustine by figurata locutio, meant such an one, as could in no sense be proper. For Saint Augustines words are. ooSi hoc iam propriè sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. ibid.If this now be taken in the proper sense, let it be accounted no figuratiue speech. A proper speech is here by S. Austine manifestly distinguished frō figuratiue, and figuratiue from proper. Besides, hee speaketh of such a speech, wherein an horrible wickednesse is commanded, or a vertuous action condemned; which can in no sense bee true in the proper acception of the words. Otherwise, it should bee lawfull to sinne, because expresly commanded, and sinfull to doe well, because forbidden. Furthermore, to proue that these words could not be taken properly, and literally, he cited the words of Origen in Leuiticum. Ho. 7. ppSi secundùm literam sequaris quod dictum est, nisi mandocaueritis carne… filij hominis, &c. litera illa occîdit.If you follow the letter in these words: Vnlesse you eate the flesh, &c. that letter killeth.

qqRespondeo secùndum literam Caperniticam.I answer (saith D. Smith) that if you vnderstand those words according to the Caperniticall letter.

Now good Sir, quoth M. Featly, what is litera Capernitica: a Iewes letter?

rrSecundùm literalem sensum, quem intellig… bant Capernitae. 2. Resp. D. S.By Capernitica letter I vnderstand the litterall sense, in which the Capernaits tooke Christs words.

M. Featly replyed, that for ought appeares by Scripture, or any ancient Record, the Capernites errour was in this, that they construed Christs words grossely and carnally, as you do: which you and they should hauehave taken spiri tually (My words are spirit and life.V…rba mea Spiritus sunt, & vita.

No, quoth D. Smith, the Capernites thought, p. 294duplicate page p. 295duplicate page p. 296that Christs flesh should be sold in the market, and cut in peices.

There is no such thing, quoth M. Featly, implyed in the literall meaning of these words, (vnlesse you eate my flesh:) nor can bee gathered 2. Resp.from any circumstance of the Text. A man might eate flesh according to the rigour of the letter, though he neither buy it in the market, nor cut it. The horror of the sinne of Anthropophagy, 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 we should doe so in the Sacrament, we should follow the killing letter Origen speaketh of, and runne vponupon the point of Saint Cyrils sharpe reproofe; aaNum hominis commestionem hoc Sacramentum pronuntias, & irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges fidelium mentes? Cyr…l. ad obiect. Theod. in expos. an…. 11.doest thou pronounce this Sacrament to be man-eating? and doest thou irreligiously vrge the minds of the faithfull to grosse, and carnall imaginations? I oppose against your interpretation Saint Chrysostoms, who saith: To take Scripture according to the letter is to take it according to the sound of the words. Now I appeale to the eare of all that are heere present, whether these words, nisi manducauerîtis carnem, sound after D. Smiths Caperniticall straine. I heare nothing but the eating of the flesh: which you doe as properly, as the Capernites could conceiue, bbDe consecr. dist. 2. Berenga rius is forced to subscribe, as followeth. Ego Berengarius, &c. Credo corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi sensualiter, & in ve…itate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri.with the mouth and teeth.

To which D. Smith replyed. When I see the words of Chrysostome, I will answere them.

You shall when you please (quoth M. Featly) in the meane while, because the booke is not at p. 295hand, I will presse you with another, against whom (I trow) you dare not except.

Who is it, quoth D. Smith.

It is Gratian (quoth M. Featly) who Decret. 3. part. de consecrat. distinct. 2. cap. Hoc est quod dicimus, hath these expresse words: ccSicut ergo caelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, s… modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi: Glossa addit: c… leste Sacramentum dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie, vnd… dicitu… suo modo, sed non r…i veritate sed significante mysteri…: …t fit sensus: vo…atur Christi corpus, id…st, significatur.As therefore the heauenly bread which is Christs flesh, after a sort is called Christs body, when as in very truth it is the sacrament of it; the Glosse addeth, the heauenly Sacrament is called the body of Christ, but improperly, and therefore it is said after a sort, but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, &c.

