Transubstantiation Exploded, Part 1 · Paragraph 12
PAR. 12.
Eighteene places out of Gratian (the Father of the Canonists) against Transubstantiation vindicated, and objections out of him answered.
GRatian de consecratione distinctione, 2. capite, hoc est quod dicimus, saith, as the aSicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi, illius viz. quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruc… positum est, vocatur que ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio, mors, crucifixio non r…i veritate sed significante mysterio: sic Sacramentum fidei (quod Boptismus intellignur) fides est.heavenly bread which is Christs flesh, is after a sort called the body of Christ, wh…n as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, I meane of that which being visible, palpable, mortall, was put upon the Crosse, and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called the Passion, death and crucifixion, not in the verity of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the Sacrament of faith (Baptisme) is faith. The bCoeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus, idest significatur.glosse addeth the heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ but improperly; wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie. This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lightened, which a strong blast of winde bloweth not out, but maketh it blaze the brighter. Three puffes you and your Chaplaine have at it. First, you say Gratian is no authenticall Author with you, much lesse the glosse. Secondly, you say his words are meant of the accidents which are a Sacrament onelyonly of Christs body. Thirdly, your Chaplaine addeth, that the flesh of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body upon the Crosse, you say the lesse to the purpose by saying so much, and your answers interfere on the other. For if Gratian bee no authenticall Author with you, why doc you straine your wits to make his words reach home to the truth? why doe you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himselfe? the truth is, you have a Woulfe by the eares, you can neither safely hold him, nor let him goe. For if you reject Gratians authoritie, all the Canonists like so many Hornets will bee about your eares: if you admit him, you loose your cause, for then you must confesse, that after consecration, that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christs body, but a Sacrament thereof, whcih is no otherwise called Christs body, then your oblation in the Masse is called the crucifying of Christ, and that I am sure you will say and sweare too is not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. To examine your answers severally.
First, you impeach Gratians credit, telling us, that with you he is no authenticall Author: What you meane by authenticall I know not, a classicall Author sure he is with you, who preferre him before Dionisius, Exiguus, Isidorus, Cresconius, Burchardus, Ivo, and all other compilers of antient decrees, and reade him publikely in your cBellar. de Scriptor. Ecelesiast ad annum 1140 Ipse solus obtinuit u… publicè in Gymnasijs praelegeretur & multorum doctissimorū virorum Commentarijs illustrareu….Schooles. What esteeme Aristotle is in with Phylosophers, Hypocrates with Physitians, Euclides with Geometricians, Iohannes de sacro Bosco with Astronomers, Ptolomey with Cosmographers, Peter Lumbard with Schoole Divines, Iustinian with civill Lawyers, the same in Gratian with Canonists. And if before he were not an authenticall Author with you, yet since the yeare 1580. in which by the authority of Gregory the fourteenth, hee was revised and purged, he must needs bee authenticall with you. Howsoever it stands with Gratian (because it may be your Dioces of Chalcedon is not governed by the Canon Law) this testimony out of him is as a threefold cable, which though you and your Chaplaine tugg never so hard at, you will never bee able to breake, for Gratian quoteth this out of the Sentences of Saint Austin, gathered by his Schollar Saint Prosper. Gratian is but the relater and approver, S. Prosper or rather Vid. titulum decret. Aug. in lib. Sentet. Prosper.Saint Austin is the Author thereof, and is not Saint Austin with you an authenticall Author?
Secondly, upon better advise you admit of the authority of this testimony, and shape a kinde of answer unto it, that when Gratian out of Saint Austin denies the bread to be Christs body, he meaneth the accidents of bread, which are Sacramentum tantum, the Sacrament onelyonly, and not in truth the body of Christ. This answer cannot stand: for the accidents of bread are not panis, much lesse coelestis panis, heavenly bread, or coeleste Sacramentum, a heavenly Sacrament, and lest of all Christs flesh, therefore the former words cannot bee meant of the accidents, but of the consecrated host. What S. E. adds to piece out your answer, that the accidents may be so called in regard of their reference to our Saviours bodie which they cover; which reference is founded upon an heavenly action, to wit, consecration, is unworthy the refutation, for he beg… that which hee ought to proove, that the accidents of bread cover our Saviours body: this wee denie, and I have disproved it in the former Section. Besides, he seemeth to be ignorant of your Church tenet, which is, that the words of consecration worke upon the substance of bread, and turne it into Christs body not upon the accidents.
Thirdly, the last answer which you or your Chaplaine give, is worst of all, (viz.) that the body of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body which hung on the Crosse for this is not onelyonly an absurd and senselesse, but also an hereticall and blasphemous solution. 'Tis absurd to make the same body num…ro to be a Sacrament of it selfe, tis all one as to say that the disease is the symptome of it selfe, or the Ivy bush is a signe of it selfe, or the face is the picture of it selfe, or the substance is the shadow of it selfe. A Sacrament as your Schooles out of Saint Austin define, is a visible signe of an invisible grace, how then I pray you can the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament (which you teach to bee covered under the forme of bread and so to bee invisible) bee a Sacrament of the visible flesh of Christ on the Crosse, visible things may bee signes and Sacraments of invisible, but it is a thing impossible, that an invisible thing should bee the Sacramentall signe of a visible. I would forgive your Chaplaine the absurdity and senselesnesse of his answer, if there were not implied heresie in it against the fundamentall Article of our Creed.
