Transubstantiation Exploded, Part 1 · Paragraph 10

Transubstantiation Exploded · Part 1 · Paragraph 10

p. 78PAR. 10.

Thirty three allegations out of S. Austin against Transubstantiation vindicated, and all objections made by the adversarie out of him answered.

SO are you also in the second which you propound amisse. Saint Austin in his third booke, de doctrina Christiana saith that speech of our Saviour, unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, Iohn the 6. &c. is figurative, therfore the other, this is my body, is so too, Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus. The argument was mine, but by your mis-reporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent, you make it yours. Thus I connected this p. 79argument to the former: there are two Texts in the Gospell, upon which you relie, either principally, or onelyonly for your carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine. The former, Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian, yeelds your doctrine no support, and you are driven in effect to confesse as much, subscribing with your owne hand, Ego agnosco quod in his verbis (hoc est corpus meum) est figura, I acknowledge the words of Institution to be figurative. Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour, Iohn 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense, and consequently that the proper eating Christs flesh with the mouth, cannot be inferred from them.

For proofe of the antecedent, I produced in the first place a passage out of Saint aaSi autem flagitium … … facinus videtur … bere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam v…tare figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, & sanguinem biberitis non habelitis vitam … vobu, facinus vel flaginum videtur i…bere; Figura est ergo pracipien… Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter at que utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro cius crucifixa, & vulnerata sit.Austins third booke, de doctrinâ p. 80Christianâ, cap. 16. But if that Scripture seeme to command a sinne, or an horrible wickednesse, or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative: for example, (when he saith) unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye have no life in you, he seemeth to command a sinne or horrible wickednesse; there is a figure therefore (in the words) commanding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion, and sweetly & profitably to lay it up in our memory, That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Here said I three things are very remarkeable to the point now in question.

1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour, as of a most knowne instance of a figurative speech.

2. That he not onelyonly affirmeth it to be a figurative speech, but confirmeth it also by a strong argument, figura est, Ergo it is therefore a figure.

3. That he sheweth what figure it is, end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech, conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants, and contrarie to all Romish glosses upon it.

p. 81To this allegation you answered, partly by glancing at Saint Austins argument, partly by glossing upon his conlusion. First said you, it is not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh, unlesse it be eaten in the proper shape, for it appeares in Mumme that mans flesh may be eaten without horrour, when it is not eaten in the proper shape. Secondly, you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten, and according to the manner of eating it, and said that the speech of Christ, Iohn 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative, according to the manner of eating, to wit in the proper forme, but that it was proper according to the matter (viz.) the substance of Christs flesh.

1. Against your first answer to Saint Austins antecedent, I replie.

1. That whereas you pretend Saint Austin to bee for you, you should not have disabled his argument, but have defended it rather. Now you evidently overthrow it. For if it be not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh, though under an p. 82other shape, Saint Austins Ergo therefore, our Saviours speech concerning eating his flesh must needs be figurative, is a plaine non sequitur.

2. Saint bbCyril ad obiect. Theod. in expos. a…ath 11. Num hominis comeftionem hoc Sacramentum pronuncias?Cyril maketh good this argument of Saint Austins, choaking his adversarie with this interrogatorie. Dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be a man eating, and dost thou irreligiously urge the mindes of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations? You would have instructed Saint Cyril to have interrogated more warily, dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be the eating of a man in his proper shape? Otherwise to eate a man under an other shape (you would have whispered him in the eare) is a schoole delicacie, no carnall and grosse imagination.

3. I affirme that it is an horrible p. 83thing to eate mans flesh, and drinke his blood though in an other shape; for it is not the disregard of the countenance of man, or the disfiguring his shape, which makes Anthropophagie or man eating so horrible a sinne: but the making the flesh of one man the food of another, and the belly a sepulcher. This I make appeare by foure instances.

1. Suppose at Rome or Venice on the day of your carnivals, when many murthers are committed by men in disguised habits, that one of the masquers or mummers slaine, should be boyled or rosted, and served in at table, in the habit of a whiffler, or masquer, were it not a horrible wickednesse think you to eate of this mans flesh, his head for example though with a vizard p. 84upon it, and so I returne you a mummer for your mumme.

2. If according to Iustins storie, or Ovids fiction, the members of a sonne were baked in a pie, in the likenesse of venison, with the proportion of a Deere printed on the crust, were it not a horrible wickednesse for a Father to eate wittingly of his sonnes flesh, though under another shape.

3. What though a mans body in some fight were so mangled, and battered, that it had lost all humane shape, would you warrant an Indian to eate this mans flesh, or excuse him from an horrible crime if he should eate it, because it was not in propriâ specie?

