Transubstantiation Exploded, Part 2
The true Relation of a Disputation betweene M. Featley and D. Bagshaw, drawne out of the notes of M. Ashley, and M. Ezekiel Arscot, taken in the Conference at Paris, Anno Dom. 1612.
MAster Featley demanding of D. Bagshaw whether hee would joyne in prayer with him, and the other refusing, made a short prayer to himselfe, and after he had ended it, began the Disputation as followeth.
M. F.
The Question we are to debate to give satisfaction to this Honourable aThere were present, the L. Clifford, Sir Edward Summerset, and divers other persons of grea… quality bot… English and French.Assembly is, Whether the Body of Christ be truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine, as the Councell of Trent defineth. Which is a question of greatest importance: for if the Body of Christ be not there really and substantially, the Church of Rome which adoreth the Host, committeth Idolatry in the highest degree, by attributing *Divine honour or the highest degree of worship proper to God alone.cultum latriae to a piece of bread. And that the Body of Christ is not there in such sort as the Councell determineth, and the whole Church of Rome beleeveth, I will prove by necessary arguments drawne from the words of the institution, the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church, and the very principles of nature, and infallible grounds of Reason, Saint Paul fully setteth downe the institution of the Sacrament. I have received of the Lord (saith he) that which I also 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25, 26.have delivered unto you, to wit, that the Lord Iesus in the night that he was betraied, tooke bread. And when hee had given 24.thankes, he brake it, and said, Take, eate: This is my Body, which is broken for you: this doe ye in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when 25.he had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood: this doe as oft as ye drinke it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eate this breaed, and drinke 26.this cup, ye shew the Lords death till hee come. In this faithfull relation of the Apostle many things are very remarkable. First, our Saviour spake to his Disciples in a knowne tongue: you to the Communicants in an unknowne: Christ took bread and brake it: you breake no bread at all. Christ after hee had broken the bread, took the cup and gave it likewise to all the Communicants: you bGratian de cōsecrat. dist. 2 cap. caperimus aut integra Sacramunta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius aiusdē … m…sterij sine grands sacrilegio non potest prov…ire. Gelasius papa. Ver. 20.sacrilegiously mutilate the Sacrament, and debarre the Laity of the cup. Christ used no elevation at all, neither did his Disciples adore the Sacrament: you practise both. Lastly, Christ when hee said eate and drinke, truly reached the bread and cup to all which were present and thereby celebrated a Supper: you use the same words, eate and drinke you all of this: and yet eate and drinke all your selves. And call you this inviting Gods people to a Supper where you eate up all and they feed nothing but their eyes?
D. Bagshaw.
You promised to dispute (M. Featley) you do but discourse.
M. Featley.
Thus I frame my argument. Christ in these words, This is my Body, 1 Argu.called bread his body (for hee tooke bread, and brake it, and said, take, eate this pointing to the bread:) but bread cannot be called Christs body properly, therefore you must needs acknowledge there is a figure in these words, and by consequence they make not for, much lesse make any Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body.
D. B.
I denie your Major. Christ in these words, This is my Body, calleth not bread his body.
M. F.
cl▪ 3. contra Marcionem c. 19. sic Deus quoque in Evangelio vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans, … hinc iam eū intelligas corporis sui si guram pani dedisse.Tertullian saith he doth. So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body. dTheod. dial. mutabilis. p. 30. versione Ge… ani Pontificij edit. Basil. In mysteriorum traditione panem corpus suum appellavit. Et Servator nomina mutavit, & corpori quidem id quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit, symbolo autē quod erat corporis.Theodoret affirmeth the same in words most expressely Orth: In the delivering of the mysteries hee called bread his body. And a little after. Our Saviour changed the names, imposing the name of the Signe or Symbole upon his body: and the name of his body upon the Signe or Symbole.
D. B.
Tertullian speaketh of that which was bread in the old Law, but now is Christsbody. For in the words before he alleadgeth Jeremie, mittamus lignum in panem ejus, let us cast wood on his bread, Theodoret is not of great credit, because he favoured sometimes the heresie of Nestorius.
M. F.
If Theodoret sometimes favoured any heresie, that can be no just exception against this passage of Theodoret, taken out of those bookes of his which have alwaies beene approved for Orthodoxall even by your own Church. Your answer to Tertullian neither satisfieth the place, nor avoideth my argument, for he proveth not onelyonly by the words of Ieremy in the Old Testament, but of Christs also in the Gospell, the bread was and is a figure of Christs body. His argument standeth thus: Christ by the Prophet Ieremie called his body bread eTertul. l. … c. 40 ex-Pounding the same words. Conijcia… lignum in panem eius, id est, cr… in corpus eius.let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the Crosse on his body. And in the Gospell bread his body, Ergo bread was and is a true figure of his body. I insist not upon Tertullians allegation out of Ieremy, but upon his explication of the words of the institution in the fDominus … Evangelio panem corpus appellam.Gospell. The Lord in the Gospell called bread his body. And to the like purpose he gTertul. l. 4… c. 20. accep… panem, & distributum, corpus suum fecit; hoc est corpus meum dicen…, id est sigura corporis mei, & seq. our panē corpus suum appellas?speaketh. The bread taken and distributed unto his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. A little after he propoundeth this question, why doth he call bread his body. Out of which places I thus argue against your answer. Tertullian saith that hDominus in Evangelio.Christ in the Gospell called the bread which he brake and distributed unto his Disciples, his body: and therefore hee speaketh not of that which was bread in the old Law and you suppose to bee Christs body in the new, but of that which was very bread then, when hee called it his body: But I inferre that which is truly bread, cannot be properly called Christs body, Ergo you must reject Tertullian, or admit of a figure.
D. B.
Prove that bread cannot properly be called Christs Body.
M. F.
No disparata can be properly affirmed one of the other.
Bread and Christs body are disparata. Ergo
The one of them cannot properly be affirmed one of the other.
D. B.
Panis & corpus Christi are not disparata, because they are not sub eodem genere.