'Tis flat heresie to affirme that Christ had more then one individuall humane bodie: but if the body of Christ really and substantially and carnally present on the Altar, is a Sacrament of his owne body, then on the Crosse, or now at the right hand of his Father, then hee must have two bodies, one visible and palpable on the Crosse, when hee suffered, and now in heaven, and an other at this very instant invisible, insensible, and impalpable on the Altar.
Thus having made good our fort in Gratian, I might passe to the next Section: yet because your Armourbearer S. E. will not yeeld us this fort, but having produced some passages out of Gratian, and the Glosse against us leaveth it to the Reader to judge with P. 119, 120.what conscience I cited them for our opinion. I will out of this one distinction in Gratian, produce so many pregnant testimonies for us, that any indifferent Reader will marvell with what face you can denie him to bee ours. For the Glosse which you reject with such scorne, all that I will say shall bee this, that although he lived in times of thickest darkenesse, even in the midnight of Popery: yet hee saw a glimmering of the truth in this point, as appeareth by his note upon cap. ego Berengarius, unlesse saith he thou dost understand the words of Berengarius in a good and sound or wholesome sense, (in which according to a forme prescribed him by Pope Nicolas, hee confesseth Christs body to bee eaten in the Sacrament with the mouth & torne with the aNisi sa… intellig… verb… Berengarij in maiore… i… cidis heraes… quam ips… habuit.teeth) thou wilt fall into a worse heresie then his. And upon cap. bCoeleste Sacr… qu…d est in Altari impropriè dicitur corpus Christi, sicu… Baptismus impropri… dicitur side….hoc est, The heavenly Sacrament which is upon the Altar, is improperly said to bee Christs body. And upon cap. utrum sub cChristu… fas vorare dentibus no… est distinctione, ego Berengarius contr… sed i…i hyperbol…è locu… est & veritatem excessitfigura, It is unlawfull to devoure Christ with the teeth, so saith Gratian here, but a little above in the Chapter beginning, I Berengarius, the contrary is affirmed, but there he speaketh hyperbolically and exceedeth the truth: I grant you that in his notes upon some other Chapters hee seemeth to favour your Transubstantiation, and contradict himselfe, and so appeareth like the Glossae dissectae, though in a farre foreign.other sense divided from himselfe.
But as for Gratian on whose Text he Commenteth, who lived in times not altogether so corrupt, hee saw the truth of this point concerning the spirituall eating of Christ in the Sacrament by faith, and not with the mouth so clearely, ac si solis radio descripta esset, as if it had beene described before him with a beame of the Sunne. For to let passe the cap. per acta, in which by a decree of dPeract… consecratione o…nes communicent qui noluerint Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus.Calixtus, he cashiereth your private Masses. And the cap. eDivisio unius & eiusdem mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest perve…ire.Comperimus, in which by a decree of Pope Gelasius, he brandeth your halfe communion with the crime of Grandsacriledge.
1. In the Chapter Tribus, Pope Clemens gives charge to the Priest, Deacon, and Minister, to keepe with feare and trembling the reliques of the fragments of Christs body, what meaneth he I pray you by fragments, hee cannot meane the fragments of accidents, for accidents have no fragments or reliques, neither can hee meane any broken parts of Christs very body, for himselfe teacheth out of Austin. c. fNec quand… manducamus par…es de ipso …us.qui, that when wee eate we make not parts of Christs body, but receive it integerrimè, most intirely, c. gOmnes aequ…liter corpus Christi integerr… ….Quid sit: It remaines therefore, that by fragments, reliques, or remaines, hee understandeth broken pieces of bread, and if so, the substance of bread remaineth in the judgement of Pope Clemens, not onelyonly after the consecration but also after the Communion.Cum ad reverendii Altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis, sacr… Dei tui corpu… & sangui… side respice, mente conti…ge, cordis man… susci… & maxim… totum ha… stu interioris hominis assume.
2. In the Chapter Quia corpus, hee alleadgeth out of Eusebius Emissenus, these words, When thou goest up to the dreadfull or venerable Altar, to bee satisfied with spirituall meates by faith, regard, honour, and admire the holy body and blood of thy God, touch it in thy mind, take it with the hand of thy heart, drink it by the draught of the inward man. What need hee to have said, looke upon him with the eye of faith, touch him with thy minde, and with the hand of thy heart, and draught of the inward man, but to Vt quid p… ras de… & … …, crede & m… ducasti, qui credit in au… manducat …. (Vid.) capu… cred…re. Credere in Christum hoc est manducar… p… vivum.exclude your carnall eating and drinking him with the hand and mouth of the outward man.