To which authoritie D. Smith shaped this answer: ddAliud est Sacramentum tantum, aliud res tantùm: aliud res & Sacramentum.the sacrament is taken either for the figne onelyonly, or for the thing signified onelyonly, or for both, and applied his distincton thus: Gratian, and the Glosse vnderstood by Sacramentum, Sacramentum tantum, or signum, the signe onelyonly. Therefore Accidentia sola panis, according to your doctrine (inferred M. Featly.)

To which D. Smith accorded.

Then M. Featly thus refelled the former answer: Gratian, and the Glosse speake of heauenly bread, or Christs flesh, and a heauenly sacrament: but the meere accidents of bread, neither in Gratians opinion, nor in yours can be termed coelestis panis, heauenly bread, nor Christi caro, Christs flesh, nor coeleste Sacramentum, a heauenly Sacrament. Therefore the former words cannot be meant of the accidents, but of the consecrated Hoste it selfe.

To which D. Smith with some indignation p. 296replyed; eeGratianus quoad nos non est authentic…s autor, mul…ò minùs Glossa. Arg. 1 duct. à circumst cont.Gratian with vsus is no authenticall Author, much lesse the Glosse.

Well (said M. Featly) if you so easily auoide Gratian, approoued by so many Popes, citing in this very place S. Augustine in the Margent for his warrant, I will see whether you can so rid your hands of Diuine authorities.

I argue thus from the Text: Christ tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it, and said, This, &c. Therefore by this word, This, he meant this bread, as the Fathers generally accord in their interpretations of it. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 34. ffUnde consta bi… ijs pan…, in qu… gratiae … sunt, … corpus Dom…i?How shall it appeare vntounto them, that the bread which was blessed, was our Lords body? Tertullianus lib. 4. cont. Marcion. cap. 40. ggPan… corpus suum a….He calleth the bread his body. Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. hhQuid est panis? Corpus Christi.What is the bread? Christs body. Hieron. ad Hedib. quaest. 2. pag. 416. iiNos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis, esse corpus Domini, ipso dicente: …oc est corpus meum.Let vsus heare, that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples, is his body, as himselfe saith, This is my body. August. sermon. 2. de verb. Apost. kkQuod videtur, panis est & calix, quod etiam … renun…iant; quod …utem fides p…stulat instru…da, panis est corpus Christi … sanguis.The bread is Christs …ody, and the Cup is his blood. Epiphan. in Anchorato; llDe …o quod rotunda est figu…ae, & …, Dominus per gratiam dixit, Hoc est co…pus meum.Christ said of that which is of a round figure, and without sense, This is my body. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 4. mmChristus depan… affi mat, Hoc est c…rpus meum.Christ said of the bread, This is my body. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. nnIn distributione mysteriorum, panem vocat corpus suum.In the distribution of the mysteries, he called bread his body. Gerson. contra Flor. c. 4. ooDicendum est, quod (hoc) demonstrat substantiam panis.We must say, that the Pronoune (this) demonstrates the substance of bread. I could produce many more of your owne Writers, that are cited by Suarez to this purpose: but these p. 297suffice to prooue▪ that the Pronoune Hoc, standeth for Hic panis. Now I assume, Corpus Christi, cannot properly be affirmed of bread, sith bread and Christs body are substantiae disparatae: Ergo, will you, nill you, either you must accept of a figure in Christs words, or put backe, and reiect all these reuerend Fathers, and your own Doctors also at once.

I answer, quoth D. Smith, that the Fathers by panis, meant, panis Eucharistatus.

What meane you, quoth M. Featly, by panis Eucharistatus, Transubstantiatus actu, actually transubstantiated, or not?

Transubstantiatus actu, quoth D. Smith.