M. F.
Nay for that very reason rather, they are disparata, because they are not sub eodem genere. The especiall difference betweene Contraria and Disparata is, that contraria are sub eodem genere proximo, disparata may be sub diversis as homo & lapis, corpus Christi & panis, the one sub corpore animato, the other sub inanimato.
D. B.
You ground your faith upon Scriptures not upon Fathers, therefore we expect other arguments from you then such as these.
M. F.
But you ground your faith not upon Scriptures onelyonly, but upon the traditive doctrine of Fathers, and therefore wee expect from you better answers then these to the Fathers. You beare the world in hand that all the Fathers are yours, and yet when it comes to the triall dare not stand to their authority, but flie to the Scriptures which give you no countenance at all, but rather check your errors.
D. B.
Shew me in Scripture, where Christ called bread his body, or els you doe but trifle out the time.
M F
In the 1 of Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my body which is broken for you.
D B.
Conclude your proposition from these words.
M. F.
Thus I inferre i….
That Christ called his body which he said was then broken for us (this is my body which is broken)
But that which was there broken was bread & nothing but bread.
Ergo he called bread his body.
D. B.
I denie your assumption, Christs true body was then broken.
M. F.
You meane I hope non rei veritate sed significante mysterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, as your Canon law distinguisheth.
D. B.
Significante mysterio that's significante mendacio.
M. F.
What is every mysterie a lie with you? doth not your speech rather deserve the name of significans mendacium, a signall untruth, then Saint Austins, cited by iGra. de consect. dist. 2 cap. Immolatio carnis Christi quae sacerdotis manibus sit vocatur Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio.Gratian? answer directly: say you Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word? if not so, then you must acknowledge a figure in the word frangitur: if you say that Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word, you gainesay the Scripture and go against your owne beliefe.
D. B.
Christs body is truly broken, for he saith so, which is broken.
M. F.
Christs body was whole when he administred the Sacraments, therefore it was not broken.
D. B.
It was whole in se, but broken sub speciebus.
M. F.
That which is whole and entire sub speciebus is not broken sub speciebus. Christs body according to the Canons of the Councell of Trent is whole, sub speciebus and in qualibet parte specierum, and is entirely eaten of every Communicant, Ergo it is not broken sub speciebus.
D. B.
Your Maior is true, respectu ejusdem, not otherwise.
M. F.
Whrt meane you by respectu ejusdem? ejusdem substantiae, or ejusdem accidentis?
D. B.
I say Christs body which is whole in se sub speciebus, is not broken in se sub speciebus, but alio respectu.
M. F.
The species or accidents are not Christs body, neither can they be broken truly and properly, especially being without a subject as you hold they are in the Sacrament: therefore if Christs body be truly broken sub speciebus, as you affirme, it must needs be broken in s…, and so your distinction stands you in no stead.
D. B.
Be it broken in se, but sub speciebus.
M. F.
Now you confound the members of your owne distinction. I need not to contradict you, you contradict duplicate page duplicate page your selfe fast enough. Answer this argument I pray directly.
That which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus at the same time.
But the Body of Christ is whole in se sub speciebus, for whosoever receives the body of Christ sub speciebus, receives it wholy and entirely and cannot doe otherwise, because Christ as your Church teacheth us, is totus in toto, and totus in qualibet parte hostis.
Therefore Christs body is not broken in se sub speciebus.
D. B.
I denie your Major.
M. F.
If the Major be false, the concontradictorie thereof must needs be true, which is this, that which is whole in se sub speciebus, is broken in se sub speciebus at one and the same time.
Let this Proposition of M. D. Bagshawes be written. That which is whole in se sub speciebus, at one and the selle same time, is broken in se sub speciebus, a flat contradiction.
After this proposition was taken in writing by M, Arscot, and M. Ashly, M. Featley proceeded to a new argument.
M. F.
The words used in the consecration of the cup are figurative, therefore 2 Argu.no ground in them for your reall presence of Christs blood in the cup.
D. B.
They are not figurative but proper.
M. F.
These are the words. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, but these cannot be expounded but by a double figure: Ergo the words of the institution concerning the cup are figurative.
D. B.
They are not the words of the institution.
M. F.
S. Luke Chap. 22. v. 20. and Saint Paul relate them for the words of the Institution, will you disparage them as you did Gratian and S. Austin before?
D. B.
S. Matthew and S. Marke have other words, hic est sanguis, &c. This is the blood of the New Testament.
M. F.
Others in sound, not in sense. All Christians are bound under the paine of damnation to beleeve that all the Evangelists who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, have faithfully set downe Christs speeches and actions. S. Luke and Saint Paul affirme that Christ used these words, dare you impeach their authority?
D. B.
Admit these be the words of the institution you gaine not your figure.
M. F.
Yes, a double one, one in Calix, another in Testamentum. We drink not properly the cup, neither is that which we drinke in the cup properly Christs Testament.
D. B.
I denie both.
M. F.
What? is foreign, or Calix properly that which we drinke, write this proposition downe also. Calix or foreign is properly that which we drinke, a man drinks downe a stone pot or silver chalice. How say you M. D. Stevens, is there not a Metonymie in Calix, to wit, continens pro contento? I take it you granted it on Saturday last, as did also D Smith in my disputation with him (D. Stevens ingenuously here confessed as much, and said he would maintaine it.) I leave D. Stevens to confute you M. D. Bagshaw, touching the cup. I proove there is a figure in Testamentum. Either there is a figure in Testamentum, or that which is contained in the Chalice is propriè Testamentum, Christs last will: but that which is contained in the Chalice is not propriè Testamentum, or Christs will or Testament, Ergo there is a figure in the word Testamentum.
D. B.
It is properly a Testament.
M. F.
I proove the contrarie: Christ made his Testament at his last Supper as you grant, but hee made not then his blood, his blood therefore is not his Testament.
D. B.
He made his blood at his last Supper.
M. F.
Write this downe also. Christ made his blood at his last Supper. Was not his blood made and in his veines before?
D. B.
It was: but till then he made it not potable.
M. F.
To make a thing potable, is not to make it blood. If his blood were his Testament which hee made at his last Supper, it followeth that hee made it then truly as he made his Testament truly. But to goe on forward directly against your answer, Christ made not his blood potable at his last Supper.
