III.

if the words of the other part of the Supper, as I said, be SECT. viewed together; for if in the other part a trope shall manifestly appear, why not also in this?

Feckenham denied there was a trope in these words, This cup is the new testament in my blood.

Grind. Neither the cup, nor that which was contained in the cup, can be the new testament. For the new testament is defined the covenant of grace between God and the elect; therefore neither the symbol itself, nor the blood of Christ, can properly be called the new testament, when the blood of Christ is the confirmation of the new testament.

Feck. The blood of Christ in the cup (for this cup hath a trope) is both a confirmation of the new testament, and also the new testament.

Grind. That which is contained in the cup, whatever it be, is a substance. The new testament is á relation, and so also an accident. From whence follows, (the word being rightly understood,) that a substance is an accident, and that there is an identical predication between substance and relation or accident.

Feckenham and Yong by long fetches endeavoured to shew, how the body of Christ might properly be said to be the new testament, &c.

The second conference, Dec. 3, an. Dom. 1551, in Sir
Richard Morison's house.

Anno 1551.

PRESENT.

The Marquis of Northampton.

The Earl of Rutland.

The Lord Russel, with the rest formerly named, together with Mr. Watson on the Papist side.

Cheke. Whether the words of the Supper are to be understood according to the grammatical sense, or rather in a figurative sense.

Watson answered the same to this, as Feckenham be

MSS.
C.C.C.C.

CHAP. fore; namely, that there were two kinds of speaking, the one narratory, the other operatory, &c.

IV.

Anno 1551.

Being desired of Mr. Cecil, that he would propound more contractedly what he said a little before more largely, he propounded this argument :

These words, This is my body, are the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist: but in every form of a sacrament God worketh that which the words signify. Therefore in these words, This is my body, God worketh that which his words signify.

Mr. Cheke desired him to confirm the major with rea

sons.

Then he brought the example of Baptism: in which these words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," &c. are the form of the sacrament, but God worketh that which the words signify, taken in the grammatical sense. For as the body is washed with water, so inwardly the soul is washed by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, saith he, this is a principle in divinity, God worketh those things which the words signify in the forms of the sacraments.

Cheke. I do not acknowledge that principle in divinity, (truly so called,) that words should be all taken according to the grammatical sense and proper meaning of speech. It is as if God worketh that which the Spirit of God would signify by his word, whether taken figuratively or properly.

Cheke propounded a new question, whether Christ in the Supper instituted any sacrament or not?

Watson. Here is an equivocation in the word sacrament. For a sacrament is taken both for the sign and for that very thing that is signified. So among the ancients, that which they call the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and the body of Christ, speaking of the Eucharist, is the same.

Cheke. This distinction is unseasonable; for if Christ instituted a sacrament, it is necessary that there be a sacrament and the matter of a sacrament.

Watson granted it.

Cheke. But a sacrament and the matter of a sacrament are membra dividentia, and so disparata; therefore

SECT.

III.

one thing cannot be another. And so the same thing can- Anno 1551. not be the Sacrament and the matter of the Sacrament.

Watson. I opened before the equivocation of the word,

that we may more briefly pass it over.

For in this Sacrament the body of Christ is the true matter of the Sacrament, and the Sacrament also; for it is the Sacrament of the mystical body of Christ.

Cheke. The same thing cannot be a sacrament and the matter of a sacrament by the definition. For the Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, and the sign of a sacred thing, &c.

Grind. No better way can be gone for the understanding of these words, than by comparison of the sacraments, and the circumstances of the words; which you seem yourselves very much to approve of. Let Baptism therefore and the Eucharist be compared, whence we may collect after this manner; God doth not work that which the words taken in the grammatical sense do signify concerning Baptism, therefore neither in the Eucharist.

Watson bade him confirm his antecedent.

Grind. Concerning Baptism it is said thus, Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, &c. But according to the proper and grammatical manner of speech, no man is born again in Baptism. Therefore the same may be affirmed in the Eucharist.

Watson. I said, that God performs those things which the words do signify in the forms of the sacraments; but these words, Unless a man be born again of water, &c. are not the formal words of Baptism; but these, "I bap"tize thee in the name of the Father," &c.

Grind. Although these are not, as the schools speak, the form, yet these do express the true effect of Baptism, when nevertheless they are metaphorical: but let us examine even the formal words, "I baptize thee in the 66 name," &c. Is I baptize here taken properly or metaphorically?

СНАР.
IV.

Watson answered, Properly.

Grind. To baptize in the proper sense is to wash; but Anno 1551. the true effect of Baptism is not the washing of the body, as Peter teacheth, but of the soul. The soul is not washed, if we speak properly: therefore neither is it baptized.

Watson. The soul properly speaking is washed.

Grind. Nothing is washed besides the body. The soul is not the body. Ergo.

Grind. I demand, when Christ said, Take ye, must we believe he spake properly?

Watson. Properly.

Grind. Eat ye; was that properly spoken?

Watson said, Yes.

Grind. Therefore the body of Christ properly speaking is eaten or chewed.

Watson. He granted that too.

Grind. To eat, if it be defined according to the propriety of the word, is to divide with the teeth, and to carry it down into the stomach; but the body of Christ properly speaking is not divided, because it suffereth not. Ergo.

Watson here cavilled much of I know not what spiritual eating; which yet was proper, and without any necessity of suffering.

Mr. Cecil would have had some demonstration propounded by somebody syllogistically, which might evince it to be a trope, that Watson might answer. Therefore this argument was offered:

A trope is to be admitted, rather than a contrariety to be suffered in the Scriptures; but these words of the Supper properly understood do bring in a contrariety in the Scriptures therefore a trope must be admitted in them. Watson would have the minor proved.

:

Grind. The Scriptures distribute to us the flesh of Christ, with all the accidents of a true body; but if in the Eucharist there be a true and natural body, to wit, longitude and latitude, whence a contrariety is brought into the Scripture.

III.

Admitting the propriety of the words, it followeth, that SECT. the evil and the wicked do eat the body of Christ. But that brings with it a contrariety and repugnancy in the Anno 1551. Scriptures. Therefore the propriety of the words is not

to be admitted, but a trope.

Watson. That the wicked eat the body of Christ is not repugnant to the Scripture.

Grind. He that eateth the flesh of Christ hath eternal life, John vi. The wicked have not eternal life. Therefore they eat not the body of Christ.

Watson. The matter of the Sacrament is twofold; the natural body of Christ, and the mystical body of Christ. The wicked eat the body as to his substance, but the virtue of the Sacrament, that is, the mystical body of Christ, they eat not.

Grind. The Church is the mystical body of Christ; but who saith that the Church is eaten?

After followed a subtle kind of dispute between Cheke and Watson, of essential and accidental grace; for Watson had said, that Christ himself was the essence of grace.

Cheke. If the wicked eat Christ, they receive essential grace; but essential grace is somewhat a greater thing than accidental. But he that receiveth the greater, receiveth that which is less. Therefore the wicked in the Sacrament do receive Christ and remission of sins, or the fruit of Christ's passion, which you call accidental grace. Watson eluded the argument with I know not what logical distinction.

Whitehead's argument. Transubstantiation destroys the nature of a sacrament, which ought to have some similitude with the thing itself; as Augustin in his Epistle to Boniface. And Paul brings an argument from this similitude, We being many are one bread and one body, &c. There is a similitude, as bread in the Sacrament is made of many corns, so we, &c. But now if there be no bread, there is no similitude.

Watson. This place very much strengtheneth my opinion; for Paul saith, We all partake of one bread. But

G