Therefore replyed M. Featly, by panis they Repl.meant that which is not now panis. For panis Transubstantiatus is no more panis, then homo mortuus is homo, or the Rod being turned into a Serpent, is still a Rod. Is this, thinke you, their Exod. 4.Exod 4meaning? Bread is Christs body, that is, Bread not being bread is Christs body. Might not I say with as good reason: It is my body, that is, it is not my body?

I say (quoth D. Smith) ppPanis Eucharistatus (panis non manens panis est corpus Christi.bread (not remaining bread) is the body of Christ. Refell you this my Exposition if you can.

It is needlesse (quoth M. Featly▪) it cannot be made worse then it is; yet to gratifie you, I thus impugne it. This Pronoune demonstratiue, Hoc, must needs signifie some thing, that then was existent, to which Christ pointed, saying, Ex Autogr.This: But there was no panis transubstantiatus, p. 298or your non manens panis, when Christ pronounced this Pronoune, This, pointing to something at the table: for you all confesse, that the bread is not conuerted into the substance of Christs body, till after all the words of consecration are vttered.

D. Smiths answer was, This subiect hoc, signifieth, * Subiectum (hoc) significat quando proser…, corpus Christi▪ sed non significat pro tunc, sed pro proximo non esse … propositionis.when it is vttered, the body of Christ: but it signifieth not for that instant, but for the next not being of the whole proposition.

What say you, is a proposition true, when it is not at all (Hoc est in non esse suo?) Aristotle makes signification de esse propositionis, defining it, Oratio significans verum, vel falsum. Is this then that you say, Christs speech signifieth, that is, hath his esse pro Proximo non esse? How many non esses hath a Proposition, which you wil hauehave signifie pro Proximo non esse?

Goe on (quoth D. Smith) with your Argument.

When Christ (said M. Featly) vttered precisely this Pronoune, Hoc, did it signifie any thing then, or no?

qqSignifi…bat tunc, non pro tunc.It signified, This, but not for that instant.

rrQuid ergo tunc significabat, panem transubstantiatum?What did it then signifie, quoth M. Featly,) bread transubstantiated, or not? If you say, transubstantiatum, you make a false Proposition: If you say, non transubstantiatum, you must acknowledge a figure.

To this D. Smith said nothing, but repeated his old distinction, Tunc, & pro Tunc. This your distinction (quoth M. Featly) is like vntounto his in p. 299Keckerman, by which hee turneth off all arguments, …rthopodialiter, non restexiue, which no man was able to refute, because they vnderstood it not. I professe (said he) I know not what you will, by your Tunc, and pro Tunc, vnlesse this bee your meaning, that the Proposition is true, de futuro, non de praesente: which to say, is apparantly to put a figure in the copula est, construing it pro erit.

No figure, quoth D. Smith, but ^s an enlarging of the copula.

I might say likewise, (quoth M. Featly) that no Protestant maketh a figure in the copula, or praedicatum, but onelyonly an amplification of it in your language. I pray you, what difference is there betweene that your Ampliatio copulae, and the Rhetoricians enallage temporis? I see no more then between a siluer and a leaden token of the same value; both an halfe penny, Let vsus not striue about words: What is the thing meant by Hoc? pro quo nomine stat hoc pronomen?

ttPro pane transubstantiato.For bread transubstantiated, saith D. Smith.

uuErgo pro corpore Christi.Therefore for the body of Christ, saith Master Featly.

What of that, quoth D. Smith?

Then (quoth M. Featly) the meaning of the words is, xxCorpus Christi est corpus Christi.The body of Christ is the body of Christ.^y Conced… sensus eorum verborum (Panis est corpus Christi) est iste quoad identitatem signifi…ati: Corpus Christi est corpus Christi: quoad modum significandi, non est idem; sed diuersus, & non i…enticus.

I grant, saith D. Smith, that the sense of these words, the bread is the body of Christ) is this, according to the identitie of the thing signified, the body p. 300of Christ is the body of Christ; According to the manner of signifying, it is not the same, but diuers, and not identicall.

