Transubstantiation Exploded, Part 1 · Paragraph 13
PAR. 13.
That the words of the institution, This is my Body, are to bee taken in a tropicall and figurative sense, is prooved, 1. By testimonie of Scripture. 2. By authority of Fathers, namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus, Ambrosius, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Gaudentius, Issidorus, Oecumenius, and Arnoldus Carmotensis. 3. By the confession of our adversaries, Gerson, Gardiner, Bellarmine. 4. By force of reason.
NOw I will ascend from the troubled brooke to the spring, from the Canon Law to the divine, from Gratian to the Author of all grace, Christ Jesus himselfe, whose words This is my Body, you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnall presence and Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Masse, and the adoration of the Host. But it will beare none of them, nay rather as ground shaken by an earthquake, it will utterly overthrow them all, as may appeare by this Syllogisme.
If in this sentence This is my Body, the meaning bee this Bread is my Body, the speech cannot be proper, but must of necessity bee figurative or tropicall.
But in this sentence, This is my Body, the meaning is, This Bread is my Body.
Ergo this speech cannot be proper, but must of necessity be figurative and tropicall: and if so, downe falls Transubstantiation built upon it, and carnall presence built upon Transubstantiation, and the oblation and adoration of the Host built upon the carnall presence.
In this Syllogisme the consequence L. 3. de Eu…har. c. 19. Non potest …eri ut vera fit propositio …n qua subiectum supponit pro pa… & praedi…atum pro corpore Christi, panis … & corpus Christi sunt res diversissime, & post. si lice; affirmare disparatum de disparato, lice bit eodem …ure affirmare de nihilo aliquid, de …ce tenebras, &c.of the Major is so evident, that Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth, that it is impossible that bread should be called Christs Body otherwaies then by a figure, for bread and Christs Body are things most divers, and if disparate substances, such as bread and Christs body are, might be affirmed one of the other, by the same reason wee might affirme something to bee nothing, light to bee darkenesse, and darkenesse to be light, &c. Bread is a substance inanimate, Christs Body is animate, bread of the figure of a loafe, or wafer, Christs Body of the figure of a man: bread inorganicall or without orgaines or members, Christs Body Organicall: bread made of wheat flower, Christs Body of Virgins blood: bread therefore in propriety of speech, can no more bee Christs Body, then Christ himselfe a Vine, or a Doore, or a Way, or a Rocke, all which speeches our Adversaries themselves confesse to bee tropicall and figurative.
The Minor or Assumption is prooved foure manner of waies.
1. By testimonie of Scripture.
2. By the authority of Fathers,
3. Confession of our Adversaries.
4. Force of reason.
1. The Text is plaine, Christ tooke bread, and blesse…, and brake, and said, This is my Body, what hee tooke, hee blessed, …e brake, hee gave of that he said, This is my Body. But hee tooke, he blessed, he brake, he gave bread, of bread therefore he said, This is my Body. When hee said Hoe or This, hee pointed to something, not to meere accidents as you aBel. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19. Hoc non supponit pro accidente sed pro substantia.confesse, for then hee would have said hac not hoc, these not this, nor pointed he to his owne body sitting at Table, for neither did the Apostles, nor could they doubt whether the body sitting at Table were his body; neither were there any coherence in the words, take this bread, breake and eate in remembrance of me, for this is my body which you see sitting at table with you. He pointed therefore to the substance of bread, when he said hoc This, and consequently the meaning of his words are, duplicate page duplicate page This bread is my Body.
2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures, juxta unanimē consensum Patrum, according to the unanimous consent of Fathers, and therefore unlesse you will incurre the censure of perjury, you must allow of this interpretation of Christs words, This is my Body, that is, This bread is my Body, for so they Anno 105. Apolog. 2. p 98. foreign. Anno. 180. l. 4. cont Har. c. 57. eius conditionis quae est secundum nos accipens panem suum corpus esse confitebatur Anno 190. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 3. Benedixit vinum c… dixit accip…e hic est sanguis, &c.are expounded by
1. Iustin Martyr. The sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and our blood, by the change thereof into our nature, we are taught to bee the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us, Iesus Christ.