That he made potable (if hee mad… any thing potable at his last Supper) which he put in and powred out of the Chalice.
But that was not his blood.
Ergo he made not his blood potable at his last Supper.
D. B.
It was his very blood.
M. F.
His very blood therefore was then truly shed.
D. B.
What of that?
M. F.
Therefore your sacrifice of the Masse which your Church acknowledgeth to be incruentum unbloody is truly bloody.
D. B.
How doth this follow?
M. F.
Most clearely and evidently as you may see in this Syllogisme.
That sacrifice in which blood is truly shed, is truly blood.
But in the sacrifice of the Masse (as you have already granted me) the blood of Christ is truly shed and powred out.
Ergo your sacrifice of the Masse is truly a bloody sacrifice.
D. B.
Your Major is not currant, unlesse you add thereunto externally.
M. F.
As if a man could not truly bleed inwardly, my conclusion is not, the sacrifice of the Masse is a bloody sacrifice externally, or visibly, but truly, which is sufficiently inferred out of the premises without your addition. For certainely blood truly shed and sacrificed, makes a truly bloody sacrifice.
D. B.
I told you before blood could not be truly shed unlesse it were externally shed.
M. F.
And did not I also tell you of a veine bleeding inwardly.
D. B.
Though the veine bleed inwardly, that is within the body, yet the blood commeth out of the veine.
M. F.
And so must Christs blood also if it be truly powred out: for fusio is motio, and effusio is extra fusio, therefore if Christs blood be truly powred out, it must needs run out of his veines.
D. B.
Every naturall effusion is a motion, but this is a supernaturall effusion.
M. F.
Every effusion is essentially a motion, if it be a naturall effusion, it is a naturall motion, if a supernaturall effusion a supernaturall motion.
D. B.
I admit of a supernaturall motion.
M. F.
Therfore you admit of a passing of Christs blood from one place to another, which cannot be as long as it remaines in his veines.
D. B.
Why so? cannot Christs blood be powred out of the cup, unlesse it stirre out of his veines?
M. F.
Not possibly, unlesse you will say the flesh and bones are powred out together with it, and by a consequence that you drink properly flesh and bones in the chalice which I thus demonstrate.
All that is in the Chalice you truly and properly drinke.
But the veines, flesh, and bones of Christ you grant are in the Chalice, by saying that the blood is there in the veines.
Ergo you drinke properly flesh and bones.
D. B.
These are grosse and Capernaiticall arguments, unworthy to be urged by Christians.
M. F.
Sir, speake in your conscience, whither you thinke we come nearer to the Capernaits, who teach a spirituall eating of Christ by faith, according to those words of our Saviour, My words are spirit and life, or you who teach a carnall eating of him with the mouth and teeth? was not this the very errour of the Capernaites?
D. B.
Nothing lesse: for the Capernaites supposed Christs flesh should have been cut and quartered and sold in the market.
M. F.
This is your grosse fancie of the Capernaits error, the Scripture chargeth them with no other error, but such as arose from the misconstruction of Christs words, unlesse you eate my flesh, which they understood according to the letter that killeth, not according to the spirit which quickneth. Now the letter of these words implieth no such thing as cutting or selling Christs flesh in the shambles: only it importeth a reall and proper eating, which consisteth in taking flesh into the mouth, chamming of it, and swallowing it downe the throat into the stomack. All this you doe, are you not then true Capernaites?
D. B.
For shame leave these idle and foolish collections of yours.
M. F.
I should easily returne the like speeches upon you, but I feare to abuse the patience of this Honourable Assembly, through our impatience, I thought to have spared you, but since you have provoked me so farre, I charge you with a speech of yours. This blood is blood in my blood, which you gave me at our last Conference for the true exposition of these words. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, are you not ashamed of such an absurd Commentarie?
D. B.
The congruity of this exposition I have maintained in writing, and I have long expected your replie.
M. F.
You know who imposed silence upon us both, to whose authority I acknowledge my selfe obnoxious whilest I stay in Paris. But I leave these matters & come to my ar…uments drawne from the testimonies of ancient Fathers.
D. B.
I know what you will alleadge, a place of S. Austin de doctrina Christiana, and a sentence of Gelasius & Theodoret.
M. F.
It should seeme you remember these allegations the better, because you have beene gravelled with them, as bPli…. n…t. Hist. l. 8. Leo vulner…us observatione mir… percussorem …ovit. & in quantal…bet …ultitudine …ppetit …um.Plinie reporteth, that the Lion taketh especiall notice of one that hath stroken him, and strangely findeth him out among a great throng of people.
M. F.
Well what say you first to Saint Austin, me thinkes he speakes home to the purpose in that very a… Argu. … Austin l. 3 … doct. …hrist. c. …6. … praecep…iva foreign est …t s…agittum …t facinus …ans aut …litatem … benefi…iam …, non est …urata, si …tem slagi…m aut facinus videtur iubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figu…a est. Nisi manducaveritis inqui… carnem filij homin… & sa…guinem bibe… non habebitis vitam in vobis. Faci… vel slagitium vid… i…re: sigu… est ergo praecipiens, passion… Dominicae esse communicandum & suaviter … ut…liter recondendum i… memoriâ quod pro nobis car… … crucifixa & …nerata si….place. If the speech command any good thing, or forbid any wickednesse, the speech is not figurative, but if the Scripture seeme to commād a sin or an horrible wickednesse, or forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative, for example, unlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man, &c. the speech seemes to command a sin or horrible wickednesse, it is a figure therefore.
D. B.
What if I should say with some of your owne side that these words on which S. Austin commenteth, John the 6. appertaine not to the Sacrament.
M. F.
You should oppose Cardinall Bellarmine and others of your own side, you should demolish one of the strongest pillars of Transubstantiation, if not the doctrine it selfe of your carnall eating, for if those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. (unlesse you eate my flesh, &c.) cannot be taken properly as S. Austin proveth by an invincible argument, it ensueth necessarily thereupon that the flesh of Christ cannot be properly eaten.
