Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 9
Diuision 9.
HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes N. P.and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse. For wee denie not (as there he supposeth) the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnderunder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues, to wit, the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them. They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion. And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered, as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified: his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards, as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach: and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories, &c.
MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments: whose nature is to signifie T. G.one thing, and to be another. The Argument is this:
No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie:
But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist:
They are not therefore essentially either.
To this idle and forcelesse Argument (as he pleaseth to style it) he thus answereth:
1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace; as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion.
Now 1. what is this to mine Argument? was this man (thinke we) euer a disputant, that answereth Arguments on this wise? which part of my Syllogisme (I pray you) is this Answer applied to? I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded, the Answerer should either hauehave denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions.
2. It is not true, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things. Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are. The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment, not nutrition. The eating and drinking is a signe of it. Signes they are of Christs body and blood; not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion, though their being apart is a signe of it also.
3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered: as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified; his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen; and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie.
But 1. If signum & res signata, the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues (as without all Question they are) a Father may as well be a father to himselfe, as a signe may be the signe of it selfe. Not to adde that the Ancients (as hath formerly beene shewen) are wont to call the Sacraments pictures, and pledges: and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture, or a pledge of it selfe.
2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present a Math. 17. 24glorification, or that bMath. 21. 7-10.his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen, whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it; whose authoritie is no better then his owne.
3. Let him hauehave what he would; that the one was a type of the other: Doth it follow; Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification: therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe?
4. An Emperour and his victorie (I suppose) are not all one; no more then Christs body and the glorification of it; nor againe the transfiguration, & the present glorification.
The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forceless… for ought that he hath yet shewed.