this Question of the Eucharist thus far to deferre the placing of the state therof except what is scatteringly touched as occasion sometimes hath serued Which dislocation I hope is iustly excusable since we are not alwayes seruily to tye our selues to other Mens precepts for in the best Writers somtimes Art hath ouerruled Art Method lyed in breach of Method My reasō heerin is to preuent a tedious and needlesse repetition of one the same thing for seeing in this Chapter we vndertake to shew that the doubtful obscure places borrowed out of the Fathers writings for the impugning of our Catholike faith do not in any sort disable the same it is certaine that this point will be best cleared by setting downe what the Catholikes do hould in this sacred Mysterie since in a true vnfoulding explication therof we shall find virtually included the solutions of the chief obiected Passages thus shall we discouer that the Sacramentaries greatest Peeces of this nature wherwith in vaine they play vpon the impregnable Fort of Christs owne words are but charged with certaine rouing and hurtlesse paper bullets of wrested Authorityes Well then first we teach that notwithstanding the true and reall being of Christs Body and Bloud vnder the externall formes of Bread and Wine the Eucharist may be termed a signe in two respects First it is a Signe since it representeth the Body of Christ dying vpon the Crosse and his Bloud shed vpon the same answerably to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat You shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Which wordes doe truly paraphrase that saying of our Sauiour Hoc facite in meā comemorationem hauing therin relation to his Passiō Now in this reference we hould that the Eucharist is distinguished from his Body and Bloud since it is not heere in the same manner as it was vpon the Crosse the Sacrament being therof but a representation or commemoration And in this sense of the Eucharist being termed a signe doth Ignatius Epist ad Philadelph distinguish the Eucharist from Christs Body and Bloud In this sense also S. Ambrose Coment in c. 11. in 1. ad Cor. writeth that the Body and Bloud which were offered for vs vpon the Crosse are signifyed in the Eucharist as also he there saith that the mysticall Cup is a Type of our Lords Body Bloud The same construction doth Basil receaue who in his Liturgy calles the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Figure of Christs Body Hitherto also are referred those words of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Matth. there calling the Eucharist Symbolum Passionis Christi And the same construction is to be giuen to that so often obiected place of S. Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium where he teacheth that the Sacraments haue a similitude or likenesse of the thinges wherof they are Sacraments and that the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ is secundum quemdam modum the Body and Bloud of Christ meaning thereby that though the Body and Bloud of Christ be in the Eucharist according to it true substance yet it is not there as it was vpon the Crosse but only in similitude for euen in this place S. Augustine speakes of the Passion and Death of Christ And this very explication doth that other testimony of S. Augustine admit lib. contra Adimantum c. 12. where he saith that our Sauiour in giuing his Body did giue the signe of his body which will cleerely appeare to any one who with deliberation will consider the place The second Respect wherein the Eucharist may be called a signe is because it is a Sacrament and euery Sacrament according to part of it definition is Signum rei Sacrae For we hold that those externall species of bread and wyne doe signify the true Body and Bloud of Christ lying vnder them And in this reference of the externall formes to the body and bloud veyled vnder them are to be vnderstood Origen in c. 15. Matth. where he calles the Eucharist a Typicall Body Ambrose l. de mysterijs initiandis c. 9. where he saith that after the consecration the Body of Christ is signified Now out of these Premisses we may collect that it is a dissolute and loose kynd of reasoning thus to inferre The Fathers doe call the Eucharist a signe or Type of Christs Body and Bloud Ergo they taught that his body and bloud were not really in the Eucharist For these two poynts as we haue shewed aboue are not incompatible but may stand togeather for euen in humane matters we find that one and the same thing may be a signe of a thing and the thing signified thus the wares stalled forth in a shop as silke cloth c. are signes of merchandize to be sould are themselues merchandize to be sould Therefore if our Aduersaries will produce any auaileable authority touching this point they must alledge the Fathers teaching that the Eucharist is only a signe of Christs Body or that it is a meere represētation of a thing being absent but such Fatherlesse Positions as these cannot yet be found in the wrytings of the Fathers And seeing that the Eucharist is as we teach a representation of Christs Body and Bloud in some peculiar senses I will add as an appendix hereto an Annotation of certaine places of the Fathers wherein the Word Repraesento is vsed the places be Tertullian l. 1. contra Marcionem S. Hierome in c. 26. Matth. These Testimonyes our Aduersaries doe obiect in that it is there said that the Eucharist doth represent Christ or the body and bloud of Christ or the like For the true meaning of which testimonyes we are to obserue that the Verbe Repraesento is ambiguous for it signifieth to make a thing present either truly and really or else only in signe and figure Now we say that these Fathers did vse this word in the firster signification to wit that Christ did truly and really exhibite his Body in that which was bread afore Which point we proue because these Fathers haue else where writen most cleerely and euidently in behalfe of the Reall Presence and therfore if these their Authorities were otherwise to be vnderstood then should they either retract their former doctrine whereof there is no signe or else should mainly crosse contradict themselues wherewith to charge them were most absurd That the Verbe Repraesento is sometimes taken to exhibite or make a thing present truly and really I will content my selfe with the testimony euen of Tertullian himselfe For he lib. contra Praxeam calleth Christ the Sonne the Representation of the Father and yet the Father is truly in the Sonne In like sort when God the Father said in Mount Thabor Hic est filius meus c. Tertullian l. 4. in Marcionem saith Itaque iam repraesentans eum Hic est filius meus meaning that God the Father who sometimes had promised his Sonne did
though veyled ouer with those formes And thus is S. Basil to be vnderstood in sua Liturgia who calles the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figure or Representation of the Body of Christ And in this sense all the Sacraments of the new Law may be called Figures or Representations because they are externall signes representing and withall working an inward Grace represented A Change whereby that sacred Body at the first Institution of the Eucharist being yet mortall and passible was then receaued as n Immortal For as it was at the first deliuered to the Apostles it was in that spirituall manner vnder the externall formes as now at is after his death immortall and impassible A Change where the externall formes of the things changed doe by themselues after a sort o After a sort subiect The Accidences of Bread and Wine are said to be in themselues because they are not in a liquo suppofito or subiect and yet they do not truly subsist by any positiue act but are in Corpor◠Christi as they are preserued there though not by way of inherencie Now where our Aduersaries do vsually obiect that it is of the essence of an Accident to inhere in the Subiect and therfore the Accidences of Bread Wine must either inhere in the body of Christ which all Catholikes deny or else in the bread and wine and consequently no Transubstantiation I answere hereto that all chiefe Philosophers deny it to be of the essence of an Accident for Aristotle himselfe lib. ◠de Anima text 9. saith Aliud est magnitude aliud magnitudinis esse Now if the existence of an Accident be distinguished from it essence much more is the inherency thereof which is but the manner of it existency Besides if Inherency were of the essence of an Accident Aristotle would neuer haue demaunded 4. Physic text 58. whether that space were supposed to be vacuum where there should be only sound and colour intimating thereby that though by naturall Reason an Accident cannot exist without a subiect yet that inherency is not of the essence of colour or sound since otherwise his demaund should be absurd and idle for who should suppose Colour or Sound would necessarily presuppose a subiect and therfore a Body subsist and yet are not substances they inhere not and yet are Accidents they are in themselues in respect of negation and not of position in another by way of preseruation not of inherency A Change whereby the Testament made being Christs p Christs Bloud As the Bloud of Christ is taken for that Bloud which was in the Chalice vnder the externall species of wine so it is a Sacrament and consequently a Will or Testament But as his Bloud is taken for that Bloud which was shed vpon the Crosse so is his Testament sealed and established in the same Bloud And therfore according to this double acception of Christs Bloud we find that S. Luke did speake in these words Hic Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo where by the word Calix is meant Bloud and consequently the Testament Bloud was yet sealed in his Bloud A Change where the q Externall Formes We hold that when the Externall Species are corrupted the same substantiall Forme succeeds which would naturally haue succeeded if the Bread and Wine had not bene changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And yet we teach not that this commeth by any Generation for in euery Generation there is eadem materia numero vnder both the Termini or Formes which heere is not for the same Materia prima which was in the Body of Christ is not in the new introduced forme Now then though it doth not proceed from any preexistent Matter yet it cannot be said to be Created for Creation properly hath no reference or relation as proceeding meerly of Nothing to any former thing whatsoeuer but heere this new forme hath a necessary relation and dependency of the corruption of the former species of bread and wine for if the said formes were not and after became not corrupted this new substantiall forme would not succeed Lastly we teach that this new substance is substituted or brought in by God euen in that very Instant when the Formes of Bread and Wine cease to be And this neuerthelesse is not accomplished by any second and new Miracle for euen as when the matter of a Mans Bodie being sufficiently disposed God doth immediately create and infuse the soule and yet this is not called a Miracle because the order of things already set downe by God doth require it In like sort when the alteration of the species of Bread Wine is proceeded so far that then are made present requisite dispositions as the course of things requires to introduce some forme then doth God in that very instant minister the matter and so the substantiall forme is introduced Now heere we are to note that when any part of these formes are corrupted the Body of Christ either in whole or in part is not extinct therby but only ceaseth to be vnder those corrupted formes still continuing whole vnder the rest not corrupted and if all the formes be corrupted then it ceaseth to be there at all not much otherwise then when a Mans Leg is cut off the soule which was in the Leg dyeth not for if it dyed then he who wanted a leg should want a part of his soule but only ceaseth to informe that part informing all the rest and if all parts of the Body were disioynted asunder then the Soule not dying ceaseth only to informe any of the said parts externall Formes being corrupted a new substantiall Forme is introduced and yet heere is no Generation it is not produced out of any preexistent Matter and yet no Creation it is exhibited immediately and only by God and yet without any new Miracle To conclude A Change see heere repose in Motiō wrought without Change since the Body of our Sauiour suffered no alteration therby for it r Relinquished Nothing For Christs Body in the Sacrament enioyeth all those essentiall perfections of a true Body which afore it had in Heauen only it receaueth a new relation to the species of Bread and Wine as it is in the Sacrament which it hath not as it is in Heauen and consequently it is inuested thereby with some other circumstances accompanying that it existence vnder it species as to be freed from all extension of place as also to be freed from that relation of place which it hath as it is in Heauen relinquished nothing which afore it had but acquired some things which afore it had not Thus though what he heere is he was not yet what he was he heere is Now out of this Passage it appeareth how the Catholikes dissent herein both from the Lutherans from the Sacramentaries From the Lutherans for though they acknowledge the true presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet they teach that no reall Change