D. B.
You cannot be ignorant of Bellarmine his answer to this place of S. Austin, and the other you bring out of bTheod. dia… 2. Non rec… dunt Sy… b… la mys… propriâ … râ, remane… enim in pri… re substanti… for… & sigur….Theodoret and Gelasius, looke in him for an answer.
M. F.
We come not hither to heare Bellarmines but D. Bagshaws answers, if you approove of Bellarmines answers, why are you ashamed to bring them to triall. If you approove them not, make us so much beholding unto you to acquaint us with your new and better anseers.
D. B.
Bellarmines workes are every where to be had, what trouble you us with these stale objections.
M. F.
Your manifold Tergiversations (M. D.) shew that either you are ignorant of Bellarmines answers, or you dare not avouch dBellar. answer to the words of Theod. that by foreign or substance is meant the accidents to the hisse of all his adversaries & blush of his owne side, seeing Theod. in this very sentence distinguisheth foreign from foreign, as substance from accidents, and he disputeth in this place against the …utychian hereticks, who affirmed that Christs body after the Resurrection, was turned into divinam naturam, according to the substance, his words are, ita corpus Domini post assumptionem in divinam mutatur substantiam, as saith the hereticke, the elements of bread and wine are after consecration. Theodoret retort… this simile upon him, thus, quae ipse tex…isti retibus captus es▪ neque enim Symbola mystica post sanctificationē recedunt a suâ naturâ, foreign.them. Answer me but directly to a place of Chrysostome, and I will presse you with no more authorities at this time, the place of Chrysostome which seemeth to me of all others most pregnant, is found eSi ergo h…c vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic p…riculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium ejus contine…, quanto mag… vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit, …on deb…mus locum dare D. ab…lo agendi in ijs quod vulsHomil. 11. in cap; 5. Matthei, there he maketh this inference. If it be so dangerous to convert sanctified vessells to private uses, in which there is not the body of Christ, but a mysterie thereof is contained, how much more ought we not to give up our bodies which God hath fitted for an habitation for himselfe, to the divell to doe in them what he list.
D. B.
Chrysostome was not the author of these Homilies, but an Arian heretick, for he inveigheth against the Catholicks under the name of Homoousiani.
M. F.
Belike then your Church in her Breviaries, and your Popes in their aVid. 6. Senens. l. 4. …b. Sanct.decrees are fouly mistaken, who frequently alleadge sentences out of these Homilies under the name of S. Chrysostome. It is true, there are some places corrupted by the Arians, whom this Author notwithstanding manifestly impugneth and refuteth, Homil. 28. & 45. but that this place should be inserted by Arians, there can be no colour or shew, for as much as the Arians never were called in question for any errour touching the Sacrament. Secondly, if it could be prooved that Chrysostome was not the Author of these Homilies, yet in regard of the bIt appeare…h that … flourishe… about Chrysostome… time, or shortly af…er▪antiquity of the Author, whosoever he was, you should vouchsafe him some answer.
D. B.
I answer, that by non verum corpus he meaneth not visible, by not true, not visible.
M. F.
Non verum corpus hoc est non visibile, a proper interpretation, as if nothing were true but that which is visible: or as if Christ had two bodies, one visible which Chrysostome called his true body, and another invisible which must needs be his false body sith you oppose it to his true.
D. B.
I distinguish not so of Christs bodies, but of divers habitudes of one and the selfe same bodie, to wit, visibility and invisibility.
M. F.
You say then that Christs body is visible and invisible at the same time.
D. B.
Why not?
M. F.
And in the same place too? to wit, at the Table?
D. B.
What of all this?
M. F.
Nothing but this apparant contradiction. That one and the selfe same body at the selfe same time in the selfe same place, may be visible and invisible to the same persons.
D. B.
This is no contradiction, because I say not that his body is visible and invisible respectu ejusdem.
M. F.
Scis simulare cupressum, you know the story of the Painter who being good at portracting of a cypress tree, whē one gave him money to draw & represent a shipwrack in a Table, asked if he would have a Cypresse tree drawne in it: dispairing to doe ought else worth his …eward. This your distinction of respectu ejusdem is as fit to the purpose as a Cypresse to a shipwracke, yet still it comes at a dead lift. Once more explicate your selfe, what meane you by r…spectu ejusdem?
D. B.
Ejusdem habitudinis or modi existendi, the body of Christ as he sate at the Table was visible in it selfe, but invisible sub speciebus under the formes of bread and wine.
M. F.
If the species cover Christs body and hide it from sight, how say you that they are visible signes to represent Christs body and set it before our eyes? visible signes you must needs make them, or you have none in your Sacrament, for the bread according to your doctrine remaineth not, and Christs body is the thing signified, not therefore the signe. When Drusius in his defence against a nimble Jesuit that called him heretick, alleadged that heresie must be in fundamentis fidei, in foundations of faith, the Iesuit replied, that even that assertion of his was heresie. I may with farre greater reason replie upon your distinction of extra species & sub speciebus, whereby you seeke to avoid a contradiction, that even this very distinction of yours implieth a manifest contradiction, to wit, that the selfe same body the same time is sub speciebus & extra species, under the formes and without the formes, is within the formes of bread and wine and without. If Christs body at the same time may be sub speciebus and extra species, it may bee under the formes and not under the formes, sub speciebus and non sub speciebus. Is not this a contradiction?
D. B.
No, because he is not sub speciebus and extra species in the same place.
M. F.
Who ever required identitatem loci to make a contradiction? are not these propositions contradictorie? Deus vivit, Deus non vivit, Angelus movet, Angelus non movet. Anima est in corpore, Anima non est in corpore: and yet in none of all these propositions there is any respect at all to place; The affirmation and negation ejusdem de eodem, ad idem secundum idem eodem aArist. Elench.tempore is a contradiction: but in these propositions, Christus est sub speciebus, Christus non est sub speciebus, the same thing, to wit, esse sub speciebus is affirmed and denied of the same thing, to wit, of Christ, secundum idem, viz. according to the same nature and part of him, to wit, his body ad idem, to wit, with a reference to the selfe same accidents numero. And lastly, in eodem tempore, to wit, at the instant after the prolation of these words, hoc est corpus meum, &c.