4. Did you live among the Lycanthropie, men in the shape of wolves, or meete with witches who p. 85delude the senses, and take upon them the shape of a pig, or cunny, or goate, would you preach it for good doctrine, that a man might eate wittingly the flesh of any of these while it remained sub alienâ specie. As,

For the argument you take not from any topick place, but from the Apothecaries shop, I meane your instance in Mumme, I wish you some better drug of theirs, I meane some strong confection of Helleborum to purge your braine. For our question is not of the medicinall use of mans flesh, altered by art, but whether it be not a finne, and that a horrible one, to eate with the mouth and teeth the flesh of a knowne man, nay of the Sonne of God.

2. Against your second answer to Saint Austins conclusion, I replied

p. 861. That Saint Austin by figura, meant such a figure as excludes the native and proper sense of the words. His words are immediatly going before those I cited, si autem hoc jam propriè sonat nulla putetur figurata locutio, if it bee taken in the proper sense let it bee accounted no figure.

2. Saint Austin speakes of such a speech which can in no wise be taken properly, such a speech, to wit, where a vertue is forbidden, or a vice commanded, and in this very Chapter he instanceth in Romanes the 12. 20. Thou shalt heape coales of fire upon thine enemies head. In which words, because the Apostle seemed to command an evill act, Saint Austin inferres, ne igitur dubitaveris figuratè dictum, Doubt not therefore but that it is p. 87spoken by a figure. If a speech commanding a sin, or forbidding a vertue, might be taken in the proper sense, hence it would follow, that it should bee lawfull to sinne, because expressely commanded by God, and sinnefull to exercise some act of piety, or charity because forbidden by him. And here your Lordship touched the second time at Hercules Columna Non plus.

3. Whereas you say that Saint Austin by sigura meant a figure mixt of a sigurative and proper speech, dato & non concesso, supposing for a while that there might be such a figure; I desire you to observe that Saint Austin speakes here of no such figure, but of a speech meerely figurative. For he declares that the meaning of the figure is, that wee ought to partake p. 88of Christs sufferings, and remember his ccFigura praecipiens Passioni Domini esse cō municandū & suaviter ae utiliter recondendū in memoriâ quod pro nobis caro cius crucifixa & vulnerata sit.death. Now to compassionate Christ, or to partake with him in his sufferings, or remember his death, is not to eate his flesh in any proper sense at all.

4. Of one simple categoricall proposition, there can bee but one true sense. And this sense cannot be figurative and proper, but either the one, or the other for proper and figurative are proper and improper, borrowed and not borrowed, which cannot bee affirmed de eodem.

I conclude with Saint ddAustin l. 3 do doc. Christ. c. 5. In principio cavendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias, ad hoc enim pertiue… quod ait Apostolus, litera occidit spiritus autē vivificat. Cum enim figuratè dictum sit accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur, neque ulla mors animae congruemiùs appellatur.Austin his owne words. The first thing that you must beware is this, that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter, to that belongeth the Apostles admonition, the letter killeth, the spirit quickneth. For when we take that which is flguratively spoken as if it were proporly spoken, it is a carnall sense, neither is any thing more rightly tearmed p. 89the death of the soule then it.

Here S. E. puts a great deale of varnish upon a rotten post, he tells us of a mingled colour, and a garment of motley, and distinguisheth of a meere figure, and of a figure which hath the truth joyned with it; in fine he alleadgeth what Tapper, and Allen, Suarez, Gordon, and Pittigarus have confessed upon the racke of our arguments concerning a figure in the words of the institution.

But one sad shower of raine will wash away all this his varnish.

1. To his demand, Why not a mixt figure, as well as a mixt colour. I answer, because the opposition betwixt colours is inter contrarios terminos, contrarie tearmes which admit a medium, but the opposition betweene figurative and proper, is betweene contradictorie tearmes which admit of no medium. Wherefore although there may bee a mixt colour of white and blacke, and a mixt temper of hot and cold, and a mixt sawce of sweete and sower, and a twilight betweene day and night, because these are mediate contraries: yet there cannot be a mixt p. 90element, or a mixt truth, or a mixt figure; because simple and compound, true and false, proper and figurative (that is improper) stand upon flat tearmes of contradiction.

2. His distinction of a figure which is a meere figure, and of a figure which is not a meere figure but hath the verity joyned with it, wherewith hee goes about to soder the bracks and flawes in your leaden discourse, is altogether impertinent. For the question betweene me and you, was of tropes, not of types, of verball figures, not reall: of rhetoricall, such as Metaphors and Metonymies and the like are, not of physicall or naturall figures, if speech be of the latter kinde of figures, I denie not but that such a difference among them may be observed. Some of them are meere figures and representations, as Philips picture or image, some are more, as Alexander, Philip his sonne. Sacraments are according to this acception of figures, not meere figures, nor bare signes, as is shewed at large in the former Paragraph, for they doe not onelyonly signifie, but also really exhibit, and are p. 91effectuall meanes to conveigh unto us those spirituall blessings and graces whereof they are signes and symbols. But if the speech bee of figures in words or sentences, such as all grammaticall and rhetoricall figures are, I say that all such figures are meere figures, every Metaphor is a meere Metaphor, every Metonomie a meere Metonomie, every Allegorie a meere Allegorie, every Ironie a meere Ironie, every Solaecisme a meere Solaecisme, neither can any instance bee given to the contrary.