a signe is signification therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est iâ— vnderstood the essence of the same signe Now then seing in those said former examples and propositions one signe doth predicate of another for words are nothing else but signes it followeth that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat and yet without any Trope therin Touching the word CORPVS in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure then in the former Verbe Est Now that this word Corpus cannot signifie figuraâ— Corporis as our Aduersaries pretend is most euident And first this is proued out of the words following to wit Quod pro vobis dâ—tur in Greeke being for the word datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also out of these other following touching the Cup Qui pro vobis effunditur in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these two Greeke Participles being put in the Nominatiue case ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which â—â— called Corpus and Sanguis and not with any words put in other cases as Corporis and Sanguinis Therfore either the true Body Bloud is in the Eucharist or his Body by way of representation and signification only to wit the Bread and Wine were giuen for vs and shed for vs which is absurd to affirme Secondly the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate Bread there is nothing left of which these wordâ— â—igâ—â—â— Corporis should predicate except they will say that the tâ—ue and naturall Body of Christ is a signe and figure of it selfe Lastly the Body of Christ wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body to wit the Church or for his true and naturall Body but for a signe and figure of his body we neuer find it to be taken Therfore the Construction of the Sacramentaries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced without any example or president of that kind throughout the whole Scripture But the more euideÌ„tly to proue that the words of the Institution caÌ„not be taken figuratiuely I do further present besides what hath bene already alledged to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations First that this Pronowne Hoc designing some particuler thing prâ—uents all Figuratiue constructions And therfore we find that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe the Pronowne Hoc is wanting as in these Ego sum Ostium Ego sum Vitâ— c. Secondly In all Metaphoricall speaches that are vsed by way of Explication it is not accustomed that one thing do predicate or be affirmed of another thing except the Praedicatum be some such thing in the which the propriety according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended is more knowne and euident then it is in the other thing of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed And this is the reason that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another for the most part in genere or in specie at least But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution For heere according to our Aduersaries the Body and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread and Wine and yet the vertue of nourishing which they heere assigne to be the ground of the supposed figuratiue speach is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ then in the Bread and Wine which before his pronouncing of the words Christ did hould in his hands Thirdly It is to be obserued that in the words of the Institution the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate or are affirmed of Bread and Wine but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing but with confusion and vncertainty to wit of the Pronowne Hoc And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature doth predicate of another thing of a different nature as Christus erat petra c. Fourthly we are heere to note the words following to wit quod pro vobis datur qui pro vobis effunditur c. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne Thus one may say Caesar was a Lion by reason of his courage fortitude which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the nature of the Metaphor But now if the addition of words following doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed then doth such an Addition manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation as in these words That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse who was borne of a Virgin where we find that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor do intimate a Propriety and literall acception of the former words concerning Christ In like sort we say that those words Quod pro vobis tradetur Qui pro vobis fundetur c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you c. and VVhich shall be shed for you c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing which they should haue done if the Propositions to which they are adioyned had bene Metaphoricall but they do signify that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption which point hath no necessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus c. A text in respect of a i A Sacrament instituted heerin Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plaine words least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law and of Baptisme Sacrament instituted herein of a Testament k A Testament left therby That the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe a Testament appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plaine and litterall words then a VVill or Testament that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention as touching the Will of the Testator And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper and familiar words The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men left therby and of a Precept l A Precept or Law That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist appeareth out of those words Accipite Edite hoc facite But the words of Lawes and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous and cleere since
Ages With these then and no others at this tyme will I hold intelligence whose Iudgements and sentences as so many pointed weapons shall euery way endanger our Sacramentary since the admitting of their Authorities proclaymes his certaine Ouerthrow the reiecting his most dishonorable retyring and giuing backe Now in the handling of this point for the more perspicuitie and clearnesse I will reduce such testimonies of the Fathers as I intend to alledge to certaine principall Heads The first wherof shall be taken from the different appellations of this great Mysterie giuen by the Protestants and by the Fathers where we are to remember that since Mans immanent Thought which is an inward progression of the Mind is best become Transient or externally manifested by the Mediation of wordes Therfore Nature Gods obsequious Agent hath imparted to him the vse of Speach which Speach ought among men to be a true sincere Interpreter of the Soules mentall Language for we find those to haue bene greatly reprehended Qui c Qui linguis Rom. 3. linguis suis dolosâ— agebant Hence is it that as long as Man conformes himselfe to Gods intended vse herein his conceipt iudgment opinion had of any thing is best discouered by his words deliuered vpon the same Now then let vs see how the Fathers in words entitle this Sacrament First we find that they call it the Body and Bloud of Christ againe they further proceed and call it The precious Body of Christ Mans Price The pledge of Mans health The most dreadfull Mysteries and the like But what Is this the Dialect of our Aduersaries Or are they accustomed to speake in this manner of language No. For when they speake of the Eucharist their naturall and mother tongue is to tearme it only the Symboles and signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ d Quantum distat Psalm 103. Quantum â—â—stat ortus ab occasu If then our Aduersaries can in no case brooke to speake hereof as the Fathers did how can it probably be presumed that they belieued therin as the Fathers did Since words are the true Counterpane of the Mind written with the pen of it owne Tongue But now to come to these Testimonies wherin the Eucharist is thus termed and to beginne with the latter part of the fifth Age that so ascending vp by degrees to higher tymes we may consequently ascend in force weight of Argument drawn from such their Authorities And heere because many testimonies wil occur far more pregnant cleare for vs Catholikes then the ProtestaÌ„t Reader not conuersant in the Fathers works will perhaps expect and therupon might coniecture some sleight imposture to be vsed in the Englishing of them I haue therfore thought good to set downe in euery passage head of their authorities six testimonies ech of them at large in Latin of seuerall Fathers for to obserue this Method all were needlesse as tending only to fill vp paper The places that in this sort I make choice of are such as seeme more conuincing euident then the rest so that if the Reader do see that the more forcible authorities are free from all suspected corruption in the translating of them he may the more probably assure himselfe that the rest are in no sort wrested from their true and naturall meaning for who in this sort corrupteth is presumed to vse his art in those passages as make most for his aduaÌ„tage Thus shal the Reader discerne the Catholiks integritie candor confidence in this weighty Controuersie First then occurreth S. Leo who thus writeth Serm. 6. de Ieiunio septimi mensis Sie sacrae mensae communicare debetis vt nihil prorsus de veritate Corporis Christi Sanguinis ambigatis Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur So you ought to communicate of the holy Table as that you doubt not at all of the Body Bloud of Christ For this is taken by the mouth which is belieued by faith and in vaine they do answere Amen who dispute against that which is taken S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who was President of the Generall Councell of Ephesus against Nestorius the Heretike epist ad Nestorium saith Sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones c. Thus do we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and precious Bloud of Christ who is the Redeemer of vs all we take it not as common flesh God