3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Austins booke, de remedio penitentiae, hee quoteth these words, Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly? beleeve and thou hast eaten, he that beleeveth in him eateth him: if the tooth and bellie have nothing to doe in eating Christs flesh, how doe you affirme that he is eaten with the mouth.
4. In the Chapter prima quidem out Vide supra in P. 11.of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalme, he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh. The first is a strong evidence against the carnall interpretation of Christs words, the latter against the supposed existence of Christs body in more places at once. The former is this, spiritually understand what I have spoken, you shall not eate this body which you see, nor drinke that blood which they who crucifie mee shall shed; I have commended a kinde of Sacrament or mystery unto you, which being spiritually understood will quicken you. The latter is, the body of Christ in which he rose must bee in one place, his truth or divinity is every where.
5. In the Chapter Non, he mentioneth Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae …rnae qui …imae sub…antiam ….out of Saint Ambrose, a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth, it is not this bread which goeth into the body, but the bread of eternall life which supporteth the substance of the soule.
6. In the Chapter Qui manducat hee expoundeth out of S. Austin, the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner, he that eateth and drinketh Christ, eateth & drinketh life, to hIll… … …re …st resici, … … est … vere, quod … Sacr… visibiliter … … … … … … & …eate him is to be fed or refreshed, to drinke him is to live, that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunke, if in the truth hee is eaten spiritually, hen not corporally or orally, for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones, and consequently no mouth and teeth. In the same Chapter hee addeth, that which is i….seene and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup, but that which faith being to be instructed requireth is the bread, is Christs body, the cup is his blood, but bread can no way bee Christs body properly as I have demonstrated before, Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution.
7. In the Chapter Qui discordat Qui discord… … non manducat carne… eius nec … sanguin… eius.out of the same Austin, hee debarres all wicked men from tasting the heavenly food of Christs flesh. He who disagreeth (saith he) from Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition. But he who is at distance with Christ, may and doth sometime eate of that which is in the Pix after consecration: it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch, but the Sacrament thereof onelyonly which is set on your Altar.
8. In the Chapter Panis est & cap. Revera, hee diggeth much ore out of Saint Ambrose his bookes de Sacramentis, whereof I will trie a little at this present. If there bee such force in the word of the Lord Iesu that thereby that began to be which was not before, how much more operatorie or effectuall is it, that things kc. panis. ut sint quae eran… & in …iuà commu…ur.may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing, that they may bee what they were in substance, and changed into another thing in significancie and supernaturall efficacie. Christ saith, This is my lC. revera. ante benedictionem alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus signatur.body, before the blessing of heavenly words, an other kinde is named, after consecration the body is signed or signified, he tearmeth the cup his blood, before consecration 'tis called another thing, after mAnte cō secrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis Christi nuncupatur.consecration it is called Christs blood. Why? because the Wine is turned into Christs blood? no, but because it is a Sacrament of Christs blood, and beareth the similitude thereof, so saith Ambrose in expresse words, as thou nC. panis: sicut morti… similitudinē sumpsisti ita etiam san guinis similitudinem bibis.takest the similitude of Christs death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood.
9. In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating, if I may so speake, your externall, visible, and proper sacrifice of the Masse into a significative and mysticall. oQuiae q…otidie labimur, quotidis Christ… mis…cè pro … bis i… …la tur.Because (saith he) we offend daily, Christ daily is offered for us mystically, and his Passion is delivered to us in a mysterie.
10. In the Chapter De hac out of De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabilt…r fit ed…re licet: de illa vero quam Christus in Aracru… i… ob…lit secundum se nulli edere lices.Hierom upon Leviticus, hee determineth, that it is lawfull for us to eate of that Host which is offered in memoriall of Christ: but that it is lawfull for no man to eate of that Host in it selfe which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good construction can be made then this, that we may eate of the bread broken on the Lords Table, whereby Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse is represented, but not of the very body of Christ it selfe which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eate with the mouth Christs flesh in Symbolo, but not in se or secundumse, wee may eate it in the signe or Sacrament thereof, but not properly and orally in it selfe. What you alleadge for your selfe out of Gratian, maketh very much against you, the P. 111.words are, The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, the visible forme of elements, and the invisible flesh of Christ, both of a Sacrament, and re Sacramenti, as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man. To this distinction wee fully subscribe, that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part, to wit, the outward elements offered to our bodily senses, and of an invisible or heavenly part, the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith, but you cannot allow of this distinction of parts: For you have no elements at all. For accidents without substance are no elements, and besides accidents you have nothing in your Sacrament but Christs flesh, which is the res Sacramenti. Moreover if the Sacrament consist of the elements and Christs body, as Christs person consisteth of his humane and divine nature (as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth) then is not the substance of the element turned into the substance of Christs body, but both remaine entire, as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire.
What your Chaplaine urgeth out of … daies Confere… with Musk… p. ….Gratian for himselfe, I have answered els where.