But because S. E. hath felt M. Waferer his feriler for his errour in Rhetoricke, I leave him to con better his Susenbrotus, and I returne to your Lordship, who perswade your selfe that Saint Austin favoureth your carnall presence, because hee saith, Wee receive with faithfull heart l. …. con. adv…rs. leg. c. 9.and mouth, the Mediator of God and Man, the Man Christ Iesus giving us In Psal 33.Ps 33his body to be eaten and his blood to bee drunke; and againe, he bare himselfe in l. 9. conf. c. 13his owne hands, when commending his body, he said, This is my Body; and againe, she onelyonly desired to be remembred p. 92at thine Altar, whence she knew the holy host was dispensed, whereby the hand writing against us is cancelled; and yet Tract. 59. in Iohan.againe, The Disciples and Iudas ate both: they bread the Lord, he the bread of the Lord against the Lord; and yet againe, Christ suffered Iudas that divell Epsti. 162.and thiefe, to receive amongst the innocent Serm. ad Neophy. hic accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce, hic accipite in calice quod manavit de Christi la…re.Disciples the price of our redemption; and lastly, here receive you that in the bread which hung upon the Crosse, here receive you that in the cup which flowed out of Christs side.

To all which allegations, though I might shape one answer out of Saint aaEpist. ad. Bonifacium. Si Sacramē ta quandam similitudinē earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sum non haberēt, omnino Sacramenta non essent, ex hac autem similitudino plerum que etiā ipsarum rerum nomina accipium. Et quest. S…p. Levit. 57. Solet res quae significat cius rei nomine quam significat nuncupari, hinc quod dictum est, Petra era; Christus, &c.I Austins owne words, That in regard of the similitude betweene the signe: and the things signified, it is usuall in Sacramentall speeches, to attribute the name of the thing signified to the signe: So the Lambe is called the Passeover, Circumcision the Covenant, the Rocke Christ, the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood and price of our Redemption. With this one brush reached unto me by Saint Austin, I p. 93might whiten all the walls you point unto: yet partly out of respect to your selfe, but especially to S. Austin, I will take speciall notice of every place and passage above mentioned.

Your first allegation is like a leaden Rep. ad 1.sword, it boweth either way; for as you bow it towards you by urging that Saint Austin must needs speake of corporall and proper eating, because he addeth the words with the mouth: so I may as easily bow it the contrarie way by arguing that he must needs speake of spirituall eating, because he addeth with a faithfull heart. As the mouth cannot receive Christ spiritually, so neither can the heart receive Christ corporally. Saint Austin therefore as hee speakes there of a double organ, the heart and the mouth'; so he speaketh also of a double eating, Spiritually and Sacramentally, and the meaning of the whole sentence is this, we receive with a faithfull heart spiritually, and with the mouth Sacramentally, the Body and Blood of the Mediator betwixt God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus.

Your second allegation is like Sir p. 94Rep. ad …Philip Sidneys emblem which was the word hope, written in large golden characters, but dasht through with a pen. When Saint Austin uttered these words, a man may be carried in another mans hands, but no man is carried in his **S. Aug. Ser. 33. de v…rb Dom. Panem quē Dominus gestavit in manibus. It was not then his very body, but the Sacrament thereof which he carried in his hands.own hands: we finde not how it can be understood of David, but we finde how it may bee understood of Christ, for hee carried his Body in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body: hee gave you great hope that he was strong for your carnall presence, but when bbConvio. 2. in Psal. 33. Accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo. cum diceret hoc est corpus meum.Ps 33afterwards resuming his former words, he thus glosseth upon them, when hee commended his Body and Blood hee tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know, and hee carried himselfe after a sort when he said, This is my Body. He dasheth all your hope, for hee expoundeth quodammodo as Gratian teacheth you out of his 23. Ep. ad Bonifac. non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, de 3. consect. dist. 2.

Your third allegation hurteth us not Rep. ad 3.at all, for wee acknowledge both as Altar and an Host in the Fathers sense… p. 95to wit, mysticall or representative, in memory of that one most proper Host and sacrifice offered once for all upon the Crosse for the crossing of the hand writing against us, though we cannot allow of your Masse, Altar and Host, wherein Christ existing on earth, and covered with the formes of Bread and Wine, is said in his very substance by you, not Saint Austin to be offered up to God his Father.