2. Irenaeus. How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father, taking bread of this condition that is usuall amongst us confesse it to bee his body.
3. Clemens Alexandrinus. He blessed wine when hee said, take drinke this is my blood.
4. Tertullian. So Christ Anno 210. l. 4. cont. Marc. c. 40. panem corpus suum appellans. Anno 230. in Mat. Tract. 35. Panis quem Deus verb… corpus suum esse fatetur. Anno 250. Epist. 63. vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. Anno 340. i… 1 Cor. 11. Quid est panis Christi corpus. Anno 365. Cyrill Hiros Catec. mist. 4▪ Christus de pane affirmat hoc est corpus me… Anno 390. l 4 da sacrā … c. 5. Panem fractum tra didit Discipulis dic… accipite ho… Anno 390. ad Hedib. q▪ Nos … … panem quim fregis Dominus dedit que Discipulis s…is esse corp… Domini ipso dico…te hoc est corpus meum.taught us, calling bread his Body.
5. Origen. Christ confesseth the bread to bee his body.
6. Cyprian. It was wine which Christ said to be his blood, & Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat.
7. Athanasius. What is the bread, Christs body.
8. Cyrill. Christ said of the bread. This is my Body.
9. Ambrose. He delivered broken bread to his Disciples, saying, This is my Body.
10. Saint Hierom. Let us heare that the bread which Christ brake and gave to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith.
to salve his credit, nay his faith.
First, in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and your selfe. For if by hoc or this as the Fathers teach, wee are to understand hic panis, this bread, and the sense of the whole is, this bread is my body, and bread here stands not for bread in substance, but in appearance onelyonly, or in the exterior forme, or that which is made of bread as your Chaplaine hath P. 1….it, then the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense, but are absolutely and simply figurative, which your selfe denies, and Fisher the Jesuit P. 72, 73.of Transubstantiation, Sess. 2. and bl. …. 9. Propriè non figuratè explicanda sun… illa verba ho… est corpus meum.Bellarmine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly, not figuratively) and Alfonsus a Castro, and Sanctesius, and Salmoron, and Costorus, and Gardinerus, and Tonstallus, and Panegyrolla, and Roffensis, and Suares, and Uasques, and other Papists named and confuted by cl. 10. de Eucha c. 15.Chamierus.
Secondly, this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Fathers words, then a wet mould doth with running mettall which makes it flie backe with a great force, for instance, Iustin Martyr in the words above cited by bread or food, understandeth that whereby as hee saith our bodies are nourished, quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras, but that is not bread turned into Christs body; for Christs body is no meate for the belly, nor is it turned into our flesh. Irenaeus speaketh of bread, ejus conditionis quae secundum nos, of bread that is usuall among us, l. 4. c. 57. c. 34. of bread, qui est c terra, which is taken from the earth, such is not super-substantiall bread, or transubstantiated into Christs body. Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically tearmed Christs blood, foreign, but that is not wine really turned into Christs blood, for that is Christs blood in propriety of speech, not by a Metaphor or Allegorie. Tertullian as you expound him Epist. 57. Corpus suum p… nim vocat d… mul…m granorum ad…tione congestum & sanguinē suum vinum appellas de botris ai…, aci…is pl…rimis expressum.speaketh of bread which was vetus figura, an antient figure of Christs body, but that could not bee bread transubstantiated into his body, for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned. Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines, and of wine pressed out of many grapes. Ambrose speaketh of bread broken, but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread. Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread, and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh. Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round figure and without sense, and such is bakers bread, but not that bread which Christ said, Iohn the 6. He would give us, to wit, his flesh for the life of the world. Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated, before he gave it or said, This is my Body; but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Quemadmodum panis ex multis granis …itur. Aug. in Ioh. Tract. 26. Dominus noster Iesus Christus corpus & sanguinem suum in ejs rebus comme… davit quae in unu… aliquid rediguntur ex …ultis.is my body are uttered, neither …oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread, for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere, of a thing common before, to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament. Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread, or as you call it bakers bread, not of transubstantiated or coelestiall bread, for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting of many members, as a loafe of bread is …c, yet made of the flower of many …res or cornes, and the cup of wine is one …ough made of the juyce of many grapes. …int Isidore speaketh of bread which …engtheneth the body, and therefore of …ead in substance and not in appea…nce onelyonly, Lastly, Arnoldus Carmo…nsis Arnol. de Card…nal. Chris op. de …nct. … significa… & significaia ijsdem vocab…olis censeren…r.whom you mistake, for Saint …yprian saith, not that bread is called …hrists flesh because it is turned into it, …t because the thing signifying and …ing signified are called by the same …ames.
Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke, I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them. Irenaeus saith, that the bread … con …re. c. 34.in the Eucharist is not common bread, so say we also, for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use. Tertullian …. co…g. M…rc. c. ….saith, that hee made the bread his owne …ody, that is, as he expoundeth it himselfe in the same place, the dDicendo hoc est corpu… me…, idest sigura corgoris m….sigure of his …ne body. Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib. q. 2. saith, the bread came downe f…om heaven, but hee meaneth Christ himselfe, not the Sacramentall bread. for that came not downe from heav… but was made of wheate growing up… the earth. Saint Austin as you quo… De verb. Dom. Ser. 28.but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread, … thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or th… heavenly Manna, not that bread … eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next word… it is not the bread which goeth in the body, but the bread of eternall … which supporteth the substance of … soule, with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth, Ser. 29. de verb. Do… Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is th… Pastor & vitae, dator cibus & panis aeternus, disce, & doce, vive & pasca. quid tibi sufficit cui Deus non suffi cit.meate and eternall bread, learne and teach, live and feed, what is sufficien… for thee if thy God bee not. aIn anchorato.Epiphanius saith, that he who beleeved not th… bread to bee as our Saviour said (his body) falleth from salvation; 'tis true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body, as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his salvation, for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord, but Epiphanius saith, not that Christs words are to bee take litterally, nay in that very place he… proveth the contrary: for the brea… … round and without sense, but our Lord Hoc enim est rotundae sigisrae & insensibile, Dominum vero nostrum novimus totum sensiti…um, totum sensum totum Deum. Cyril cattch. mistag. 4 foreign Catech. mistag 3. Panis postinvo-cationem n… …st amplius, panis communis sicut unguentum post invocationem non est amplius unguentum commune sed chrism… Descrip. eccles. ad an…. 250.… know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense. Saint Cyrill saith, that which seemes bread, is not bread, but Christs body, but hee in the words going before, and in his Catech. plainely sheweth his owne meaning, Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine, or …are bread and wine. The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost, is no more common bread, as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme. Yet oyle after benediction still retaineth the substance of oyle, and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread. The Author Decaen. Dom. who is so much in your Bookes, that wee finde him almost in every Section; is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian, as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments, but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis, as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian, who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth: but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus, hee is no friend to your carnall presence, or Transubstantiation, for in the Chapter cited by you, hee hath these words, wee whet not our teeth to eate, but by Non dentes ad mordendū accuimus, sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus & partimur.sincere faith wee breake the holy bread. And in the words immediatly following those words which you alleadge, hee saith, that Christ powreth his divine Essence into the Sacrament, even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid, therefore according to this Author, there remaineth the substance of bread, together with Christs Body Sacramentally united, as in Christ, the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically. And moreover, that when hee saith the bread is changed, not in shape, but in nature, and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh, that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not substantiall, and that by nature hee meaneth the naturall and common use, not the essence of bread, appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Immortalitatis alimonia datur a communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens spectem.Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meate, yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance. And in the Treatise following, Our Lord, De unct. Chrism. … dit noster Dominus … mensâ in qud ultimum cum Apostolis participa … convivium proprljs ma…bus panem & vinum, in cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, &c.saith he, at the Table in his last Supper, gave bread and wine with his owne hands, and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers, (pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table, and his body on the Crosse, not his body at the Table, no more then bread at the Crosse) that hee might expound to the Nations, how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence, and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names. If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine speaketh with his Conversion, and Nyssen with his Transmutation, and Theophylact with his Transelementation, they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne. aEpist. ad Colosyrium convertens ea in veritatam propri… carnis.Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius (if it bee his, whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation, upon the 3. part of Thomas his summes) saith, the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh: in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith, that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy bSpiritus Sancti operatione ad divinam aquae reformantur naturam.Ghost changed into a divine nature. cOrat. Catec. c. 37. pan… in carnim. foreign. Nazianz. Orat. 40. foreign.Nyssen who saith that bread is transmuted into Christ body, saith in the same Oration, that Christs humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie. And Gregory Nazienzes, saith, that by Baptisme we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith, the bread is transelementated into Christs body foreign, saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils foreign, nor Nyssen… foreign, nor Theopylact's foreign come home to your foreign, they import no more then a spirituall … Sacramentall change. Were they … bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change: yet would they not helpe you a whit, for in the conversion of water into wine, or the transmutation of one element into another, the formes and accidents are changed: but the common matter remaineth the same, whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth, and the accident… onel… remaine.
Thirdly, I proove that the Pronoune (hoc) this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries▪ dCont Flori…. l. 4 Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panu.Gerson, wee must say that the Pronoune (hoc) demonstrateth the substance of bread. eDe diabol. Sophu. Christus a… evidentur, hoc est corpus meum, demonstrans panem.Gardiner, Christ saith plainely This is my Body, pointing to bread. fDe Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 19. Dominus accepit pann…, beuedixit, & dedie Discipul…, & de eo ait, hoc est corpus meum.Bellarmine, The Lord tooke bread, blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and of it said, This is my Bodie.
Fourthly, I proove it by force of reason, when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent, but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread, for vour gBellar. l. 1. del… hoc 11. Aquinas p. 3 q 78 art▪ 5 In ulumo instante in quo profertur vox ultima ponitur conversio panis in Corpus Christi.selves teach, that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant, in which the whole proposition is uttered: it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia (which yee all disclaime) or hic panis, this bread as then unaltered. Hereunto you answer, that hoc doth signifie and suppose, not for that instant in which it is uttered, but for the end of the proposition, when the praedicatum is in being, as when I say this is a crosse and make it withall, the word this doth suppose for the crosse, not which is when the word (this) is uttered, but which is within the whole time that I speak, so when I say taceo, I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering. So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches P. 135.of our Saviour, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, the words Lazarus and young man, did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered, but when the speeches were compleat.
If Sophistry were the science of salvation, these knack and querkes of wit Refut.might be in high esteeme, wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crossecaper. I might justly remand you & your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis, where such cummin as this is tithed, or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick: yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke, I will examine all these your instances. To which I replie, first in generall, that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this di… …d petitio principij: you take it for granted, that these words of our Saviour (This is my Body) are practicall in your sense, that is, worke a substantiall and miraculous change, which we denie, and you will never be able to make good proofe of.
For first, bare words as they are words, have no operative power, much lesse a vertue to worke miracles, which cannot be effected without the imployment of the divine Omnipotencie.
Secondly, words that are practicall, that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature, are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood, as Be thou cleane, receive thy sight, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, sile obmutesce and the like, not in the indicative, as This is my Body, This is my Blood.
Thirdly, the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the accidents. For certaine it is, and con… sed on all sides, that when hee uttered these words, This is my Body, he pointed to that which he held in his hands, which was a substance clothed with the accidents, colour, quantity, tast and the like.
But your selves confesse, that by vertue of these words This is my Body, the accidents are not turned into Christs Body: therefore neither can it be prooved, that by vertue of these words, Th… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christs Body.
In particular to your first instance in a Crosse, which at the same instant you make, and say this is a Crosse. I answer, first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense, as you have to make a Crosse, when you say this is a Crosse, and make it withall, this instance of yours were considerable, but till you proove the former, 'tis nothing to the purpose. Secondly, either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before, or at the instant when you say (this:) or els your speech, this is a Crosse, if it be true, is figurative, the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro, that is, for the time immediatly ensuing upon the uttering of your words.