D. B.
The respect to diverse places is sufficient to salve the sormer propositions from contradiction. What urge you Aristotle in matter of faith above reason.
M. F.
I urge not Aristotle for any matter of faith, but for a question of Logick touching the nature of contradictions, but because you so sleighten Aristotles authority, I proove it by reason, that a body cannot be in divers places, sub speciebus & extra species, under the formes and without the formes: it cannot at all be in divers places, therefore not in such or such a manner.
D. B.
How proove you that?
M. F.
By this argument.
One body cannot be divided and severed from it selfe.
But if it be in the same time put in divers places distant one from duplicate page duplicate page another, it must needs be severed and divided from it selfe.
Ergo one and the selfe same body cannot be put in diverse places at the selfe same time.
D. B.
Divided and severed I grant you, respectu loci, non respectu substantiae, in respect of place not of substance.
M. F.
If the place be severed, I cannot conceive but that the substance that is in those severed places must needs be severed.
D. B.
This you are to prove.
M. F.
Thus I prove it.
Those things betweene which there is a great space or way, and many bodies and substances interposed; are really severed, and discontinued.
But betweene the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris, there is a great space or way, and many bodies interposed.
Ergo the Hosts consecrated at Rome and at Paris are really severed and discontinued bodies.
D. B.
I denie your Syllogisme.
M. F.
Marke it once againe, this is the Major. Those things betweene which, &c. But the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris, are those things betweene which, &c. Ergo, &c.
D. B.
They are not those things betweene which many bodies are interposed.
M. F.
Is it not a great way, and are there not many bodies interposed betweene this and Rome.
D. B.
I grant you that, but I denie that the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris are things.
M. F.
Betweene one thing therefore, and it selfe, many bodies may be interposed. But if divers wafers consecrated by divers Priests, in divers places, be not divers things, I know not what things you will call divers. I perceive it will be to little purpose to reason with you by arguments drawne from reason, for you will make good any absurdity in reason by your faith. What answer you to the words of your owne Masse which you say every day.4 Argu. … … de tuis doni… ac da…is hostiam param & sacram qu… propi… ac sereno vul… aspicere digneris & accepa haber… sicut accepta habere dignatus es mun…ra pueritui …usti Ab…l; iube haec proferriper ma…us sancti Angel… tui i… sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Maiestati… tuae, &c per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia semper bonacr…as, sanctificas, be…edicis.
M. F.
After the Priest hath consecrated and elevated the Host, he saith. Wee offer unto thee O Lord of thy guifts, a pure and holy Host, upon which vouchsafe to looke with a benigne and propitious countenance, and to accept them, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the guifts of thy child Abel the righteous: command that these things be carried by the hands of the holy Angel into thy high Altar, into the sight of thy divine Maj…sty by Iesus Christ our Lord, by whom thou dost alwaies create, sanctifie & blesse these good things unto us.
D. B.
What do you urge me with the Canon of the Masse?
M. F.
You a Masse-Priest and not able to defend your owne Masse, aConcil. Trid. …es 6, Can. 6. Si quis dixeri… Ca…one Missae errores conti…eri … sit.are you not affraid of that thundering Canon? if any man say that the Canon of the Masse containes any errors in it let him be acoursed. I should think my selfe much disparaged, if I should refuse to maintaine our owne Church Liturgie: Let this be noted that M. D. will not answer to the words he readeth every day in the Masse: doe you make as little reckoning of the customes of the ancient Church, as you did of the Canons and Constitutions of the present Church of Rome set downe in the Masse.
D. B.
What an idle thing is this in you to urge the customes of the Church, a morall argument in a theologicall controversie.
M. F.
Your exception were plausible, if I purposed to urge a morall or civill custome. I make an inference upon religious customes of the ancient Church, whereby a man may as certainely gather what their opinion and judgement was touching this point, as by their words. Evagrius saith, that at Constantinople l. 4. Hist. … Ecclesiast. cap. 5they called children from the schoole and distributed the remainder of the Sacrament among them. Hesychius l. 2. in Levit. c. 8. speaketh yet of a more strange custome of casting it into the fire.
D. B.
What collect you from these customes?
M. F.
That they thought not the Sacrament to be Christs very body, but only a mysterie of it.
D. B.
I see not any force in this consequence, conclude Syllogistically.
M. F.
That which the ancients distributed to children, cast into the fire, they beleeved not to be the body of Christ farther then in a mysterie.
But the remainder of the Sacrament after the Communion they disposed of as above.
Ergo they beleeved it not to bee the very body of their Lord and Saviour farther then in a mysterie.
D. B.
I make doubt of your Major.
M. F.
I marvaile how you can make any doubt of it? for if they had beleeved, as you do the Sacrament to be the very body of Christ, by way of Transubstantiation: they had grievously sinned against their conscience in thus using or rather abusing the Lords body.
D. B.
How proove you that?
M. F.
It is a sin to give Christs body to children that cannot discerne it: a greater sin by farre to cast it into the fire: I say to cast the remainder of the Sacrament into the fire, holding it to be the very body of Christ in your sense, otherwise holding it to bee but the figure or Sacrament of Christs body, they might burne it without sin, in imitation of the Israelites, who by the commandement of God burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lamb, which was a figure of Christ.
D. B.
You answer your selfe, as you say the Iewes burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lambe to prevent worse inconveniencies, so the ancient Church might cast Christs body in the Sacrament into the fire in a reverence to it.
M. F.
A strange kinde of reverence to throw a man (especially alive) into the fire.
D. B.
If the figure of Christ might bee burnt in reverence, his body might with greater reverence.
M. F.
I scarce beleeve (M. D.) that you thinke a man should doe you a greater reverence, to cast you into the fire, then to burne your picture.
I see by my watch, that the two houres allotted for me to dispute are neare past, and therefore I knit up the foure arguments which I purposed to prosecute at large in three breefe questions. 1. What doth the mouse eate that lighteth upon a piece of bread or drop of wine consecrated?