Your fourth allegation out of the 59. tract upon Iohn, is like Dido her Rep. ad 4.sword, wherewith shee ran her selfe Rep. ad 4.through,

Non hos quaesitum munus in usus

For if the other Apostles who brought Faith and Repentance with them, received bread, the Lord, but Judas who brought neither, received panem Domini onelyonly, not panem Dominum, not bread which was the Lord, two things hereupon necessarily ensue. First, that none can receive Christ the Lord, or panem Dominum without faith. Secondly, that bread is not turned into Christs body, for then Iudas could not receive panem Domini, but hee must needs have riceived panem Dominum.

p. 96Your fift allegation out of the 162. Epist. of Saint Austin is already answered, Rep, ad 5.that Saint Austin called the wine which Iudas received, Christs blood and the price of our redemption; because it was the Sacrament thereof, so he expoundeth himselfe in the words following, aaSacramē tum corporis & sanguinis sui ipso non exclus… comr…uniter omnibus dedit. Rep. ad 6.Hee gave the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in common to all his Disciples, not excluding Judas.

Your sixt and last allegation is like a piece of coyne, full weight, but of counterfeit mettall: the Sermon ad Neophytos is not Saint Austins as your Parisians note, neither are there in it any such words as you quote.

By this time you perceive that your few allegations out of Saint Austin are partly forged, partly forced, and yet come not home to your carnall presence by Transubstantiation, whereas on the contrarie, the testimonies we produce out of Saint Austine are very many, and those most undoubted, free, cleare, and pregnant, for the doctrine of our bbArtic. of Religion. 28.Church concerning the body of Christ given taken and eaten in the Supper onelyonly after an heavenly and spirituall manner, by faith, I reduce them all to sixe heads.

p. 971. The conveniencie betweene the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament.

2. The difference betweene the signe and the thing signified.

3. The figurative sense of Christs words.

4. The true Communicants at Christs Table.

5. The necessary dependance of accidents on their subjects.

6. The limitation of Christs humane bodie to one place at once.

Touching the first.

If the Fathers under the (viz.) …he cō veniencie betweene the Sacraments of the Old and New Testaments.Law, and wee under the Gospell in the Sacrament, receive the same thing in truth, and substance; it followeth that we receive not Christs flesh with the mouth after a carnall manner, but onelyonly by faith after a spirituall: for before Christs Incarnation, the Fathers could no otherwise p. 98receive it.

But the Fathers under the Law in their Sacraments, and wee under the Gospell in ours receive the same thing in truth and substance, as Saint aaDe utilitate penit, Eundem cibum spiritualem manducaverunt, quid est eundem nisi quod eum quem etiam nos.Austin teacheth, they did eate the same spirituall meate. What is the same? the selfe same with us. And in his 26 bbIn signi… diversa sunt sed in requae significatur paria sunt: audi Apostolum, omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt, spiritalem uti… eandem, nam corporalem alter an….Treatise upon the 6. of Saint Iohn, Manna signified this bread, their Sacraments and ours were divers in the signes; but equall in the thing signified: heare the Apostle, I would not (saith he) have you ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and al… passed through the Sea, an… did all eate the same spirituall meate; Marke the sa… spirituall meate. For the… ate not the same corpor… meate, they ate Mann… we eate another thing; b… they ate the same spiritu… p. 99meate which we eate, and they all dranke the same spirituall drinke, they ccAliud illi, aliud no… sed specie visibili, quod tamen hoc idem significare… virtu… spiritals.dranke one thing, and wee another, according to outward appearance or in visible forme, which yet signified the selfe same thing in spirituall vertue. How did they drinke the same spirituall drinke? He telleth, they dranke of the spirituall Rocke which followed them, which Rocke was Christ.

Ergo according to Saint Austin wee eate not Christs flesh in the Sacrament with the mouth, after a carnall manner, but onelyonly by faith after a spirituall.

Touching the second.

No signe, Sacrament, figure, or memoriall of Christs (viz.) The difference betweene the signe and the thing signified.body and blood is his very body and blood: for signum & signatum, the signe, p. 100and the thing signified, the type and the truth are relatively opposed; and therefore no more can the one be the other, then the Father bee the Sonne, or the Master the Servant, or the Prince the Subject, or the Husband the Wife; in so much that Saint aaChrys. Homil. gen. foreignChrysostome concludeth, that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth, that is, Christ himselfe, were found in him. And Saint bbAustin de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Hoc. est.Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti, and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe. And that it is a miserable ccDe doct. Chris. l. 3. c. 5. Miserabilis animae servitus est signa pro rebus accipereservitude of the soule to tak… c Con. Maximin. l. 2. c. 22 Sacramenta quoniam signa sunt rer…m aliud ex…stant, a…iud significant.the signes for the thing themselves. For the signe of truths are one thing … themselves, and signifie an… ther. They are visib… p. 101ddAugust. de Catech…. rudibus. Si… nacula visi bili… sed re… invisibiles in ijs honorantur.Seales but things invisible are honoured in them.