To your second instance, in the word taceo, I hold my peace. I answer, that if you will make a proposition of it, you must resolve it into ego sum tacens, I am silent, and then the subject (I) is in being when this word (I) is uttered, and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soone as the word is uttered. Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo, I hold my peace, tha… is, I will utter not a word more.
To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man. I answer, that either Christ by a Metonymie, partis pro toto, called Lazarus his soule, or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus, or if Christs speech be proper, that both Lazarus and the young man, at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent, their soules being returned to their bodies. For though the one came not forth out of his grave, nor the other arose till after our Saviours speech was compleat and ended, yet I say, and you shall never be able to disproove it, that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus, Lazarus was in being, and so likewise the young man and the damsell. In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa, as soone as it is uttered, as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de interpretatione, C. …, 2, 3.and S. *Quot verba sunt tot signa, signum nisi aliquid significat non potest esse signum.Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus, therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered, it must then signifie something then being. A proposition is a complexum, like to a heape, or a number of three graines, whereof though the number bee not compleat till the actuall adding of the third graine, yet hath every graine his existence when it is first laid: if the parts of the proposition signified not the parts of our conception, the whole could not signifie the whole, that which is in speech a proposition, is in the understanding a composition, and the simple… must needs bee presupposed existent, before we can actually compound them. If this will not satisfie you, I leave yo… to Cardinall Bellarmine and the Trent Catechisme and Solmeron to be better informed in this point both of Grammer and Divinity.
aIn Mat. 26. Profectò propositio non est vera nisi postquam factus est circulus. Sed oratio accipitur pro vera qua id quod futurū est accipitur pro iam facto per tropum, neu iuxta proprietatem sermonis.Solmeron affirmeth with a profectò and full asseveration, that the speech of him who in drawing a circle doth say this is a circle, cannot without trope or figure be judged true.
The Fathers of the bCatech. Trid, Huius vocis ho… ea vis est ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstret.Councell of Trent in a Catechisme, set forth by the commandement of Pope Pius the fift, affirme directly against you and your Chaplaine, that such is the force of this word hoc, that it demonstrateth the substance of a thing present.
Cardinall cBel. l. …. de Sacra Euch c. …. In propositionibus quae significant id quod …unc fit cum dicitur, pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrant … quod est, sed id quod erit, &c.Bellarmine taketh you also to taske, relates your opinion and professedly refuteth it. Some Catholickes saith he answer, that in such propositions which signifie that which is then done when it is spoken, the demonstrative pronounes doe not demonstrate that which is, but that which will be, and they give these examples, as if one drawing a line or circle, saith, this is a line, this is a circle, as also the pronoune ought to bee expounded in those words of Christ, Iohn the 15. This is my commandement. You cannot but say that this is your very opinion, and the grounds you lay downe for it. Now observe I pray you how punctually the, Cardinall answers them: dEtsi pronomen demonstra…ivum demonstret rem fu… ram, quand… n…hil est praesens quod demonstretur, ut in exemplis allatis: tam… si q… digito aliquid ostendit dum pronomen effert valde absurdum videtur dicere p…onomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Domi… accep… … nem & illum porrigens, a… accipite edite hoc est corpus me…, videtur igitur demonstravisse panem, & sane in illis verbis bibite ex hoc …. … durum est non demonstrare id quod erat, sed id tantum quod … …Although saith he, the pronoune demonstrative demonstrate a thing future when there is nothing present which may be demonstrated by it as in the former …xamples: Yet if a man should point to something with his finger when hee uttereth the pronoune hoc or this, it seemes to be very absurd to say that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate something present. But our Lord tooke bread, and reaching it, said, Take eate this is my Body: hee seemes therefore to have demonstrated bread, neither is it any thing against … which they alleadge for themselves, that a proposition doth not signifie till t… end of the proposition, when the whole is uttered, for though that be true of a preposition which is a kinde of Oration, yet the demonstrative pronounes presently signifie some certaine thing even before the other words follow, & verily 'tis exceeding harsh to say that in these words, Drinke ye all of this, the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the thing which then was, b… onelyonly that which should be afterwards.