forbid nor as the flesh of a man sanctified but the proper flesh of the Word himself Which testimony was approued by the Generall Ephesine CouÌ„cell S. Augustine expounding those words of the Psalme 21. Manducauerunt adorauerant omnes diuites plebis in epist 1â—0 c. 17. ad Honoratum thus writeth Et ipsi adducti sunt c. And they are brought to the Table of Christ and they take of his body and bloud they worship only but they are not fed therewith because they doe not imitate for they eating him who is poore do not brooke that themselues should be poore Heere for further explication we may adde that proud and wicked men doe take from the Table of our Lord the body and bloud of Christ and that they doe adore it from the which it followeth that according to S. Augustines Iudgement by the body of our Lord is not vnderstood the signe of the body to wit Bread because Bread it not adored neither is vnderstood the body of Christ as it is in heauen and not vpon the Altar because S. Augustine saith it is taken from the Table of our Lord and by they wicked The same S. Augustine also in lib. 2. contra Aduersarium Legis Prophetarum c. 9. thus writeth MediatoreÌ„ Dei hominuÌ„ hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde atque ore suscipimus quamuis horribiliùs videatur humanam carnem manducare quà m perimere humanum Sanguinem potarâ— quà m fundere We take with a faithfull heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man to wit Iesus Christ being Man who giues his flesh to vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunken though it may seeme a more horrible matter to eate Mans flesh then to destroy Mans flesh and to drinke bloud then to shed bloud Where he saith that Christs flesh is not taken only with the heart but with the mouth Againe it is not more horrible to eate Mans flesh and drinke Mans bloud only in figure representation then to kill a Man or shed his bloud He also lib. 9. Confess c. 13. speaking of his Mother saith Adcuius pretij nostri c. To the Sacrament of our pryce meaning the Eucharist thy handmayd did bind her soule with the band of faith Againe Tomo nono tract 11. in Ioan. explicating that Iesus non se credebat ijs saith
this saying to agree with such as are Catechumeni to whom our Lord gaue not his Body Thus he saith Si dixerimus Catechumeno c. If we say to one that is but Catechumenus Doest thou belieue in Christ He answereth I do belieue and he signeth himselfe with the signe of the Crosse of Christ neither is he ashamed of the Crosse of his Lord for behould he belieueth in his name But let vs demaund of him Doest thou eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man drinke the bloud of the sonne of Man He knoweth not what we say for Christ herein hath not commended himselfe to him But if the body of Christ be taken in the Eucharist only in signe and by faith then Saint Augustine saith false that Christ hath not committed himselfe to the Catechumeni for they haue Christ in signe and they eate his body by faith because they belieue in Christ and signe themselues with the signe of the Crosse Besides there were no reason why the Eucharist should not be giuen to the Catechumeni seeing that more cleere signes are giuen to them to wit the written preached word of God In the tenth Tome serm 2. de verbis Apostoli he calleth the Eucharist Precium nostrum in these words Audiuimus verâ—cem Magistrum c. We haue heard the true Maister the diuine Redemptour the Sauiour of Man commending to vs his Bloud which is our Price for he did speake of his Body and Bloud which Body he said to be Meate and Bloud to be Drinke Such as are Faithfull acknowledge the SacrameÌ„t of the faithfull Heere he speaketh not of the figure of his Bloud since the figure therof is not our Price Neither can they say that this meate and drinke is taken only by faith for he there adioyneth that it is the Sacrament of the faithfull which the faithfull only do know intimating therby that only the faithfull do vnderstand this Mysterie how the Body and Bloud of Christ can be meate and drinke Lastly in sermone ad Neophytos as Paschasius witnesseth epist ad Feudegardum he saith Hoc accipite in pane quod c. Take that in the Bread which did hang vpon the Crosse take that in the Cup which flowed from the side of Christ But his Body did hang vpon the Crosse and Bloud issued from his side S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Mystagogica thus plainly writeth Haec Beati Pauli doctrina satis potest efficere vos eertissimos de diuinis Mysterijs This doctrine of S. Paul is of force to make you assured of the diuine Mysteries And after he saith Cum Christus ipse sic affirmat atque dicat de Pane Hoc est Corpus meum quis deincâ—ps audeâ—t dubitare Ac eodâ—m quoque affirmante ac dicente Hic est Sanguis meus quis inquam dubitet ac dicat non esse illius Sanguinem Seeing that Christ himselfe affirmeth and speaketh of Bread This is my Body who after this dare doubt therof And he in like sort confirming and saying This is my Bloud who is he I say that doubteth and will say it is not his Bloud So cleere is S. Cyril herein his booke from whence these places are drawne being most certaine and vndoubted of and entreating of such things and in such Method to wit in a Catechisme which require a most literall and plaine explication S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate de veritate Carnis c. There is no place left to doubt of the truth of Christs flesh and Bloud for now euen by the profession or speach of our Lord himselfe and according to our beliefe it is truly Flesh and truly Bloud S. Cyprian Serm. 5. de Laâ—sis Vis infertur c. Violence is offered to Christs Body and Bloud and they now offend more against our Lord with their hands and mouthes then when they denyed our Lord. Hence Cyprian reprehendeth such as denying Christ afore would receaue the Eucharist without any former due pennance But it caÌ„not be a greater sinne to handle with vnworthy hands a Signe or Figure of Christ then to deny Christ therfore he there speaketh not of the signe but of the true Body and Bloud of Christ He also in Serm. de Caena Domini which booke though perhaps it was not written by Cyprian yet our Aduersaries confesse that it is written by a most ancient and learned Father thus saith Noua est huius Sacramenti c. There is a new doctrine of this Sacrament and the Euangelicall Schooles haue brought forth this first kind of learning and this discipline first appeared to the world by Christ the teacher therof That Christians should drinke bloud the eating wherof is most strictly forbidden by the authority of the Old Law Thus the Law restrayneth altogeather the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commaundeth to drinke it But the old Law did not forbid the taking of bloud in figure for the Iewes did drinke in figure the bloud of Christ in drinking the water which flowed from the Rocke Origen homil 5. in diuersa loca Euangel where he entreateth of the Centurions child thus sayth Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum accipis epulum quando vitae pane poculo frueris manducas bibis corpus sanguinem Domini tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur Et tuergo humilians temetipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Voi enim indignè ingreditur ibi ad iudictum ingreditur accipienti When thou takest the holy meate and this incorruptible banquet when thou enioyest the Cup and Bread of Lyfe thou eatest and drinkest the Body and Bloud of Christ Then doth our Lord enter into thy house Therefore thou humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my house For where he entreth vnworthily there he entreth vnto the iudgement of the receauer Here cannot be vnderstood the Bread signifying Christs Body because the Bread is not Epulum incorruptum an incorruptible Meate or Banquet neither to the Bread can it be said O Lord I am not worthy c. Neither can heere be vnderstood the body of Christ as it is eaten by Faith because then it could not be said Where he entreth vnworthily there he entreth vnto Iudgement of the receauer For our Aduersaries doe teach that Christ is taken by faith of the godly only and not of the wicked and that the godly take it to saluation and that which the wicked do take vnworthily is only the externall signes Tertullian lib. de resurrect Carn Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro inungitur vt anima consecretur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur The flesh is washed that the soule may be made cleane the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may
whose Body and Bloud it is they would belieue no otherwise but that our Lord appeared only in that forme to the fight of men and that kind of liquour only flowed from his wounded side Heere we are to note that these Infants could not belieue that those things which they there did see were the Body and Bloud of Christ only by way of signification but truly and properly For of themselues they could not vnderstand these Tropes neither can it be said that these children had a false faith for it is said they belieued so Authoritate grauisima Againe lib. 2. contra litteras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in Corpore sanguine Domini accipimus There is one Pascha which they yet celebrate of the Lamb but that is another which we receaue in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. But if he should speake of our Lords Body in signe only his words were false because the Paschall Lamb was in signification the Body of Christ as well as the Bread as is proued aboue He also in epist 86. ad Casulanum where reprehending one Vrbicus for teaching that the Law was so turned into the Ghospell as that a sheep should giue place to Bread and Bloud to the Cup thus writeth Dicit cessisse pani pecus c. Vrbicus sayth that sheepe did giue place to Bread as being ignorant that euen then Panes Propositionis the breads of Proposition were wont to be placed vpon the Table of the Lord and that now himselfe taketh part of the body of the immaculate Lambe in lyke sort he sayth that Bloud did giue place to the Cup not remembring that himselfe now taketh Bloud in the Cup. And then a litle after S. Augustine subioyneth Quanto ergo melius c. How much better and more agreeingly might Vrbicus haue sayd that those ancient things did so passe away so became new in Christ that the Altar should giue place to the Altar the sword to the sword fire to fire bread to bread sheep to sheep bloud to bloud But heere Vrbicus according to the sentence of our Aduersaries did not erre for if we respect the signe or representation only Christ was no lesse in the Sheep of the Old Law then now in Bread and his Bloud no lesse in that Bloud then in our Wyne And therefore in our Aduersaries iudgements the sheep did truly giue place to Bread and Bloud to Wyne S. Hierome in Comment Psal 109. Quomodo Melchisedech c. Euen as Melchisedech being King of Salem offered vp Bread and Wyne so thou offerest vp thy Body and Bloud being true bread and true Bloud This our Melchisedech hath deliuered to vs these Mysteryes which now we enioy for it is he who sayd Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum c. In this place the body and bloud of Christ is cleerely opposed to the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech And his Body and Bloud is heere called True Bread and True Bloud to wit in regard of the effect which is to nourish our Soules but not in respect of Nature for if we respect the Nature of Bread the Bread of Melchisedech was true Bread He also in Comment c. 1. Epist ad Titum Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis c. There is as great difference betweene Panes Propositionis the Shew-Bread and the Body of Christ as there is betweene the Image and the Truth betweene the Examples of Truths and those Truths which are prefigured by the Examples Where we are to note that in this place Hierome entreateth particulerly of the Eucharist Now if in the Eucharist be the Truth which was figured per panes Propositionis then there is not in the Eucharist materiall Bread signifying the Body of Christ but the true Body it selfe for the body of Christ euen in the iudgement of all was that Truth which was prefigured by those Breads S. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in 1. ad Cor. compares the Magi with vs saying to this effect that the Magi had this body in the Manger but we haue it vpon the Altar They had it only in the armes of a woman but we in the hands of a Priest they only saw the simple body of Christ but we see the same Body but withall doe know his power and vertue Thus in this Antithesis doth S. Chrysostome conclude that we haue his body in a more worthy sort then the Magi had it which he could not affirme truly if we haue his Body only in signe and representation And Homil. 51. in Matth. Adeamus Christum c. Let euery one of vs which are sicke come to Christ for if those which only touched the edge of his garment were all perfectly recouered how much more shall we be strengthened if we shall haue him whole in vs Heere he cānot speake of Christ as in signe only in that there is not so great a vertue of the signe of Christ as was of the hemme of his garment Likewise Homil. 24. in priorem epist ad Corinth he saith Dum in hac vita sumus vt terra nobis Caelum sit facit hoc mysteriam Ascende igitur ad Caeli port as diligenter attende imò non Caeli sed Caeli Caelorum tunc quod dicimus intueberis Etenim quod summo honore dignam est id tibi in terra ostendam Nam quemadmodum in Regijs non parietes non tectum aureum sed Regium Corpus in Throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est ita quoque in Caelis regium Corpus quod nunc in Terra videndum tibi proponitur neque enim Angelos neque Archangelos non Caelos non Caelos Caelorum sed ipsum horum omnium Dominum ostendo Whilest we heere liue this Mysterie maketh that the Earth becommeth Heauen to vs. Therfore ascend to the gates of Heauen yea not only of Heauen but of the highest Heauen and obserue diligently and then thou shalt behould what we heere say for what is worthy of chiefest honour that I will shew thee heere vpon the earth For euen as in Princes Courts not the walls nor the Chamber or Cloth of Estate but the Body of the Prince sitting in his Throne is the chiefest thing there euē so is the like of that Princely Body in Heauen which is heere vpon the earth set forth to thee to behould for heere I do not shew thee the Angells nor Archangells not the Heauens nor the highest Heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these But there is none but he had rather see the Angells and Archangells then Bread and Wine representing onely Christ And also Chrysostome in the same place maketh another comparison in these words following Si puer Regius c. If the Princes Child clothed in Purple and crowned with the Diademe should be carryed by thee wouldest thou not casting away all other things vpon the ground take him into thy armes But now heere when thou
the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases speaking of the Eucharist as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles So i Augustine Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol Augustine And Norunt qui mysterijs imbuti sunt So k Origen Homil. 13 in Exodum 9. in Leuiticum Origen They taught that in extremity of sicknes it was to be taken of euery Christian pro Viatico as appeareth out of the first Councell of l Councell of Nyce Canon 12. Nyce m Eusebius l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius and n Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdot Chrysostome Finally hither may be referred what the Fathers of the Primitiue Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples Vestments Chalices and other religious Vessels all vsed in the celebration of the Eucharist All which things as o Hierome Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith propter consortium corporis sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur And p Optatus l. 6. contya Parmenianum Optatus writeth that they being contaminata Sacrilegos faciunt And hence it riseth that it was obiected to the Arians by Athanasius that fregerunt mysticum Calicem which offence was acknowledged to be most heynous by the Councell of Alexandria as q Athanasius Apologia 2. Athanasius writeth To the same end to wit as tending to the facred function of consecrating the Eucharist may be referred what the Fathers haue written of the Dignity of Priesthood Of which point entreates r Nazianzen Apolog. 1. Oratione ad Iulianum Nazianzen s Chrysostome Lib. de Sacerdot Chrysostome and others as also of their vowed t Vowed Chastity Of which point do occur most frequent Authorityes in the wrytings of the Fathers Chastity principally directed for that purpose Now who shall weigh all these seuerall Obseruations accompanyed with the former heads set downe at large and all litterally and plainly expressed in the Fathers Writings and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typicall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all most sutable agreeable to the worth of his true and reall being there how can he be otherwise perswaded then that those Doctours did iointly agree with vs in this high Article of faith Wherfore the determination of this matter to wit whether the Fathers were SacrameÌ„taries or Catholikes heerin I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned for this were to wrong their Iudgments in making a Point so euident the Obiect of their graue Resolutions as I referre it euen to the fyue Senses of the ignorant and illiterate OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Euasions to the Authorities of the Fathers CHAP. VIII ALTHOVGH in setting downe the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters I haue illustrated most of theÌ„ with such short Animaduersions as best vnfould the true Sense of the said Authorities consequently preuent all such sleighty elusions as are vsed by our Aduersaries for the auoyding of the same Neuerthelesse I haue thought good heere to amasse togeather all their diuers kinds of Answeres being seuerally applyed in generall to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads for coÌ„monly to all Testimonies of one Nature they do appropriate one the same Answere Thus shall the discreet Reader haue at once a Synopsis or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble euasions being full of tergiuersation and distrust Now then one Kind of their Answers if so I may terme it is to giue no answere at all for when they are pressed with such perspicuous and euident places of the Fathers as are in no sort to be obscured with any myst of words for the Sunne is sometimes so radiant as that it cannot be ouerclouded then in their Replyes to Catholike Bookes therin they are content not taking notice therof like men of good natures to suffer all such sentences quietly to passe by them in Gods name the Kings Thus we find most cleere passages of the Fathers set downe in Catholike Bookes yet neuer answered by Caluin Peter Martyr or others who haue vndertaken a refutation of the said Bookes but altogeather passed ouer as if no such places had bene obiected Such carefull Pylotes they are as willing to auoyd the most dangerous Rocks Which course of theirs I caÌ„not condemne as impoliticke since it is lesse disaduantagious silently to giue way to all such Assertions then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same for we see that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance Of the many Authorities of the Fathers wherunto the Protestants to wit Caluin Peter Martyr c. giue no Answere at all I haue thought good to note these few viz. The Passion of S. Andrew Origen homil 13. in Exod. in â— 25. hom 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet c. 36. 37. EphreÌ„ lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo Chrysostome Hâ—mil 83. in Matth. 51. in Matth. Homil. 21. in Acta Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs lib. 6. de Sacerdotio Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione diuinae Liturgiae besides many other Testimonies of these and other Fathers The first forme then of their Positiue Answers may be assigned to those Authorityes wherin the Fathers doe absolutely call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ as where they teach that we doe eate his Body and drinke his Bloud or that the Body and Bloud which we receauâ— in the Eucharist is our pryce the Pledge of our Saluation or the like To the Testimonyes of this Nature our Aduersaries do shape a double Answere For either they vnderstand those places of the True Body and Bloud of Christ as it is in Heauen and receaued by vs by faith or else of the signes thereof which we truly and really doe take in the Eucharist But if we doe obserue intensly and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages it will be euident that neither part of this Answere is in any sort satisfactory For first that the Fathers meaning is not that we take his Body as it is in Heauen by faith is proued in that you shall for the most part euer find that in such places they teach that we receaue it from the Altar or at the Priests hands and consequently not as it is in Heauen or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body and Bloud or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words as doe force the Place to be interpreted of his Body and Bloud as it is vnder the externall formes and not as it is in Heauen And as touching the second Branch of their former Euasion to wit that the said Testimonyes are not to be interpreted of the Bread and Wyne signifying and figuring his Body Bloud in which they say Christs Body is symbolically taken is no lesse manifest the reason whereof being this
the bread is not annihilated for Annihilation is an action which terminateth and endeth in Nothing but this action in the Eucharist by the which the bread ceaseth to be doth not terminate in nothing but in something to witt in the body of Christ not annihilated A Change which is caused by a e Successiue The words of Consecration are the cause of this conuersion and therefore this conuersion is not made without a true successiue pronouncing of the said words Successiue pronouncing of seuerall words and yet wrought in an f Instant Though all the words successiuely pronounced doe worke this Conuersion yet the said words haue no perfect signification and consequently causeth not the change till the last instant wherein the last word is pronounced for in that last instant and not before the effect of the words doe really and truly exist â—hat is the Conuersion of Bread into the Body of Christ and of the wine into his Bloud The like difficulty we find in the words of Baptisme which produce no effect till the last Instant Now heere it is to be obserued that though the signification of the words and the Conuersion be perfected together in one instant yet in order of Nature they reciprocally precede and follow one the other for as the truth of this Proposition This is my Body depends à rei essentia of the essence or being of the thing touched in this Proposition so the Conuersion doth precede the signification of the words but as those words are the Cause of the Conuersion so the words precede the Conuersion instant A Change wherein the Priest may be said of Bread g To make In a sober construction the Priest may be said to make the Body of Christ in that by his only and no lay persons pronouncing of the wordes of Consecration the bread is really turned into the Body of Christ and in this sense the Ancient Fathers doe most frequently teach that the Priest maketh the Body of Christ See Cyprian l. 1. epist 2. 