But that which we take at the Lords Table is a eeAug…n Psal 98. Sacramentum aliquod …obis comm… davi spiritualiter intellectum vt visicab… vos.Ps 98Mystery, a ffDetrin l. 3. c 4 Pos…t tamen significando praedicare D…minum Iesum Christum aliter per … guam suam aliter per Epistolam, aliter per Sacramentum corpor… … sanguinis eius.Sacrament, a ggContra Adimantum c. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus m… vid. in fr. cum daret signum corporis sui.Signe, a hhAug in Psal. 3. Eum (Iudam) adhibuit ad convivi…m in quo cor poris & sanguinis sui figuram Discipulis commendavit & tradid….Ps 3Figure, a iiContra Faust. l. 20. c. 21. Garo Domini promissa fuit nobis in … Testamento in similitudine victimarum, in cr…cere ipsa suit exhibit…, …s Sacramento autem celebratur per memoriam.Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood.

Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper, is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense.

Touching the third.

If the words which our (viz.) The sig…e sense of Christs w….Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking his blood, recorded by the foure Evangelists, and Saint Paul, are to be taken Sacramentally, p. 102Spiritually and Figuratively, and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth, nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth, for so to eate the flesh of Christ, is to eate it corporally, not Sacramentally, carnally, not spiritually; properly, not figuratively▪ wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation, to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion, to abide in him, and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life (which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth) is not to eate Christ flesh properly, but onelyonly in an allegoricall sense.

But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh, in the judgement of Sai… Austin, are to bee taken Sacramentally, Spiritually▪ p. 103and figuratively. For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument, are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists, and Saint Paul; or they are set downe by Saint Iohn, Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to b… … figuratively, sp…lly …d Sacramentally, … … booke against … …. 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme, and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface, and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ou… Lord: the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurative…y, in his 3. book de doct. Christi, c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle, and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn. All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned, and although p. 104you cast a mist before some of them, yet it will easily bee dispelled, and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely, that they will dazle all your eyes. What words can be more conspicuous then those of this aaAustin c…nt. Adim… c. 12. Dominus non dubita… it dicere, Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui.Father. I coul… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively, understanding by blood that which it figureth, for our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when hee gave the signe of his body. Here the antecedents possem dicere I might say the precept is figurative He made no scruple to say, This is my body, when hee gave the signe thereof.hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse, and the words non dubitavit, clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee: that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body, his body, as the blood of a beast slaine the soule, yet by a figure Christ p. 105made no scruple so to tearme it. Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast, nor a signe of a soule present in it: no more by Saint Austins comparing (these Texts together) is bread Christs body, nor a signe of his body present in it, but onelyonly a Sacrament and memoriall thereof. The next passage is as bbIn Psal. 98. Spiritaliter intelligite quod loc…us sum: non hoc cor▪ pus quod videtis man du…aturi est is, & bibit…ri illum s…guinem quem s…suri sunt q… me crucisige…t, Sacramenti… … quod …obis commen… … spirit…ter int…ctum … ….Ps 98cleare. You are not to eate that body which you see, nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me, I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament (or mystery) which being spiritually understood will quicken you. And although it ought to be celebrated visibly, yet it oug…t to be understood invisib…. Put the parts of the sentence together, and the meaning of the whole p. 106will be evidently this, that which you are to eate, and drinke, is not my very body which you now see, and the Jewes shall pierce, and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof. Which yet received with faith in my bloody death, through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you. If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the ccEpist. 23. ad Bonif. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corp…s Christi est, Sacrament… sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita Sacramentum fidei …des est, si enim Sacramenta quan…am similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent.next. When Easter is neare (saith he) we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered, whereas hee suffered but once, and that many yeares agoe: so wee say on the Lords day, this day the Lor… rose, whereas many yeare… are past since hee rose, why is no man so foolish as … charge us with a lie in s… speaking, but because we… call these daies according … the similitude of those daies in which these things were p. 107done, and say th…s is such a day, which is not that day, but in the revolution of time is like unto it, and that is said to be done that day, by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament, which was not done that day but long before. Was not Christ once offered in himselfe? and yet in the Sacrament he is not onelyonly offered at Easter, but every day, neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered. For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not bee Sacraments at all. Now in regard of this resemblance, for the most part they take the name of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body, the Sacrament of his blood is his blood: so the Sacrament of faith p. 108(hee meanes there Baptsime) is faith. But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion, nor the last Lords day, the day of his Resurrection, nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse, nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith, but so tearmed onelyonly by a figure, to wit, a Metonymie, therefore neither is that of which Christ said, This is my Body, his body in propriety of speech; but onelyonly so tearmed by a figure, because it is the Sacrament, and resemblance of his body. For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like. I know not what can be more plaine, except the words of the same aaSerm. 33. de verbis Dom. caenam manibus suis …onsecratam Discipulis dedit, sed nos … illo convivio non discubiamus, & tamen ip…m caenam … quotidie …anducamusFather, Christ gave the Supper, consecrated with his own p. 109hands to his Disciples, wee sate not together with him in that banquet, and yet we eate daily the selfe same Supper by faith. Eating by faith is not eating by the mouth, for faith is of things Heb. 11. 1.Heb 11:1not seene, what wee eate with the mouth, is seene. You have heard what Saint Austin conceived of the words of the institution, and that his judgement was the same of the words of Christ, Iohn the 6. It appeares by these passages bbTract. 250 in Chap. 6. Iohn. VsUs quid paras deutum & ventrem … crede & manducasti.ensuing. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie, beleeve and thou hast eaten. To ccTract 26. in Iohn. Qu… manducat carnem meam, & bibit …cum sang…mem in me manet: hoc est ergo manducare illam escam. & illum bibere potum, in Christo man…e, & illuns man… tem in se habere. ibid. Qui manducat intus non soris, qui maducat in corde, non qui premit dentibus.eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood, is to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in himselfe; and againe, Christ speaketh of him who eates inwardly, not outwardly, he that feeds on him in the heart, not hee which presseth him with his teeth. p. 110Prepare not therefore (saith hee) thy ddSer…. 33. de ver. D…m. Noli parare fauces sed cor, inde cō mendata est ista cana, ecce credimus in Christum quem side …ccipimus.chops but thy heart. I omit the testimonie out of the third booke de doct. Christ. c. 16. figura est ergo, &c. because it hath beene before fully discussed and I conclude out of all these joynt allegations, like many starres i… the same constellation.