Lastly, whether hoc signifie as soone as it is uttered, or after the whole proposition is pronounced, I demand of you what it signifieth, not these eBellar. de Sac. Euch. … 1. c. 11. Thomas di…it pronomen hoc non demonstrare accidentia, quasi esset sensus hoc id est hee accidentia sunt Corpus Christi; id enim v… absurdissi…um esset.accidents, for the accidents are not Christs Body. Aquinas, fVid …. de E…char. l. 10. 19.Suarez, and Bellarmine, not onelyonly reject that Exposition, but also brand it with the name of a most absurd conceit. Of the same judgement are gSoto in quare. Sent. dis. 9. q. 2.Sot… and hIans. concord. eva…g. c. 13…, hoc est demonstrativum substantia.Iansenius. If the pronoune hoc demonstrate not accidents it must demonstrate the substance; either of bread then or Christs Body, if the substance of bread, then is there in the words necessarily a Tropologie; if of Christs Body, then you make of them a Tautologie or Battologie. And here againe you sticke in the mudd, and though your Chaplaine labour with might and maine to pull you out of it, yet hee plucks you not out, but you draw him in, and both are swallowed up in the same quagmire. For if this your interpretation bee admitted, this body of mine is my body, these absurdities will necessarily insue upon it.
First, that these words are not consecratory.
Secondl…, that they are not at all ….
Thirdly, that they are not argumentative or ….
Fourthly, that they are meere Identicall and …ugatorie.
1. Consecratorie words are such, whereby something which before was common is made sacred, according to the words of Saint Austin, accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum. But if the meaning of these words, This is my Body be this body of mine is my body, nothing by them of common is made sacred. For Christs body was never common, but alwaies most sacred, and by your explication hoc this hath no reference to bread but to Christs bodie.
2. You teach generally that these words of the institution are not contemplative, but practick and operatorie, that is, they effect what they signifie, and indeed upon this hinge hang… all your doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnall presence: but glossing the words with your paraphrase, viz. This body is my body, you breake downe this hinge. For all words which are operatory, or practicke, produce something by their prolation, which was not before: but Christs body was his body before the prolation of these words; therefore by the prolation of these words it is not made. If you answer as your Chaplaine doth, that Christ by these words made not indeed his body, yet thereby hee made his body to bee under the shape of bread: you quite overthrow your doctrine of Transubstantiatiō. For the putting a body which was existent before, in a place or under a shape where it was not before, as for example, a candle under a bushell, or a picture under a curtaine, or a face under a maske, is a translocation, or transposition, or alteration of habit, or whatsoever rather then a Transubstantiation. This your acute Schoolemen well saw, Aureolus, Vasques, and Suarez, and therefore contend for a new production of Christs body in the Sacrament. For a meere succeeding of it in the place of bread, or union thereof with the accidents, or bringing it to, and placing it on the Lords Table will not inferre a Transubstantiation, their reasons are good. aIn 4. Se…. dist. 11 q. 1. Cum preci… unum succadit alteri, … est verum dicere quod illud cui succeditur acc… dat & convertatur in illud quod succedit, i… e converso succedens accedit ad illud cui' s…dit, illud … transi… in aliud quod desini… antequam perv…niat … illud.Aureolus thus argues, when one thing precisely succeeds another, it is not true to say that that thing to which another succeedeth doth come, and is converted into that which succeedeth: that thing doth not passe into another which ceaseth to be before it come to that other; as for example, wee say not that the Sea or a river passeth into another, which is dried up before it can come to it: as you say the substance of bread is abolisht before the substance of Christs body succeed. bIn 3. Thom, disp. 1…. c. 3. Unto cum illu qu…un que mod… fiat non potest non esse accidentariaVasques thus impugne… your assertion, if Christs body bee … produced de novo but onelyonly united and applied to the Sacramentall signes to which it was not before, this union, by whats… ver meanes it bee wrought is onelyonly accidentall, and consequently cannot make … substantiall conversion. cIn 3. Thom. disp. 52. Sect. 4. Per sol…m actionem ad…uctivam rev non explicatur vera conver… substantialis & Trā substantiati… sed solùm translocatio quaedam: quando una substantia solum s…dit in loco … no… potest prepri… dici …a conv…i in altā.Suarez drive… this nayle to the head, by a meere addictive action (whereby Christs body … brought to bee under the shape of bread) the true nature of Transubstantiation is not unfolded, such an adduction importeth onelyonly a translocation and not a substantiall conversion, when one substance onelyonly succeeds in the place of another, the one cannot properly bee said to bee converted into the other. For how absurd were it to say that D Bishop were transubstantiated into D. Smith, because D. Smith succeeds him in the See of Chalcedon: or that when your foure Lecturers at the Sorbon one after another read in the same pew, that at every new Lecture there is a new Transubstantiation, and by name that D. … who … at seven a clock, is transubstantiated into D. Filsac, who takes his roome and reades at nine a clock.