Belike (quoth M. Featly) the Apostles were ignorant, that Christs body was his body, and by vertue of these words, he made his body his body; as if it were not so before. Will you stand to this interpretation, quoth M. Featly? See what will come vponupon it.

What (quoth D. Smith?)

That the words of consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation, or any thing else. For a Proposition that is meerely identicall quoad significatum, prooues nothing at all. I may▪ truly say, pointing to Christs body in heauen▪ at the right hand of his Father; This, or that body of Christ is his body: and will it hence follow, that bread, or any thing else, is substantially turned into Christs body? were it not much better to admit a Trope, then to commit a Tautologie in your exposition? To grant an elegancy in the words, then defend an absurditie in the meaning? to acknowledge a figure, then to disfigure so diuine a sentence, and make of it a Battologie?

Here D. Smith after his manner, largely discoursed of the nature of identicall, and nugatory propositions. Of which, M. Featly gaue this iudgement, as Aristotle answered the Philosophers disputes, de inani, foreign; so saith he, your discourse of nugatory propositions seemeth to me nugatory, and altogether p. 301impertinent. And therefore I proceed to a new argument.

The words vsed in the consecration of the 2. Arg. deductum à circumst. contextus.bread are so to be expounded, as the like in the consecration of the Cup:

But the words vsed in the consecration of the Cup are to be expounded by a figure, or more:

Ergo▪

Prooue your Assumption, saith D. Smith.

Thus (quoth M. Featly▪) these are the words, as they are recorded, Luk. 22. 20. xxHic calix est n…uum Testamentum in meo sanguine.This Cup is the new Testament in my blood: but both Calix is here taken by a figure, yyPro contento▪ and no…um Testamentum pro sign… sigillo, Sacramento noui Testamenti.for the thing contained in it; and the new Testament for the signe and seale, or Sacrament of the new Testament: Ergo, &c.

I will not contest with you (quoth D. Smith) about Calix; let that bee a figure: but I deny there is any figure in the word Testamentum.

It is well (quoth M. Featly) you grant one figure in the words of consecration: I assure you, D. Bagshaw is of another mind; to grant one figure, in his iudgment, is to loose all▪ For what priuiledge hauehave you more to set a figure vponupon the words of consecration of the Cup, then we vponupon the like of the bread? Where are now your exclamations against vsus, for obscuring, deprauing, and disfiguring the words of Christ by Tropes and Figures? One figure you grant, and it shall goe hard, but I will multiply it, and make more figures of it. Either there is a figure in the word Testament, or that, which you say, is meant by Calix, is properly Christi Testamentum: p. 302But that cannot bee: Ergo.

Thus I demonstrate it: By hic calix you meane hic sanguis: but sanguis Christi is not propriè testamentum.

Negatur minor, saith D. Smith.

Probatur (quoth M. Featly,) No substantiall part of the Testator is properly his Testament: But the blood of Christ is a substantiall part of the Testator: Ergo, it is not properly his last Will and Testament.

In this Syllogisme D. Smith denyed the Maior, affirming, that if any man should signe any Resp.thing with his blood, that blood being an authenticall signe of his Will, might be properly called his Testament.