Ergo the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his fles… in the words of the institution, and in the 6. of Ioh… conclude nothing for the eating the very flesh o… Christ corporally with the mouth.

Touching the fourth.

If none are true Communicants (viz) The true Communicants at Christs Table.at the Lord Table but true beleeve… certainely the Bread and Wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ. Were they so▪ p. 111wicked men, hypocrites, and reprobates, who are sometimes present at the Lords Table, and receive the sacred Symboles with their mouth, must needs also eate Christs very body; unlesse our Adversaries will feigne a second Transubstantiation of Christs body backe againe into bread, as soone as ever a wicked hand, lip, or tooth toucheth it: which as yet no Papist hath beene so hardie as once to opine. For then they know wee will come upon them with a new demand, by what operatorie words of Christ is this second Transubstantiation wrought?

But none are true Communicants at the Lords Table, or eate his very body but beleevers, who are also members of his body, in Saint aaAug. … Civis. Dei. l. 21. c, 25. Non dicendum est e… manducare corpus Christi qui non est in corpore Christi, & soli Catholici qui non solum Sacramento sed … ipsâ manducaver… corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet …ius corpore constit…i.Austins judgement, p. 112They are onelyonly Catholickes and such who are set, or incorporated into Christs body: who eate his body, not Sacramentally only, but in truth. For wee must not say that hee eates Christs body who is not in his body. The wicked are in no sort to be said to eate Christs body, because they are not members of his body, Christ himselfe when he saith, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him, thereby sheweth, what is truly and not bbOstendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed re verâ corpus Christi manducare.Sacramentally onelyonly to eate Christs body and drinke his blood, and that no man eateth his body or drinketh his blood that abideth not in Christ, and Christ in him. And againe he saith, he that ccIn Sent▪ 139. Qui discordat a Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei Sacramē tum ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferentur accipiat.disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh his blood, though to his owne condemnation, for his p. 113presumption he daily receive ind…tly the Sacrament of so great a thing. Hee beates againe upon the ddDe verb. Aposb Ser. …. Illud bibere quid est nisi viv… manduca v…am, bibe …isam, habebis …itam: … autem ho… eri… id est vita …nicui que er… corpus & sanguis Christi, si quod i… Sacrament… visibilitar …, in ipsâ verita… spiritalite… manduc… spiritaliter bibatur.same point, To eate Christs body is to bee refreshed, and so to bee refreshed, that it never faileth whence thou art refreshed, to drinke that (Christs blood) what is it but to live? eate life, drinke life, and thou shalt have life: but then, or upon this condition the Body and Blood of Christ shall bee life to every one, if that which is eaten visibly in the Sacrament, be spiritually eaten and drunke in the truth it selfe. And the eeTract. 26. in Ioh. Hui… rei Sacramentum id est unitatis corporis & sang…inis Christi de mens… dominicâ sismitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium, res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium qui cun que erit ejus particeps fuerit. ibid. Per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnaliter, & visi… liter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi.Sacrament hereof that is of the unity of Christs Body and Blood is taken at the Lords Table, by some to life, p. 114by others to destruction, but the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament, (that … Christs body) is received by every one to life, and by none to destruction, whosoever is partaker thereof. For after Christ had said, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, hee presently addeth, and I will raise him up at the last day. And a little after hee expoundeth what it is to eate his body and drinke his blood, Saying, he that eates my flesh and drinkes my blood, abides … … and I in him; this is therefore to eate that fle… and drinke that drinke for a man to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding … him: and consequently, … that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him, withot doubt doth not eate his flesh, nor drinke his blood spiritually, though carnally and p. 115visibly with his teeth he crusheth the Sacrament of Christs body. I forbeare to presse here our allegation out of the 59. Tract upon Iohn, concerning Iudas eating panem Domini, and not panem Dominum, (the bread of the Lord, not bread the Lord) because I have retorted it before upon S. E. and out of all these places I conclude.