9. lib. 3. epist 25. Athanasius 2. Apolog contra Arianos Basil l. â— de Baptisin c. S. Chrysostome l. 3. 6. de Sacerdotio Hierome lib. contra Luciferianos Now though the Fathers in this their peculiar sense were accustomed to write so in regard that none could consecrate but a Priest yet if we will speake in precise termes the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ because Christs Body being afore the Priest by his words doth not produce it of new but only causeth it to be vnder those externall formes of Bread and wine vnder which afore it was not to make the Body of Christ yet the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ A Change wherein the Body being made h Of Bread The Body of Christ may be said to be made of Bread because the Bread is truly and really conuerted into his Body though the Body doth truly exist before any such Conuersion And in this sense diuers ancient Fathers doe write that the Body of Christ is made of Bread Cyprian saith Serm. de Coena Domini Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei factus est caro Gaudentius tract 2. de Exodo Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum facit S. Augustine in his Sermon cited by S. Bede vpon the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith Non omnis Panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi so vsuall and obuious was this phrase with the ancient Fathers which is so harsh to the curious eares of our new Brethren of Bread a thing farre different from flesh is the very same which was made of the flesh of the Queene of Heauen A Change where by the force of Consecration the Body is without Bloud and yet euen then the Body is i Not without Bloud The reason hereof is because Christ is there whole vnder either of the externall formes in regard of the naturall vnion of his soule with his Body which vnion is neuer more to be dissolued since he is neuer more to die But if his Body should be without Bloud then should it be a dead Body and consequently himselfe were hereafter to die againe contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 6. Christus resurgens ex inortuis iam non moritur mors illi vltra non dominabitur not without Bloud In like sort by the same vertue the Humanity of Christ is only intended and yet k His Diuinity The Humanity of Christ is euer accompanied with the Diuinity and therfore his Humanity being in the Sacrament by force of Consecration his Diuinity is also there with it per concomitantiam as the Deuines do speake Now that where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity of Christ must be also is proued from this Principle of Faith to witt That Christ is one diuine Person subsisting in two natures and therefore wheresoeuer the Body of Christ is it can haue no other then a diuine subsistence which subsistence is the same in matter with the diuine Essence So as we see by force of the Hypostaticall vnion which is neuer to be dissolued where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity is also his Diuinity which is euer l In all places If the Diuinity of God were not in all places then should it be circumscriptible or at least definitiue in place and consequently not Infinite then it were no true Diuinity in all places is * Heere of new In like sort all do grant that the Diuinity of Christ was in the wombe of the B. Virgin before her Conception and yet the Diuinity was there after another manner at the tyme of her Conception heere of new truly and really exhibited A Change where the Body of our Sauiour is present and yet m Represented It may be said to be represented First because the externall formes of Bread and wyne doe represent the Body of Christ as it dyed vpon the Crosse and the Bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse for the Eucharist is a commemoration of the Passion of Christ according to those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat And in this respect his Body may be said to be represented in the Eucharist because it is not there after the same manner as it was vpon the Crosse but only by similitude and in this sense Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium is to be vnderstood where he saith Secundum quemdam modum SacramentuÌ„ Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Secondly it is said to be represented or in figure because the externall formes of Bread and wyne are the signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ there present
Sacrament but bread and wine it is not e It is not better That these Figures are not inferior if not superior to the Eucharist if nothing be there but Bread and Wine either for substance or signification it is most cleare And first touching the Paschall Lambe If we consider a Lambe and Bread as things naturall the Lamb as being a Creature endued with sense is more noble And if we consider them as Sacraments that is as externall signes the Lamb also excelleth Bread for the Flesh of Christ is better represented by the flesh of the Lamb then by Bread Againe the death of Christ is more liuely figured by the killing of the Lambe then by breaking of Bread Finally the InnoceÌ„cy other Proprieties of Christ are better signified by a Lamb without any spot for such the Law commaunded to be sacrificed then by Bread In like sort the effect of the SacrameÌ„t is better obtained by the eating of the Lamb then by eating of bread for if the effect therof be a spirituall nutrition we know that flesh nourisheth better then bread and if it be only a stirring vp of a Mans faith then doth the killing of the Lambe performe it better in that it more liuely setteth forth the death of Christ Concerning the Bloud of the Testament the same former Reasons which did proue the Lambe to be more noble then Bread do also serue to proue that bloud is better both for substance signification then the Eucharist if nothing be there but Wine for Bloud is a more noble substance then Wine the Bloud of Christ is better represented by bloud then by wine Touching the Manna It is in like sort most cleare that supposing the Eucharist to containe in it only bread it is inferiour to the MaÌ„na And first considering their natures and essences the Manna it most excellent as being made by the hands of the Angells descending from heauen and hauing in it all kind of tastes or so tasting as euery one eating therof would desire And according to these points we find it called Panis Angelorum Psal 77. and Panis de Caelo Ioan. 6. wheras bread is made by the hands of a Baker comming out of an Ouen and hauing only but the tast of bread In like sort if Manna and bread be considered as externall Symboles and signes Manna representeth or signifieth Christ better then bread in that it came from heauen was indued with all kinds of tastes and was receaued of euery one in a like measure Thus we see that the Figures in the old Law do euery way excel the Eucharist they being but Types of the same if so nothing be therin but bread Now it is euident euen in reason that Figures ought to be inferiour to those things wherof they are Figures which point also appeareth out of the Apostle Colos 2. who there compareth the Figures of the old Testament to the shaddowes and the fulfilling of the said figures to the body Now wheras our Aduersaries do answere to our Argument in saying that our Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist do excell the Sacraments of the old Law euen with reference had only to the externall signes because say they our Sacraments are more firme as neuer againe to be altered and because they shew and figure out a thing already done and not heerafter only to be done and because they are more simple and belong to a greater multitude of people and lastly in that they are more cleere then the other not so much in regard of externall representation as for the euidency and cleernesse of the words there spoken This is the answere of our Aduersaries and particulerly of Peter Martyr in sua defens de Eucharist part 3. pag. 692. But this taketh not away the force of our Argument for all these Prerogatiues of our Sacraments ascribed by him are extrinsecall and accidentary to Sacraments as they are Symboles and Signes seeing that they altogeather depend of the bare will of him who did first institute ordaine them therfore they bring small or no dignity of signes as they are signs but the comparison is to be made in the signification it selfe in seeking the internall dignity and worth of signes for those signes are better which better do signify but signes do signify better or worse in regard only of their externall signification Adde hereto that when our Sauiour did first institute the Eucharist his death was to come and consequently it did then figure a thing to come Lastly adde that the Scripture and the Fathers do not teach that our Sacraments do not excell the old Sacraments because they better signify but because they were but as figures and the Eucharist the thing figured so as the comparison made both in Scriptures and by the Fathers is the comparison of the things absolutely in themselues without any reference had of the signification of them better if not inferior to those Legall Figures either in regard of their naturall substances or their signification implied by them Yea let vs tell them that they debase ouermuch the Iewish Sacraments as teaching that they did but adumbrate shaddowes and represent Representations since they account them no better then Types of Types and Figures of Figures yet cannot this at all sway the iudgements of our Aduersaries which is carried away violently with the streame of preiudice and partiality Let vs bring forth the Ancient f Ancient Rabbins Among the Rabbins which haue prophesied hereof we find that Rabbi Symeon lib. Reuelat. SecretoruÌ„ thus saith The Sacrifice which after the Messias his comming Priests shall make c. they shall make iâ— of bread and wine c. and that Sacrifice which shall be so celebrated vpon euery Altar shall be turned into the body of the Missias Rabbi Cabana ad cap. 46. Genes writeth That the Sacrifices which shal be offered of wine shall not only be changed into the substance of the Bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body The Sacrifice which shall be of Bread notwithstanding it be white as milke it shall be conuerted into the Body of the Messias Rabbi Barachias in Ecclesiast affirmeth That at the comming of the Messias food shall come from heauen like a little eaâ—e Finally Rabbi Hadarsan in Psal 1â—6 to omit the testimonyes of others writeth Tast and see how good is God for the bread which he giueth to all is his Flesh and whilest it is tasted it is conuerted into his Flesh So cleare these Iewes were in this point that Galatinus who vrgeth these their sayings writeth of them That they may be thought not so much to haue foreâ—ould things to come as to haue reported Euangelist-like things already done Rabbins most of them if not all liuing before our Sauiours Incarnation who in a Propheticall spirit directed no doubt by him with whom their is no distinction of Tymes though himselfe first distinguished Tymes tell vs that in the after dayes the Messias himselfe