3. By this your Exposition you cut your selfe in the hammes, and enervat… your maine argument for Transubstantiation. For as I told you in the Conference, the bare affirming Christs body to be his body, prooves not that any thing is turned into it. If Christ were now comming in the clouds, and any pointing to the cloud should say this or there is Christs body, could any from thence conclude the conversion of the cloud into his body. Every proposition which is of use in argumentation, and can affoord or minister a reason to proove any thing, must consist of one or more of the 4 praedicata topica, or at least one of the quinque praedicabilia, as every young Sophister can informe you: but in this proposition This is my Body, as you exp…und it, this my body is my body, there is none of the 4 praedicata topica, or quinque praedicabilia. For the predicate herein is neither genus, nor species, nor differentia, nor proprium, nor accidents of the subject, but the selfe same with it re and ratione.
4. Hence it followeth, that the proposition is meerely Identicall and neugatorie, which to affirme of any of the words of the word of life especially of these whereby hee instituted a most divine Sacrament were blasphemy, this fearefull consequence thus I inferre upon your interpretation.
Every proposition in which the subject and predicate are the same, not only quoad suppositum, but also quoad significationem, is meerely Identicall and nugatorie: In this propoposition God is wise, the subject and the predicate are the same, quoad suppositum, but not quoad significationem, for the subjectum Deus signifieth Gods Essence in generall, the predicate wise signifieth but one Attribute in particular: which though in regard of the simplicity of the divine Essence, it be all one with God himselfe; yet is it distinguished from God quoad nostrum modum concipiendi, according to our apprehension. Likewise in this proposition, Petrus est Apostolus, Peter is an Apostle, or a man is a living creature, the praedicatum and subjectum are the same, quoad suppositum, for Peter is that Apostle, and that Apostle is Peter, a man is that living creature, and that living creature is a man: yet they differ, quoad significationem, for the subject signifieth the person of Peter, the predicate his office, and in the other proposition the subject signifieth the compositum, the predicate an essentiall part onelyonly; and so in all other instances your Chaplaine brings: neither can any one instance bee brought of a proposition which is not meerely neugatorie, in which the praedicatum and subjectu… are not distinct quo ad significationem.
But according to yo… exposition in this proposisition, This is my Body, the subject this and the predicate bodie are the same, not onelyonly quoad suppositum, but also quoad significationem, not onelyonly quoad rem, but also quoad modum; for i… it idem numero, which is maximè idem is predica… de eodem numero, the subject hoc standing for and signifying bread actually turned into Christs Body, and the predicate Christs Body made of bread.
Ergo according to …our interpretation, the words of institution, containe … proposition meerely Identicall or nugatorie.
If I thought you had not already you full …ad. I could add more weight t… my former replies, from the authority of your great Gamali…ls, at whose feete you and your Chaplaine were brought up, I meane Aquinas, Soto, Durand, and Bellarmine.