Hereupon M. Featly replyed; Blood properly a Testament? I reade in Scripture of blood Replic.of the Testament: but neuer heard of a Testament, or blood a testament. Certainely the word Testament signifieth properly the Will it selfe of the Testator, but by an vsuall phrase of speech, or figure, it is applyed to the Instrument, which is (speaking properly) but a testimony of his Will. As for the blood, or marke wherewith any man signeth his Will, he neuer heard any man call that his Testament, no not by a figure, much lesse properly; aaTestamentum est voluntatis nos…ae iusta sententia d… eo, quod quis fieri velit post mortem suam. Digest. de Test. estque aut Scriptum, aut nuncup…torium.The Will of a man is the iust determination, or appointment of what hee would hauehave done after his death, and it is either written, or nuncupatiue. Blood can bee neither. How many new Testaments shall wee hauehave, if eueryevery authenticall signe of Christs Will, bee p. 303properly his Testament? The signe of Christs Will is no more his Will, then the signe of his Body is his Body. Therefore what colour hauehave you to forbid vsus to interpret these words, This is my body (that is, a signe of my body?) when you your selues expound these words: This cup, or, this blood is my Will, or Testament (that is, the authenticall signe of my Testament?) yet wee in our exposition, of the former words, commit no Tautologie, as you doe in the latter, thus paraphrasing Christs words: This cup, that is, this blood is the New Testament in my blood, blood in blood, or signed with blood. Will you say, that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it, as Saint Austin saith of the heathens God, Apollo; Interpres Deorum eget Interprete: & sors referenda est ad sortem, id est. The interpreter of the Gods wants an Interpreter, and wee hauehave neede to cast Lots vponupon the Lot it selfe.

How say you, is not this your interpretation?

Hereunto D. Smith wrote this answer, aaSensus huius propositionis, Hic calix est n… uum Testamentum in meo sanguine, est iste: Hic liquor, qui qu…ad rem significatam est identicè sanguis meus, est novum Testamentum: id est, a…thenticum signum vltimae m…ae voluntatis, sancitum in sanguiue meo; fuso pro vobis.The sense of this Proposition, This Cup is the new Testament, is this: This liquor, which according to the thing signified, is the same thing with my blood, is the new Testament, that is, …n authenticall signe of my last Will, confirmed with my blood shed for you.

Iudge, Sirs, (quoth M. Featly) Is not this a Tautologie; bbS…nguis meus … in sa… guine meo.my blood confirmed in my blood, or the signe of my blood, signed in my blood?

And did not I tell you before (saith D. Smith) of a twofold identicall proposition? Identicall p. 302ccQuoad rem significatam, & quoad modum significa…di.according to the thing signified, and according to the manner of signifying. Sisyphi saxum voluis.

Tuergoes Sisyphi saxum (quoth M. Featly) te enim ….

Nec proficis …ilum, (quoth D. Smith.)

True (quoth M. Featly) quia semper eodem re…olueris. foreign. H…m. Odys. foreign. 3. Arg. Circumst. text.Yet I will hauehave one lift more.

Thus I prooue, that Christs blood is not in the consecrated Chalice. Blood is not the fruit of the Vine:

That which Christ and the Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice, was the fruit of the Vine:

Ergo, not blood.

That it was the fruit of the Vine, our Sauiour affirmeth in expresse words, Matth. 26. 29. I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruite of the Vine; hauing in the words immediately going before consecrated the Chalice, and instituted the Sacrament of his blood, saying, Drinke ye all of this (C…p;) for this is my blood of the new Testament, vers. 28.

To this D. Smith answered, that our Sauiour spake this of the Cup of the old Testament, mentioned in Luke, not of the Sacrament.

Which answer M. Featly thus infringed: These words in Saint Matthew, This fruit of the Vine, must hauehave relation to the Cup, of which Saint Matthew spake before: but Saint Matthew spake of no Cup before, but of the Cup of the new Testament: therefore these words: This fruit of the Vine, must needs be vnderstood of the p. 303Cup of the new Testament. If I should take here a Cup, and after I had dranke of it, say, I will drinke no more of this, were it not ridiculous to vnderstand me of any other cup, then that I tooke last in my hand, and dranke of?