otherwise occasion of erring would presently arise Hence is it that not only the Decaloge but also other Passages of the old Law wherein certaine rites are ordained are set downe in very plaine and proper words In like sort we say that seing the Institution of the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe in the iudgements of all one of the chiefest dogmaticall points of Christian Religion it therefore ought to be deliuered without any Tropes or Figures for we find that all such principle Articles of Religion and Faith are deliuered in Scripture in a most facile and easy phrase of speach and Position of faith contayned therin euer to continue in the Church necessarily challenging a literall plaine and obuious Interpretation Yet our Tropicall and Figuratiue Sectaries are not heere affraid o monstrous impiety euen to force and violate with their strained Glosses the true sense therof Let vs examine the former words by recurring to the Greeke wherin the Euangelists our Lords true Historians did first write to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This point is explicated aboue at the letter h in the explication of the Pronowne Hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the words do by all naturall Construction signifie that the Cup was shed for vs and consequently that Wyne was not in the Cup. They reply that the words heere making for vs are meere n Surreptitious So saith Beza as not being able to answere to the argument of the Catholikes drawne from the Greeke Text. surreptitious and in tyme by negligence crept out of the margent into the text thus daring in a supercilious and impudent manner to expunge out of the holy Writ it selfe what may seeme to eneruate and destroy their Typicall Communion Let vs passe on further to such Texts of the Apostle which do imply an vse and practice of the Eucharist as Calix o Calix Benedictionis 1. Cor. c. 10. In English thus The Chalice of benediction which we do blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ And the Bread which we breake is it not the participation of the Body of Christ Now this place affoards diuers Arguments in proofe of our Catholike doctrine And First from those first words Calix benedictionis cui benedicimus Out of which words we deduce that Consecration is necessary to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but it were not necessary if the Eucharist were but only a Figure of our Sauiours Body since for the effecting of thus much the first institution of Christ and his will manifested in the Holy Scriptures were sufficient for the Paschall Lambe and Manna were figures of Christs Body Sacraments according to our Aduersaries doctrine and yet there was not required any consecration for the making of those figures In like sort we find that no Consecration is vsed to the water of Baptisme to make it thereby a Sacrament Another Argument may be taken from the words Panis quem frangimus In which place the word Fractio is as much as Immolatio or Oblatio according to that of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis frangitur For all these are the words of the same Apostle in the same Epistle and intreating of the same matter Besides the Apostle heere describeth the Cup not by words of distribution but of Consecration Therefore it is most probable that he did in like sort describe the Bread by way of Consecration not of distribution Now then if in this place Frangere doth signify Immolare to immolate or offer vp in Sacrifice then it ineuitably followeth that the word Panis doth not here signify naturall wheaten bread but the very Body of Christ which is supersubstantiall celestiall Bread for no man will say that we doe immolate and offer vp to God plaine naturall Bread benedictionis cui benedicimus nonne communicatio Sanguinis Christi est Et Panis quem frangimus nonne coÌ„municatio Corporis Christi est As also the said Apostle in another place Qui p Qui manducat 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discorning the Body of our Lord. Now out of this Text thus we argue Heere certaine are reprehended for the receauing of the body of Christ vnworthiliâ— and of such it is said that they eate and drinke iudgement and not life to themselues But of these it cannot be said that they receaue the body of Christ in spirit and Faith because in so doing they should receaue it profitably therefore they receaue it in Body alone and consequently the Body of Christ is really and truly in the Eucharist since the Body of Christ â—s it is in heauen cannot be taken with our bodily mouth It cannot be replyed heerto as some of our Aduersaries haue written that such persons are said by the Apostle to eate iudgment to themselues because they do not receaue truely the Body of Christ which God doth offer to them in those signes which is as much as if they should cast it vpon the ground and betrample it This refuge auayleth nothing the reason therof being in that the Apostle in this place faith not that such offend in not receauing but in receauing vnworthily so as their sinne consisteth in the taking of it not in the omission therof and not taking Neither will that other answere of Caluin lib 4. Instit c. 17. â— 3â— of Peter Martyr in comment huiuâ— loci aduantage them any thing aâ— all who teach That the meaning of the Apostle in this former place is that the wicked are said to eate drinke to their owne damnation in that by taking of the Eucharist they wrong the Symboles or Signes of Christs Body Now say they the iniury offered to a Signe or Image redoundeth to that of which it is a Signe or Image This answere ouerthroweth themselues in that it inforceth them to acknowledge that they wrong the Catholikes against whom they at other times inueigh so much euen charging them with idolatry therin for giuing acertaine honour to the Images of Christ the Saints and teaching that the reuerence giuen to them is transferred from theÌ„ to Christ and his Saints As in like sort the wrong or iniury done to the Images in which point the Sectaries of this Age do exceed results to Christ and his Saints Againe if this were the only reason of S. Paules words then he which receaueth the Eucharist in mortall sinne so that he come not with an intention of violating or dishonouring the Symboles of Christs Body should not be guilty of Christs Body nor eate Iudgment to himselfe and yet in so doing he is most guilty therof The reason of this Inference is in that if an Image be destroyed or defaced by any meanes so that it be not done with an intention of dishonouring the Saint wherof it is an Image there is no offence committed against the Saint Lastly by force of
this Answere it should not be lawfull for a sinner to looke vpoÌ„ the picture of Christ nor to heare the word of God since both these do represent and offer Christ vnto vs. Hence then we may conclude that it was not the Apostles meaning that therfore they did sinne who did receaue the Eucharist vn worthily because it doth represent Christ manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans Corpus Domini And againe he there faith that such an one reus erit Corporis Sanguinis Domini In all which words the often and reuerent ingemination of flesh of bloud of the Body of Christ of the most dreadfull comminations and threats to the vnworthy receauers therof may seeme well to Paraphrase and comment our Sauiours owne words and to free them froÌ„ all ambiguous acceptation Yet do they most pertinaciously persist in their former Allegoricall Constructions abastarding therby the natiue and genuine sense therof Let vs not only fortify our doctrine with the warrant of Gods word but also repell all weake assaults forces gathered out of certaine wrested Texts of the said Word for the impugning of this our faith for thus do our Aduersaries bandie Scripture against Scripture as if the Pennes of the Euangelists and the Apostles had at vnawares made some blots or blurres of contradictions or mistakings Now to this their drift many Passages are vrged by them As first diuers q Diuers examples Many examples of this kind are alledged by the Sacramentaries as Agnus est Pascha id est Transitus Exod. 1â— Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. c. 10. Baptisâ—â—â—s est lauacrum regenerationis Tit. 3. Septem boues sunt septem anni Gen. 14. Ego sum ostium Ioan. 20. and diuers other such like To these I answere First that most of these places are sâ—lfly expounded And first as touching that Petra erat Christus These words according to the exposition of Ambrose Chrysostome and others vpon this place are not to be vnderstood of the materiall Rock which signified Christ for that followed not the Iewes but of the spirituall and inuisible Rock which prouided all necessary thingâ— for the Iewes which Rock was properly and truly Christ as God Now though the Trope be that Christ is there called the Rock yeâ— by the addition of the word Spiritualis the Trope is explaned and therfore this Proposition Spiritualis petra erat Christus is taken properly and not figuratiuely To that other Baptisâ—â—â— est lauacrum regenerationis I say that Baptisme doth not signify only here the Lauacre of Regeneration but it truly washeth the soule of Man from sinne if the effect therof be noâ— hindered by our indisposition To that Agnus est Pascha we reply that Agnus Paschalâ—s the Paschall Lambe is not heere Tropically called the Pascha because it signified Transitum but it was called the Pascha properly no otherwise then as the Festiuall Day was called Pascha from the word deriued à Transitu Domini because the Lamb was then sacrificed and that Day was made Festiuall in remeÌ„brance of that Transitus or Passâ—ouer To that Septem boues sunt septem anni we say it is a Parâ—ble and in such Parables Similitudes and Vâ—â—ions the verbe Est is â—â—ken for Significat and yet without any Trope the reason heerof being because as is aboue touched thâ— whole essence of all such things iâ— plâ—ced in signification And therfore the sense of these words is noâ— that the seauen Oxen did signifie the seauen yeares but that the Oxen appeared in vision to signify those yeares Secondly we answere that in all examples â—lledged by our Aduersaries there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope Figure but of the words of the Institution there followeth no explication Thirdly in most of the examples alledged by our Aduersaries for there are diuers others produced by them euer prâ—dicatâ—â— dispatatum de disparato that is that which is of a most different nature is said of another thing of a like different nature â—â— in those Boues sunt Anni Christus est Ostium c. for seeing that in these and such like the Propositions cannot be by any meanes properly and literally true we are forced to expound the same by Tropes and Figures But in these words Hoc est Corpus meum there is no such kind of strange and vnnaturall predication at least in the appearance of the words themselues Lastly if we should admit that in the examples produced Est is taken for Significat yet seing this verbe is more often taken in it owne naturall signification then otherwise it followeth that it should be so taken in the words of the Institution rather then without sufficient reason to the contrary to be expounded figuratiuely Examples to countermaund the naturall construction of the words of the Institution wherin by the word Est is vnderstood Significat In like sort they obiect where it is said That the Eucharist is to be taken in r In Remembrance of Christ Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe this in Remembrance of mee From hence it followeth not that because we are commaunded to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ that therefore Christs Body is not there really present For the meaning of these words is set downe by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. saying Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat you shall shew the death of our Lord vâ—till he shall come Therefore we are coÌ„manded to take the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lords death and Passion which is not present but absent or rather it is not but was Remembrance of Christ That Christ shall not leaue s Not leaue Heauen Act. 3. Oportet illum Caelum suscipere vsque ad tempus restitutionis omnium VVhom meaning Christ Heauen must receaue vntill the tyme of the restitution of all things It followeth not from hence that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen Ergo his Body is not in the Eucharist for we teach that Christ ought not to leaue Heauen or to descend with a Locall Motion when he is in the Eucharist for heere no question iâ— made of the Article of Ascension but rather of Christs Omnipotency to wit whether Christ by his Diuine Power may place himselfe in seuerall places at one Tyme of which Point it is sufficiently treated aboue in the first Part of this Treatise Heauen till the consummation of the world That Christ to shew himselfe to haue a true Body consisting of flesh and bones c. would haue it touched t Haue it touched Pâ—lpate videte quia Spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere Handle and feele for a Spirit hath not slesh and bones as you see mee to haue Luc. 24. To argue thus It is felt and seene Ergo It is a body is a good consequence and this is the force of our Sauiours words But it is no good sequele to argue thus negatiuely as our