Aquinas thus loads you. Some have said that the pronoune this is to be understood 3. p q. …. 8. a…. 5 Alij dixer…, quod dictio hoc facit demonstr…nem ad sensum, sed intelligit… haec demonstratio … pro illo instante locutionis qu… profer…ur hac dictio, sad pr… …imo instants loc… tio is sicu… cum aliq…not for the instant, in which the word is uttered, but for the last instant of the whole speech, as when I say tacco, I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering of it, (is not this your owne instance, p. 127.) But saith Aquinas this cannot stand, because according to this glosse, the sense of Christs words should be my body is my body, which the above named speech doth not make to be so, because it was so before the uttering d ci… tacco, &c. Sed hoc star… no… posest, quia secundum hoc huiu… locutionis hic esset sensus, corp… means est corp… meum, quod praedicta locutio non facit, quia hoc fuit ante prolati…em …n de nec hoc praedicta locutio significat.of these words.
Soto thus presseth you. This opinion I…s 4. Sent. dist. 1… q. 1. ar…. …. Sed … que ista ops̄ n… … consona…, …am …unc pronom… demonstra. res corpus as sensum s… …eret quod corpus est, corpus, haec autem forma non est operativa, nec conversiva panis in corpus, quoniam ante etus prolationem id ipsum erat verum.saith he, (which referreth the pronounc hoc to that which is accomplished a…ter the pronunciation of the whole proposition, that is, to bread actually turned into Christs Body) is not consonant to the truth, for the the pronoune should demonstrate Christs body, and make this sense the body is the body. Now this forme of speech is no way operative, nor doth it turne bread into Christs body, because, before the uttering of them it was true that Christs body was his body.
Durand thus chargeth you. If the pronoune hoc points to Christs Body, the proposition may bee true, referring the Dist. 8. q. 2. Si singulariter demonstraret corpus Christi veritatem posset habere propositio, referē do demonstrationem ad …imum instans prolationis verborum, quia tunc corpus Christi est sub speciebus panis, & esset sensus, hoc, id est, corpus meum est corpus me…, sed haec forma non congruit Sacramento; quia per Sacramentum non efficitur us corpus Christi sit corpus sed solum efficitur quod corpus Christi continea…r in Sacramento.pointing thereof to the last instant of the prolation of the words, because then Christs body begins to be under the accidents of bread, and the sense may bee, this that is my body, is my body, but this forme of speech is not agreeable to the Sacrament, because this Sacrament doth not make Christs body to bee his body, but onelyonly makes it to be in the Sacrament or under the accidents of bread, now the proposition so understood as above is expressed, onelyonly implies that Christs body is his body, and not that it is made by this Sacrament, which is against the nature of every Sacrament all forme wherein that is effected, by the uttering of the words which they signifie.
Bellarmine thus clearely confutes De Sacr. Euch. l. x. c. xx. Verba Sacramenta lia secundum Catholicos non sunt speculativa sed practica, efficiunt enim quod significant, unde etiam operatoria dicuntur. At si pronomen demonstrat solum corpus, verba erunt speculativa non practica, semper enim v…run est demonstrato Christi corpore dicero hoc est corpus Christi, five id dicatur a…te consecrationem sive postea: sive a laico, sive a sac…rdote, a… verba Sacramentalia quia operatoria non sunt vera nisi dicau…r ab illo qui est legitimus Minister, …e que sunt vera antequam Sacramentum effisiatur.you, and cuts your throat as it were with a knife whet upon your owne grindstone. Sacramenta words according to Catholiques, are not speculative but practicall, for they effect that which they signifie, whence they are called operatorie, but if the pronoune hoc demonstrate onelyonly the body, the words will bee speculative not practicall, for 'tis alwaies true, pointing to Christs body, to say this is the body of Christ, whether the words be spoken before Consecration or after, either by a Priest or a Laye person, but the Sacrament all words, because they are operatorie, or working words have not their force unlesse they bee spoken by a lawfull Minister, neither are they true before the Sacrament is administred.