Ergo the Bread and Wine according to Saint Austin, after consecration are not the very body and blood of Christ. The Syllogisme which hath beene proposed at large, with frequent testimonies out of Saint Austin to confirme the Assumption, may bee thus contracted.

No wicked men, or reprobates eate Christs body.

Some wicked men and p. 116reprobates eate the bread after the consecration,

Ergo the bread after the consecration is not Christs body.

Touching the fist.(viz.) The necessary dependence of accidents in their subiects

Whosoever holdeth the doctrine of Transubstantiation beleeveth that accidents may subsist without their subjects. For Transubstantiation as your Church defineth, is a mutation or turning of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christs body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christs blood, the accidents of bread and wine still remaining (viz.) The whitenesse, thicknesse, roundnesse, and tast of the bread, the thinnesse, moysture, colour, and relish of the wine with the quantity of both. Their owne subject being gone, p. 117where sticke or inhere these accidents? in the ayre? or Christs bodie? you cannot say either. For every accidentall forme denominateth the subject in which it is inherent, according to that axiome of Logick, quicquid in est in dicitur de. But neither Christ his body, nor the ayre is denominated by these accidents; neither the ayre nor Christs body hath the colour, quantity, figure, or tast of bread or wine. Neither the ayre, nor Christs body is white or round like a wafer, &c. It remaineth therefore that according to your tenet that these accidents remaine in no subject.

But Saint aaAug…. de d…m catig. … est in sub… ie in quod in a…ro est, non … pars quedum, neque sine eo in quo in… potest unq…m esse & post, … est in subiec… quod sine subjecto esse non potest.Austin beleeved not that accidents can subfist without their subjects. For hee defineth an accident to be that which is in a subject, not as a part p. 118thereof neither can it ever bee without the subject: he bbEpist. 57. Si moles ipsa corporis quā tacun que vel qua…tulacun que sit penitus auf…ratur, qualitates esus … erit, ubi …expressely affirmeth, if the quantity or bulke of a body, be it bigger or lesser, be taken away, the qualities cannot have any subsistence. And in his ccl. …. …. … 13. … in subiecto est … sub… iect… epsum non manet, manere non potest, & cui posse fieri videatur, ut id quod in subjecto est maneat ipso intereunte subjecto▪ monstrosum enim & a veritase alienissimum est ut id quod non esset nisi in ipso esset, etiam cum ip sum non fueris poss… esse.Soliloquies hee hooteth at the contrary assertion as most absurd and monstrous. Who would deeme it possible (saith hee) that that which is in a subject should remaine when the subject is taken away? it is a monstrous thing, and most repugnant to reason, that that which hath no being but in a subject, should yet be when the subject is not. That which you adore as a miracle, Saint Austin blesseth himselfe from as from a monster, and indeed it is a monstrous thing, and prodigious to heare of quantity and nothing big, or litle: of whitenesse in the Sacrament, and nothing white, p. 119thicknesse, and nothing thicke; rednesse and nothing red; moisture, and nothing moist: it goeth beyond all the fictions in Ovid his Metamorphosis, to turne accidents into substance, and substance into accidents: to talke of meere accidents broken, eaten, digested and voided: to tell us of accidents putrified, and growing finwood, and mouldie and breeding vermine: of accidents frozen and congealed: nay of accidents not onelyonly subsisting by themselves, but also supporting substance, as when dirt stickes to the Sacrament through negligence, it having fallen to the ground; or when poyson hath beene put into it, wherewith dd…. … …ip. …. … Ignat us … compe…. hist.Uictor the third, and Henry the fourth of Luxenburg tooke their baine. It will not serve your turne here to flie to p. 120a miracle as eeEras adag. Homer. nube.Homer when he is at a stand doth to a cloud. For S. ffDe Trinit. l. 3. c. 10. Honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. As holy things the Sacraments are to be reverenced, not to bee wondered at as things miraculous.Austin ex professo denies the Sacraments to be miraculous. The Sacraments which are knowne of men, and administred by men, may have reverence as holy things, not admiration: we cannot bee astonished at them, as at miracles. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be maintained without more miracles, then there are letters in the words of consecration, from whence I conclude,

Ergo Saint Austin beleeved not the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Touching the sixt.

Whosoever teacheth (viz.) The limitation of Christs humane body to one place at once.that Christs body is confined to a certaine place, and there is after the manner of other bodies with distinction of parts, overthroweth p. 121the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For your doctrine of Transubstantiation putteth Christs body upon a Million of Altars at once, and teacheth that it is whole in the whole, and whole in every part of the host being there as invisible, so also indivisible.