be nourished of God But the flesh is washed really and truly with water as also it is annoynted really and truly with oyle therfore it ought really and truly to feed vpon the Body and Bloud of Christ Ignatius epist ad Smyrnenses as Theodoret citeth Dialog 3. thus saith Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse Carnem Saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit They do not admit to wit certaine Heretickes denying that Christ had true Flesh the Eucharists and Oblations because they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which flesh suffered for our sinnes the which the Father through his benignity raysed vp againe Heere Ignatius sayth not that the Flesh of Christ is giuen to vs in some one manner or other as our Aduersaries would expound him but he saith that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ Heere also we are to note that these Heretickes against whom he heere speaketh did refuse the Eucharist least they should be inforced to confesse that Christ had true flesh if they did admit the Eucharist which was the Flesh of Christ But if the Eucharist did only signify the flesh of Christ they had no reason to deny the Echarist for they did not deny the Images and Figures of Christ but only his true Flesh for such bodies as are only apparent and not true bodyes may be painted or figured out in Images as appeareth by the Images and Pictures of Angells OF THE FATHERS AVTHORITIES touching the Change made in the Eucharist CHAP. III. A SECOND Branch of the Fathers Testimonies may extend it selfe to the Change which is made in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which change that it is reall is necessarily included in their writings For they teach that after the Mutation is once made the Bread remayneth not and in further acknowledgment heerof they purposely do paralell it with other reall Mutations As first with that of the Water turned by our Sauiour into Wine But if an imminent Act of his will was of Power to turn water into wine cannot a Transient operation of the said will breaking out into words of a positiue Assertiō change wine into Bloud Secondly they compare the change heere with that of the Wands of Moyses turned into Serpents But what proportion can there be betweene these stupendious Mutations and a little representatiue Bread and Wine still remayning Bread and Wine Therfore we may iustly say that as those true Serpents a True serpents Exod. 7. of Moyses did eate vp those counterfaite Serpents made in emulation therof by the false Prophets euen so ought the reall Transelementation taught by the Fathers exyle and banish this but Sacramentall and Sophisticated chang brought in by the Sacramentaries They further teach for the more facilitating of this great worke that he who could first giue the Essence and Forme to euery thing could more easily superinduce a second forme And therefore with good reason one of them saith Non b Non minus est Ambros de mysterijs initiand c. 9. minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Since the first includeth an Absolute and Primatiue Creation the very Maister-peece of Gods Omnipotency and such as Man cannot apprehend but by apprehending that Nothing is Something The second implieth a former Existence of something and consequently only a new kind of inuesting of it Which later point much more the First the Fathers ascribe only to his power who causing all changes is yet himselfe vnchangeable and producing all mutations is immutable Ego c Ego sum Dominus Malach. 3. sum Dominus non mutor Now then by reason of the true and reall chang heere made the Fathers doe further write that our Sense which in other things hath a great Soueraignty ouer our Iudgemēt is heere deceaued for though the Eye would persuade vs that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet they say plainly that there is neither bread nor wyne thus teaching that the vnderstanding heere corrects the Eye in seeing though only by the Eye it learnes that there is any seeing and affirming that the vnderstanding for Faith is an Act therof which seeth not at all heere only truly seeth Thus if we belieue those ancient Doctors a Faith wrought out of sense only is no better then Israel whereof the d The Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Apostle speaketh according to the Flesh But now to descend particulerly to their authorities sorting to the passages of this Chapter First then Eusebius Emissenu serm de Corpore Dom. sayth Inuisibilis Sacerdos c. The inuisible Priest doth change through a secret power of his word the visible Creatures into the substance of his body and bloud And againe he saith more plainly Quando bencdicendae c. When the Creatures which are to be blessed are placed vpon the Altars before they be consecrated with the inuocation of the highest Power they are the substance of Bread and wine but after the words of Christ they are the body and bloud of Christ. What meruayle if those things which he could create by his word he can chang being already created Proclus Bishop of Constantinople lib. de Trad. diuinae Liturgiae Per quas preces Spiritus sancti aduentum expectabant vt eius diuina praesentia propositum in Sacrificio panem vinum aqua permixtum ipsum illud corpus sanguinem Saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi efficeret By the force of these prayers meaning the words of the Institution we expect the comming of the Holy Ghost that so his diuine presence might make the bread and wine mingled with water the very Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Sauiour Augustine serm quem citat Beda in c. 10. prioris ad Cor. Non omnis panis c. Not euery bread but that receauing the benedictiō of Christ fit Corpus Christi is made the Body of Christ where the word fit includeth heere a true change at least against the Lutherans Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. Non sunt humanae c. The words heere performed are not in the power of Man we only hould the place of Ministers but it is he that sanctifieth and changeth the things And then after Qui dixit c. He who said This is my Body confirmed the fact with his word And homil de Eucharist in Encaenijs Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites Quemadmodum enim sicera adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread Doest thou see Wine Do these things passe into the Common passage as other meates do Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as wax laid neere to the fire doth assimilate it selfe to it nothing of the substance
therof remayning or superfluously redouÌ„ding So maist thou suppose the Mysteries heere to be consumed by the substance of the body Gaudentius tract 2. de Exod. Ipse Naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium Corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino Sanguinem suum He who is the Creatour and Lord of all Natures who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth and againe who of the bread maketh his proper Body for he is able and he promised to do it and who made wine of water and of wine his owne Bloud And after againe O altitudo diuitiarum c. O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and knowledge of God! Doe not thinke that terrestriall which is made heauenly by him which passeth into it and made it his owne Body and Bloud And finally Non infringamus os illud c. Let vs not breake that most solide and firme bone This is my Body This is my Bloud Now what remayneth in the sense of any one which he cannot conceaue by this exposition let it be consumed and burnt away with the ardour heate of faith Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium Videmus quod accepit Saluator c. We do see what our Sauiour tooke into his hands as the Euangelist noteth that he did rise from Supper that he did take these things and when he had giuen thankes he said This is mine and This and This. And we do see that it is not equall nor like to the proportion or Image in flesh to the inuisible Deity to the lineaments of MeÌ„bers for this is of a round forme and insensible according to Power And he would through grace say Hoc meum est Hoc Hoc And yet euery one belieueth his speach for who belieueth not to be his very true Body doth fall from grace and saluation Now when he heere saith that it is to be belieued though it be repugnant to sense this must needs be vnderstood of the Body it selfe and not of the signification therof since the sense rather helpeth then hindreth why we should belieue the SacrameÌ„t And when he saith that we ought to belieue that it is ipsum verum Corpus the true Body hereby are excluded all Tropes and Figures S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo c. Wherfore we now truly belieue euen by the word of God that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God c. That these things which are seene to wit bread and wine are changed into that Body of oar Lord is to be attributed to the vertue of Benediction S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 4. Tu fortè dicis Panis meus c. Perhaps thou sayest My bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the words of Consecration but after Consecration is finished of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Though our Aduersaries doe answer this place by reiecting this booke as not written by S. Ambrose yet is it cited vnder his name by Lanfrancus Guitmundus and others who liued aboue fiue hundred yeares since In like sort in his booke de mysterijs init c. 9. he thus writeth Fortè dicas Aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quòd Christi Corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non esse hoc quod Natura formauit sed quod Benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m Naturae quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur Virgam tenebat Moyses proiecit eam facta est serpens c. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Nam Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur c. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae vt ignem de Caelo deponâ—râ—t non valebit Christi Sermo vt species mutet Elementorum De totius mundi operibus legisti Quia ipse dixit facta sunt ipse mandauit creat a sunt Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Perhaps thou mayst say I see another thing how prouest thou to me that I take the body of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to proue What then or how great examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature formed but what benediction hath consecrated And that there is greater force of Benediction then of Nature for euen Nature it selfe is changed by Benediction Moyses houlding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent c. Now if Mans Benediction or blessing be of such force as that it can chang Nature what do we say of that diuine CoÌ„secration where the very words of our Lord our Sauiour doe worke for this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speach of Christ And if the speach of Elias was of such power as to draw fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ be of force to chang the formes of the Elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they are made he commanded and they are created Therefore the words of Christ which of nothing could make that which was not can they not chang those things which are into that which afore they were not for it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures to things then to chang Natures So cleare and euident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true and reall chang in the Sacrament of the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutauit in Vinum c. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turne water into Wyne which is neere to Bloud and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wyne into bloud Wherefore with all assurednesse let vs take the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of Bread is giuen to thee his Body and vnder the forme of Wine is giuen his Bloud The same Father in the same Booke also saith thus Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem nudum vinum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet neâ— ex gustu rem iudices c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Et vinum quod