D. B.
The forme of bread returneth againe by a miracle.
M. F.
Peter Lombard propounding this doubt: quid ergo mus comedit? answereth, Deus novit, God knoweth. Aquinas resolveth it against you. a…e … ….And so doth your church, saying, si mus corpus Domini comederit, if a mouse eate the body of Christ.
D. B.
What tell you me of Aquinas?
M. F.
I must be briefe, that I may not defraud the Auditorio of your arguments. My second question is: what is that you call the consecrated Host? the 6 Argu.bread is not the Host, because it is not offered, the body of Christ is not the Host, and I trust you will not say the accidents are the Host.
D. B.
Christs body is the Host.
M. F.
Christs body is not offered, therefore it is not the Host.
D. B.
It is offered.
M. F.
That is offered which is consecrated: Christs body is not consecrated: therefore it is not offered.
D. B.
I denie your Major.
M. F.
I had thought, you had held, that you offer a thing consecrated. What is consecrated, sith Christs body is not?
D. B.
The bread.
M. F.
The bread remaineth not after consecration, and Christs body you confesse, is not consecrated by the Priest: therefore you have no consecrated Host.
D. B.
The bread is consecrated to be offered, because it is consecrated to bee made Christs body, which is offered.
M. F.
Your answer in a word to my 7 Argu.third demand. What becommeth of Christs body in the stomack? doth it remaine there still? then you have Christs body at this time within you. And what need you often receive his body, if you have it still within you? doth it goe out of the stomack? when and which way? Is it turned into the substance of our body? or evaporeth into ayre? or is it altogether annihilated?
D. B.
None of all these. But it ceaseth to be, as the soule in a part of the body that is cut off from the rest.
M. F.
Chius ad Choum. I speake of a body, you answer of a soule. The soule of a man, because it is a spirituall substance, may in an instant invisibly disfuse it selfe through the whole body, and contract it selfe in like manner, when a part is cut off, or rather stay her influxe into that part; but a bodie that hath parts of quantity and soliditie of substance cannot penetrate another body, nor quit the former place, but by a true locall motion, visible and divisible, and that in time.
D. B.
Christs body is more spirituall then our soule.
M. F.
What, according to the substance? If Christs body bee more spirituall then our soule, it must needs be a Spirit.for we speake not now of qualities or spirituall graces? Note this by the way. It savoureth of heresie. Let me bee so much beholding to you, before I leave, to get of you a direct answer to this Syllogisme.
Every bodily substance truly existent in a place, that neither abideth in that place, nor removeth to another, nor is changed into something els, is truly annihilated or brought to nought or nothing.
The body of Christ, according to your beliefe, was really existent in the stomack, and neither continueth there still, neither goeth out of the stomack, neither is converted into another substance or thing.
Ergo it is there truly annihilated.
D. B.
Thus you dispute: Christs body is annihilated in the stomacke. Ergo it is annihilated simpliciter, I denie your argument.
M. F.
You denie your owne argument not mine. I undertooke not to proove that Christs body is annihilated simpliciter, simply, but that it is annihilated in the stomacke, which it seemes you denie not, nor can, standing to your owne grounds. Yet because you are so briefe with me, thus I proove the argument.
That which is made absolutely nothing in the stomacke, cannot be something elsewhere.
Christs body as you grant is turned into nothing in the stomack.
Ergo it cannot be something elsewhere.
D. B.
Your Major is most false.
M. F.
That which is made simply nothing, is yet something. Nothing is a contradiction, if this be not.
D. B.
Respectu ejusdem, M. Featley. How often have I distinguished of divers respects.
M. F.
And how often have I resuted this frivolous distinctiō of yours; which was your first and now is your last.
Inchoat, at que eadem finit oliva dapes.
Here M. Featley being ca…led off from farther objecting, D. Bagshaw opposeth as followeth.
D. B.
Christs body may be in more places at once. Ergo it is in the Sacrament.
M. F.
I denie your argument.
D. B.
This is the reason why you denie Christs body to be in the Sacrament, because you suppose it cannot be in more places at once. Ergo if it may be in more places at once it may be in heaven and in the Sacrament.
M. F.
This argument as little followes as the former. Ex particulari non fas est Syllogizare. Though this reason were not good, yet we have many other strong and invincible.
D. B.
It is no wickednesse to eat Christs flesh in the Sacrament. Ergo your argument drawne from the impiety of eating Christs flesh with the mouth is of no force.
M. F.
S. Austin indeed alleadgeth this for a reason, to proove that Christs words, unlesse you eate my flesh, Ioh. 6. cannot be meant properly, but figuratively, because it is an horrible wickednesse to eate the flesh of a live man. I approve of this reason and will maintaine it. Yet if you could overthrow it, it would not prove your argument: you know Aristotle distinguisheth inter argumenta foreign & foreign. These arguments of yours, if you could prove them, are but foreign, they are not foreign, they demonstrate not the conclusion of your faith, that Christ is really and corporally in the Sacrament. At the most they prove but that he might be in the Sacrament, for ought they bring to the contrarie that insist upon the former reasons. Let us heare one Syllogisme from you.
D. B.
The words of Christ are litterally to be taken, except you can bring some just exception against the literall exposition.
But you can bring no just exception against the literall exposition.
Ergo the words of the institution are litterally to be understood, and by consequence the Sacrament is Christs true body.