But Saint Austin teacheth that Christs body is confined to one place at once; and is there after the manner of other bodies, with distinction of parts, or as the Logitians speake, parte extra partem. First in generall hee layes downe this aal. de praedic, quant, lacus circundat quodcun que corpus.rule; place compasseth every body, and bbEpist. ad Volusia. Quantumcun que sit corpus sive quā tulumcun que corpuscul… loci occupas spatiis cundem que locum sic implet … nulla ejus parte …t … …how great or small soever a body be, it takes up some space of place: and so fills that place that it is whole in no one part of it. And take away saith hee the spaces of places from p. 122bodies, and they will bee no where, and because they will bee no where, they will not bee at all: and in the same ccIbid. loca suis molibus tenent ut distantibus spat ijs simul esse non possunt.Epistle, bodies so possesse places with their bulke, that they cannot be… together in distant spaces And ddNam ita distantibus partibus, quae simul esse non possunt quoniam suae quae que spatia locorum tenent mineres minora, & maiora maiores, no… potest esse in singulis quibus que partibus tota vel tanta: sed amplior est quā titas in amplioribus partibus, brevior in brevioribus, & in nulla parte tanta quanta per torumbecause the severa parts of them hold severa spaces of places, the lesse parts lesser, and the greate greater, it cannot be who… in each part: but there is larger quantity in large parts, and a shorter in t… shorter, and in no part is th… quantity so great as it through the whole. An in particular concerning Christs body he affirmeth that the condition of a tr… body requireth, that sin… his Ascention it be placed is some eeIbid. Vbi que torum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum.certaine place of th… heaven, and that one one… at once. Till the end of th… world, the Lord is above and yet his truth is here wi… p. 123us, for our Lords body in which hee rose from the dead must be in one ffAug. citat, a Grat de co secrat. dist. … c. 1 quidem Corpus eni… Domini in quo resurrexit in … loco esse oportet, … ritas autem eius ubi que diffusa est.place, his truth is every where. The ggAust. in Evangel. Iohn. Tract. 50. Patoperes semper habebitis cobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis, accipiunt & hoc boni, sed non sint solliciti, loquebatu… enim de praesentia corporis siti. N… secundu… maiostatem, si…, secundu… providentiam, secundum ineffabilem & invisibilem gratiaus impletur quod ab eo dictum est, ecce ego vobiscum sum us que in consummationem seculi. Christus etiam absens praesens est: abi… & hic est: & redijt & no… non deseruit, corpus enim suum intulit c…, maiestatem non abstulit mundo.poore you have alwaies with you, but me you shall not have alwaies: Let good men receive this saying without feare. For he spake this of the presence of his body. For according to his providence, according to his unspeakeable and visible grace, that is fulfilled which was spoken by him, Behold I am with you to the end of the world. Christ being absent yet is present, he is gone, and yet hee is here, he is returned, and yet hath not forsaken us, for his body hee hath brought into heaven, his Majesty he hath not taken from the world.

p. 124Neither will your common answer hold water, that Christs bodie naturally is but in one place, yet by miracle it may be, and is in so many thousand places at once, as the Sacrament is celebrated: for 1. Wee Excep. 1.ought not to argue from the power of God to his will, but on the contrarie, from his will to his power, whatsoever hee will doe he can doe: but hee can doe many things which hee never will. Proove that hee will put his body in a 1000 places at once, and we will never contest with you about his power. 2. I before 2.shewed you out of Saint Austin, that the Sacraments are to be reverenced as holy things, not to be admired as strange and marvellous: signes they are of grace, which are properly p. 125called mysteries; not signa potentiae, which are properly called miracles. The effect indeed of this Sacrament in the soules of the faithfull, as also of the other is supernaturall: yet as the Water in Baptisme is not by miracle turned into Christs blood: 3.so neither is the bread in the Lords Supper by miracle turned into his body. 3. Saint Austin in this 50. Tract upon Iohn, useth an argument like to that of the Angell, Mat. 286. He is not here for hee is risen, Christ hhIdem secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit, &c. non semper habebitis vobiscum, quare, quia secundu… corporis praesentiam quadraginta doebas conversatua est cum Discipulis suis & ijs deducentibus ascendit in coelum & non est hic.according to his flesh is not now with us, because hee is ascended into heaven, which reason, if it hath any force at all, must imply and presuppose that Christs body at the same time could not bee in heaven, and upon earth. 4. This Father in his 20 booke against iil. 20. c. 11. secundum praesentia… corporalem simul & in sole & l…â & cruce esse non possit.Faustus p. 126the Maniches, concludeth not onelyonly that Christs body was not in more places at once, but that it could not bee. The Dilemma there he useth against them is this. When you Manichees beleeve that Christ was at once in the Sunne, the Moone and the Crosse, whether meane you according to his spirituall presence as God, or according to his corporall presence as man: if you speake of his spirituall presence, according to that hee could not suffer those things; if of his corporall presence, according to it he could not be at once in the Sunne, in the Moone and in the Crosse. Certainely if in Saint Austins judgement Christs Body could not be in three places at once, it can much lesse bee in three millions of places where Masses are said at p. 127the same houre, I conclude therefore this argument and this Chapter.

Ergo Saint Austin overthroweth your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Transubstautiation.