D. Smith repeated his former answer, and said: it was sufficient that Saint Luke spake of another Cup.

M. Featly replyed: what, is it sufficient to make perfect sense in a sentence set downe in Saint Matthew to fetch a proposition, or narration from Saint Luke his Gospell? Will you make Saint Matthew to write non-sense: 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 referred? I referre my selfe to your owne conscience, whether these words (I will drinke no more of this fruit) immediately following these: Hic calix, This cup, or Hic est sanguis noui testamenti, This is the blood of the new testament, can hauehave relation to any other words then those, or to any other Cup, then which is here consecrated. Not onelyonly all the circumstances of the Text are against your interpretation, but also all the Fathers generally controwle it; who vnderstand these words, (I will not drinke of this fruit of the Vine) of the Sacrament, and not of the Cup of the old Law. And he quoted Clemens, in Pedag. l. 2. c. 2. ddQu…d vinum esset, qu…d ben… dictum est, Christus o…endit, …icens, non bibam à … de h…c fructu vitis.That it was wine which was blessed, Christ shewed, saying, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3. alleaging the words of Saint p. 304Matthew, ddNon bib… ex …oc f…uctu vitis.I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine, addeth: eeQua in parte inuenimus calic…m mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit?where doe we find that the cup which Christ offered, was mingled, & that it was wine, which he called his blood? Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat. ffCum Dominus hoc mysterium trad…et, vinum tradid…; ex geni…ine, ai…, vitis, quae … vinum, non aquam producit.When our Lord deliuered this mysterie, he deliuered wine of the fruit of the Vine, saith he, which certainely produceth wine, and not water. August. de Eccl. Dogm. cap. 75. & Concilium Worm. ca. 2. ggVinum fuit redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit; Non bibam de hoc genimine.Wine was in the mystery of our redemption, when he said, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine. If you hauehave not yet weight enough, I will adde one Author, that in the skales of your iudgment, beareth downe all these, Pope Innocentius, lib. 4. de Myst. Missae cap. 27. hhQuod autem vinum in calice consecra…rat, patet ex …o, quod ipse subiunxit; Non bibam à modo de genimine vitis.It is manifest, that he consecrated wine in the Cup by those words he added, I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine. What answer you (quoth M. Featly) to so many Fathers, a Councell, and your Pope?

I answer (quoth D. Smith) that their opinion is probable.

And though M. Featly pressed him in the words of Campian, iiPatres admittis, an excludis? admittis, victus …s: excludis, Nullus…s.Do you admit of the Fathers, or reiect them; if you admit of them, you are ouercome; if you refuse them, you are no body.

He answered onelyonly as before, that their opinion was probable: but he preferred his owne before it: and yet triumphed, as if he had gotten the day, saying; Are these your demonstrations? Are these sufficient causes, why you should separate your selues from our Church, and from your Brethren the Lutherans?

And it was replied; Are these your best answers, p. 305and defences? Is your great brag of the Fathers, and of the Councels come to this; that when they are alleaged against you, you either discredit them, as you did Tertullian, or make miserable excuses for them, as kkIn resp. ad hoc arg. lib. 1. de sacr. Euch▪ c. 11.Bellarmine doth for Saint Augustine? llAugustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter.Austin did not well weigh this place: or cashere a whole troope of them, Pope and all; yet with ciuill and respectiue termes, saying, their opinion is probable: follow it who so will, yet you will not quit your owne for it! And heere, because it grew late, they brake off for the present. At the breaking vp of the Conference, a Priest, who was said to be D. Smiths Chamberfellow, was heard to say Profectò haec fuit vera digladiatio, non Sorbonica velificatio: that is, This was a true fight, not a Sorbonicall flourishing.

In this Relation we hauehave omitted of set purpose all D. Smiths by-discourses, together with his proofes of the maine, because they were against the third Law. And M. Featly at this time tooke no notice of them in particular, but promised in generall to answer them all, when it came to his course to answer: Now he was bound by the Law onelyonly to oppose, and D. Smith onelyonly to giuegive his answers, which are here truly set downe, most of them out of his owne writing, as wee depose, who were present at this Disputation.

I must willingly subscribe to the truth of that, which D. Smith did so voluntarily present to our eyes and eares; And for the rest, which p. 306is M. Featlies, none of the aduerse party can take any iust exception against it.

I. P. I professe, that all things in this Narration deliuered and quoted out of D. Smiths Autographie, are true out of my examination. And of the rest I remember the most, or all: neither can I suspect any part. B. I.

FINIS.