M. F.
All the arguments I have hitherto used, are so many exceptions against the literall exposition. But to restraine you to some certaine reasons, I say the words of the institution cannot be taken properly, because all the circumstances of the Text are against it: first, Christ took bread and brake it, & pointing to it, said, This is my body, and he added, doe tlois in remembrance of me. And after he had given the cup, said, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine. From all which circumstances many strong arguments may be drawne. Bread cannot properly be Christs body. Christs body cannot be given in remembr…nce of it selfe. That which is the fruit of the vine is not properly Christs blood. Moreover, Christ in these words, This is my body, instituted a Sacrament, and therefore this sacred forme of speech is to be mystically and Sacramentally understood, answerable to the like used in the matter of Sacraments. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant, speaking of Circumcision which was but a signe of the Covenant. Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover, speaking of the Lambe, which was but a figure of the Passeover, 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ, that is a figure of Christ. Luk. 22. this cup is the New Testament, that is, a sacred signe or memorial of the New Testament. The literall exposition of the words is repugnant to the Articles of our faith, clearely deduced from those words of our Saviour, Ioh 16. I leave the world and go to the Father, where it followeth immediatly now thou speakest plainely, now thou usest no parable. It is said, Act. the 3. that the heavens must containe Christ, according to his humane nature, till his second comming. Now if Christ, according to…is humane nature have lest the world, he is not in the world: if he be contained in the heavens, then he is not without the leavens upon the earth.
D. B.
Thus I overthrow your reason. Christs body was contained in heaven after his Ascention, and there he remaines.
And yet he was since that upon earth and stood by S. Paul, Acts 23. 11.
Ergo your strongest argument hath no force at all.
M. F.
First I answer to your Major, that many of our Divines and aAquinas 3. p Summ. q. 57. art 6. no… derogat dignitati Christi si ex aliqu… dispensatione quando que cor poraliter ad terram descend … vel ut se ostenda… omnibus sicut in iudicio, vel alicui specialiter sicut Paula & Lorinu… con. in Act. c. 3. nihil absurdi est affirmar… Christum ad exiguum … p… de coelo descendisle, solum enim ex hoc loco sequitur fi… … in … Chris… immorta… s… esse, ne que … ven…um e coelo … … … minibus … versetur inter illos fa… liarner.yours also understand those words Act. 3. of the ordinary residence of Christ not denying that Christ if he pleased might extraordinarily and miraculously leave his place in heaven for a while, to doe some great work upon earth: which as it breaketh the force of your argument, so it no way disableth mine; For if heaven be the place of Christs ordinarie residence, it followeth that he is not daily and ordinarily according to the substance of his body, upon earth, to wit, on the Altar as you beleeve, Secondly, I answer to your Minor, that S. Paul Act. 23. speaketh of a vision in the night, not of any reall or corporall presence of Christ.
D. B.
He saith, that the Lord stood by him, and spake unto him, therefore it was no vision.
M. F.
I denie your argument. S. Peter saith, Act. 10. that he saw heaven opened, certaine vessell came downe to him, and he heard a voice, saying to him, kill and eate. And this was done three times, the more to confirme him, and yet all this was but done in a bLori…us i… c 23. Act. v. 11. Probabilis est sententia Carthusiani fuisse apparitionē imaginariū dor…ienti factā ab Angels, …ec qui ex hac apparitione colligunt Christū …sse in c…lo & Sacramēto firmiter argumentantur.vision. Likewise we reade in the book of Tobia, (which you receive for Canonicall) that the Angell did eate and drinke with cTob. 12. 10. All these daies I did appeare unto you, but I did neither …ate nor drink.Tobia, and yet all this was but done in a vision, nay the same word (foreign standing by me) is used by S. Luke Act. 16. 9 there stood a man of Macedonia and prayed him, &c. and yet hee speakes of a vision in the night.
D. B.
S. Luke saith, Act. 23. 11. foreign, which is the very word S. Paul useth, Act. 22. 13. where he speaketh of Ananias comming unto him. foreign. But Ananias truly stood by S. Paul, not in vision only. Ergo Christ likewise stood by him, and did not onelyonly appeare so to do.
M. F.
The same word in divers places of Scripture may be diversly taken, according to the diversity of the matter and circumstances of the Text.
Ananias was a man that could not otherwise present himselfe to S. Paul then by comming to him & visibly standing by him, Christ by his divine power might.
Besides Ananias was not in heaven, but upon earth, & therfore he might stand by S. Paul visibly & locally, without any miracle or apparition. But Christ, as we are both agreed, was at this present in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, & therfore could not otherwise be present with S. Paul, then in spirit, or by vision, which I am induced to beleeve the rather, because the Text saith, this was done in the night, the most proper time for a vision. The night following, the Lord stood by him, and said, &c.
D. B.
This is petere principium, you suppose that which is in question, to wit, that Christ could not at the same time be really present in body in heaven and in earth.
M. F.
I never heard that an answer could petere principium in dissolving an Argument. Petere principium in my understanding is to beg that to be granted to a man which he ought to prove. A respondent, as a respondent, is not to proove, but to hold and maintaine his own grounds against contrarie oppositions. The burthen of prooving lieth now upon you, M. Doctor, refell mine interpretations if you can, or make it appeare by some other argument, that Christ since his Ascention hath beene truly upon earth in body.
D. B.
S. Paul truly saw him and heard him, Acts 9. 22, …6. And that with his bodily senses. Otherwise he could not have beene an eye witnesse of the Resurrection. Chap. 26. Ergo Christ since his Ascention hath beene truly present in body, upon the earth.
M. F.
The Argument followeth not S. Paul truly saw Christ, therfore Christ was truly upon earth.
D B.
S. Paul being upon earth could not see Christ in heaven; Ergo if he truly saw Christ, he saw him upon earth, if he truly saw him upon earth, he was truly upon earth.
M. F.
S. Paul being upon earth, might dAmbrose in Epist. ad Cor. 1 c. 15. Paulus Christum videt in coelo vocantem & apparuit Christus illi primum in coelo postea oranti in tē plo & Greg mor. in Iob l. 19. c. 5. O Paule in coelo iam Iesum conspicis & in terra adh…c hominē fugis Aug. in ep. 1. Ioh. tract. 10. I…m nō invenis loqui Christū in terra invenis ipse illum loqui de coelo Saule, Saule, & Isidorus Pel. l. 1. ep 409 foreign.see Christ in heaven, as well as S. Steven, Act. 7. v. 55, 56. Steven being full of the Holy Ghost looked stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Iesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, behold I see the heavens opened, & the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.
D. B.
S. Stevens might be a vision. I proove my proposition. The senses of our bodie cannot apprehend an object so farre distant, as is the heaven from the earth: therfore S. Paul being upon earth, could not see Christ in heaven with his bodily eyes.
M. F.
Do we not see the Sun in the heaven, and it is said that the face of Christ in his transfiguration shone like the Sun: but my direct answer to your proposition is, that howsoever the eyes of S. Paul and S. Steven by the strength of nature could not apprehend Christ sitting at the hand of his Father in heaven, yet being miraculously enlightened & elevated as the Schooles speake, by divine vertue, they might easily. Heere M. D. Bagshaw at the first undertook to proove, that sense elevated could not discerne a thing so farre off. But afterwards perceiving it to be a matter of too great difficulty to proove, took advantage of a Popish Gentlemans speech, that helpt him out with a falshood, saying, the proposition to bee prooved was not, that sense elevated could not apprehend an object so farre off, but that S. Pauls senses were not elevated, which though it were an untruth, as many there present testified, yet M. Featley to gra…fie M. D. Bagshaw left of his hold, and gave M. D. Bagshaw leave to proove the proposition he desired, to wit, that S. Pauls senses were not elevated, which he endevoured to do after this manner.
D. B.
S. Paul saw Christ, as the other Apostles, … Cor. 15. v. 5, 6, 7, 8. He was seene of Cephas, and then of the twelve: after he was seene of more then 500. brethren at once: after that he was seene of …ames, then of all the Apostles, last of all he was seene also of me. But the other Apostles saw Christ with their senses not elevated. Ergo S. Paul saw him without any elevation of sense.
M. F.
S. Paul though his senses were helped, saw him as truly as any of the other. A man by helpe of a perspective may discerne an object farther off, yet sees as truly and more certainly then without the same.
D. B.
The same word is used in all the former verses. Ergo S. Paul saw Christ altogether after the sa… manner.
M. F.
One and the selfe same word may be … versly taken not onelyonly in divers verses but in … same verse, as for example, In mundo erat, & mundus per eum factus est, & mundus eum non cogno… he was in the world, and the world was made … him, and the world knew him not. Your own E… positors take the word (mundus) here in athreef… sense. But I need not make use of this observati… For I take the word (seene) in all these places the same sense. S. Paul saw Christ sensibly and tr… ly with his bodily eyes; both when he was up… earth by the elevation of his senses, and without also as we may probably collect, when he was r… in the third heaven.
D. B.
That was not in body but in spirit.
M. F.
That is more then you know or S. Pa… either, for he saith he knowes not whether it were … the body, or out of the body: but I stand rather to … former answer, which clearely dissolveth your argument.
D. B.
I will retort your owne argument upon yo… The words Hic calix est novum testamentum … meo sanguine, are not figuratively to be taken, fir… there is no figure in (Calix) for calix or poculum signifieth that which is in the chalice without any figur… as it is manifest by that verse of Virgill Pocula sunt liquidi fontes.
M. F.
As if it were a strange thing for a Poet to use a common figure? doth not the same Poet that calls fontes pocula, …, sat pra…abiberunt, the meadours have drunke enough by …gant Metaphor.
D. B.
If Calix signifie vinum, as you say, it followeth that you …e no new testament, and so consequently no religion.
M. F.
This is a marvellous consequence: hovv inferre you it?
D. B.
Christ saith, as you expound his words, the wine is the … testament, but that materiall wine doth not now remaine: …refore you you have no new testament.
M F.
What a wofull argument is this? vvhat Protestant ever …d, that the Sacramentall wine was properly Christs Will … Testament: the wine was a signe or memoriall of his Te…ment: which wine though it doe not remaine now the …e numero, yet the same remaines inspecte: the bread which …st brake remaineth not the same numero. Will you here…on inferre that the Church hath novv no Sacramentall …ad?
D B.
Here is a stirre with figures. A figure in Calix and … …ure in Testamentum. Allyour answers are figurative. One …ry fitly called you figure-…ngers.
M. F.
My figurative answers take away your proper arguments: and for your figure-flinging, you had need cast a fi…re for your arguments, for they are all gone and vanished.
D. B.
I see the company grow wearie, I will therfore conclude …ith one argument, S Luke saith.
That was shed for us, which is meant by Calix.
But wine was not shed for us.
Ergo by Calix he meant the true blood of Christ and not wine.
M F.
Those vvords (which is shed for you) have a reference to …e word (blood) not to the word (cup) This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed, that is, which blood is shed … you. S. Matthew and S. Marke who relate the same words, … them to the blood of Christ, saying, This is the blood of …e New Testament which is shed for you.
D. B.
…he Greeke construction will not beare it: for foreign is the dative case, and foreign is the nominative foreign.
M F.
The construction is no harder then we finde in … Iohn c. 1. 5, and elsewhere, foreign, f… foreign and v. 6. foreign for foreign.
Hovvsoever, it is farre better to acknovvledge a foreign or an enallage, then make an absurd tautologie as you do, expounding Calix blood, and saying it is the New Testament in his blood; blood in blood, or as you mend th… matter, glossing the words thus: This cup is the New Testament in my blood; that is, this blood is blood in my blood.
D. B
This must needs be the meaning of the words, the latter words (foreign) cannot be referred in any tolerable construction to any other word then foreign. And therfore foreign here signifieth Christs blood, which he saith, is the New Testament in his blood. And with these words he arose from his chaire, and brake off the disputation.
M F.
Although D. Bagshaw as it seemeth sitting upon thornes, would not stay to heare out M. F. full ansvver, ye…
M. F.
I held it fit for the satisfaction of those vvho desire to knovv the truth to add to his former answer First, that Saint Basil in moral reg. 21. c. 3. readeth the words in S. Luke foreign, and not as they and we now reade, foreign Secondly, that admitting the words to be so read as our adversaries vvould have them, I say yet still these words (which is shed for you) must be referred to Christs blood, as S. Matthew and S Mark referre them, and for the Grammaticall construction we have the like, Apoc. 8. 9. foreign there for foreign as here foreign for foreign, there for foreign as here foreign for foreign
foreign
FINIS
End of the text · Daniel Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded (1638)