à notis conspicitur taâ—â—tsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamâ—â— vinum sed Sanguin in Christi esse which latter words are afore related Doe not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Bloud of Christ according to the word of our Sauiour himselfe For though sense may suggest this to thee yet let thy faith so confirme this as that thou iudge not the matter from thy tast And againe after Hoc sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certaine that this Bread which we see is not Bread though our Tast do tell vs that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behould though it seemeth wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Bloud of Christ. And can any Catholike at this time speake more plainly then are the sayings of this Father One who is most ancient learned and of whose booke from whence these testimonies are produced there was neuer any doubt made S. Cyprian serm de Coena Dom. Panis iste queÌ„ Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit Essentia This Bread the which our Lord gaue to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word it is made Flesh And as in the Person of Christ the Humanity did appeare and the Diuinity did lye hid so in the visible Sacrament the diuine Essence hath ineffably infused it selfe But what Omnipotency is required to giue a signification to any substance Or if the Change be only by adding a new signification how can the Bread be said to be changed non effigie sed natura Lastly the Diuinity was truly and really latent in Christs Humanity therfore the Body and Bloud must be truly and really latent vnder the formes of Bread and Wine which to be Cyprians meaning appeareth euen by the word Ineffabiliter there added by him but what difficulty or mysterie is it that Bread should signify Christ Tertullian l. 2. ad Vxorem where speaking of Christian Women that are married to Gentiles and shewing that such marriages are hurtfull to the receauing of the Blessed Sacrament thus saith Non sâ—iet Maritus c. The Husband shall not know what thou doest tast before all other meates and if he did he belieueth not the Bread to be him whom it is said to be Which wordes do euidently imply a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haereses cap. 34. disputing against such Heretikes as denyed Christ to be the Sonne of the Creatour thus disputeth Quomodo autem constabit ijs c. How shall it be made euident to such men that Bread wherupon thankes are giuen to be the Body of Christ and the Cup the Bloud of him if they will not acknowledge him to be the Sonne of the Maker of the World That is the Word of him by the which Word the Wood doth fructifie the Springs do flow who first giueth a kind of grasse then an Eare of corne lastly the Eare full of wheate Heere we are to obserue that Irenaeuâ— proueth Christ to be the Creatour from this that Bread by force of Consecration is made the Body of Christ therfore he belieued that Bread was really and truly changed into the Body of Christ and not only in signification for it is not an imposition of a new signification but a true and reall chang which necessarily requireth Gods Omnipotency OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONTEYNING The Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Great Mysteries CHAP. IIII. A THIRD point which indeed is the CeÌ„ter wherin the Lines of diuers such passages doe meet manifesting the Fathers beliefe heerein may be the Obseruation of their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other things Thus they compare it with the Paschal Lambe with the Manna with Panis Propositions teaching that it doth transcend all these as much as a Diuine and inconsumptible substance excells a terrene and corruptible the Body the shaddow and the Truth the Figure But if Christs Body be heere only by representation then is the Eucharist a thing corruptible a shadow and a meere Figure and then may our Sauiour worthily vse towards them the expostulation in Esay Cui a Cui comparastis me Esa 46. comparastis me Others also in regard of the sublimity therof compare it with the Creation as I touched before where not to insist in other points we find that by force of the Creation all Creatures are conteyned in the Creatour for in ipso viuimus c. and by force of this Sacrament the Creatour is conteyned after a peculiar manner vnder the formes of some of his meanest Creatures Some likewise do teach besides other such comparisons that Christ in the Sacrament is to the eye of the soule as when Angells by assuming bodyes appeared to Men though these being spirituall seemed corporall and Christ being Corporall appeareth heere only as spirituall Finally diuers of them seeme to equall it with the Mysterie of the Incarnation and one Father resembleth the difficulty herein to that where Christ being as well God as Man was borne of a Woman and a Virgin Now if the chiefest obscuritie in the Eucharist doth rest in Types Representations and Resemblances how cold disproportionable dissorting yea absurd and false are the comparisons heere made with those former stupendious Mysteries of Christianity and particulerly of the Incarnation Where to omit all other passages therof aboue our capacity we find the Vine to bud out of the Branch the Ocean to flow from a shallow Riuer and the Sunne to borrow it light from a small Starre First then occurreth S. Leo serm 7. de Passione Dom. who thus saith Vt ergo Vinbrae c. That therfore the Shaddowes might giue place to the Body and Images or ResemblaÌ„ces to the presence of the Truth the ancient obseruation is taken away by a new Sacrament the Hoast is changed into an Hoast bloud excludeth bloud and the Legall Solemnity whiles it is changed is fulfilled and accomplished S. Augustine l. 3. Trinit c. 10. Illas etiam Nubes c. What man knoweth how those Clouds and Fires were made which the Angells assumed and tooke on to signify what they were to deliuer or speake yea though our Lord or the Holy Ghost appeared in these formes Euen as Infants knew not that which is placed vpon the Altar and consumed after the celebration of Piety is finished how it is made and by what meanes it is vsed in Religion And if they neuer learned either by their owne experience or of others and should neuer see the formes of those things but in the celebration of Sacraments when it is offered giuen and said to them by most graue authority
takest not the Sonne of any Prince being but a Man but the only begotten Sonne of God art thou not affraid and doest not thou cast from thee the care of all secular things But if Chrysostome did heere speake of Christ only in Signe and representation the comparison should haue bene made only between the Image or Picture of the Kings Sonne and not with the Sonne himselfe And Homil. ad Neophytos Sicut Regnantium statuae c. Euen as the Statuaes or Images of Princes haue bene accustomed to succour such as haue fled to them for Sanctuary and this not because they are made of brasse but in that they doe beare the Image of the Prince euen so that bloud did free meaning that Bloud of the Lamb in the old Testament which was sprinkled vpon the Posts to free the Israelites from the striking Angell not because it was bloud but because it did figure out the comming of this Bloud But now if the Enemy shall see not the bloud of the Type cast vpon the postes or walles but the bloud of Truth shining in the mouthes of the faithfull he will much more withdraw himselfe from hence For if the Angell gaue place to the Example how much more will the Enemy be terrified if he shall behould the Truth it self In which place we see that Chrysostome placeth the truth of the Bloud not in the mind but in the mouths of the Faithfull And Homil. 51. in Matth. O quet modo dicunt c. O how many doe now say I would see the forme of Christ and his fauour I would see his vestments and euen his shooes Now thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him Where he meaneth that we see feele and eate Christ truly and really vnder those formes of Bread and Wine which are properly seene and touched Againe he saith in the same place that there was neuer Shepheard who fed his shep with his owne flesh as Christ did and that diuers Mothers are to be found who deliuer ouer their Infants to others to be noursed contrary to the procedings of our Sauiour which comparisons can haue no fitting proportion if we eate the Body of Christ only in Figure and signe Lastly to omit for breuities sake diuers others of his similitudes he thus writeth Hom. 2. ad Pop. Antiochenum Helias melotem c. Helias did leaue to his disciple his vestement but the Sonne of God ascending to Heauen did leaue his flesh But Helias by leauing it was disuested thereof whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to Heauen there also hath it So frequent is this holy Father in Comparisons and Similitudes all brought in to shew the excellency of that thing which we receaue in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which if it were not the body and bloud of Christ then were these comparisons most cold and disproportionable Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo teacheth that the Iewes had not all one Paschal Lambe but diuers in that euery family did kill it peculiar Lambe but that among the Christians one and the same Lambe to wit the body and bloud of Christ is offered vp and eaten in all the Churches Which words signify that the body of Christ is not offered vp only in representation since in that sense the Iewes had one and the same Lambe in that all their Lambs did signify one Lamb to wit Christ S. Basil l. 2. de Baptismo c. 2. thus writeth Si tales minae c. If such threats be ordayned against those who come rashly to such holy things as are sanctified by Man what shall we say of him who is temerarious and rash towards such and so great a Mysterie For by how much Christ is greater then the Temple according to the voyce of our Lord by so much it is more greiuous and terrible rashly to touch the body of Christ in impurity of soule then to approach to Rammes or Bull◠c. But this saying of S. Basil cannot be true except the body of Christ be really in the Eucharist For betweene Christ and the Rammes sacrificed by the Iewes the difference is infinite but betweene those Rammes signifying Christ and bread figuring our Sauiour the difference is but small S. Ambrose lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. teacheth that a more excellent meate is giuen to vs in the Eucharist then euer the Manna was to the Iewes The like he hath l. 4 de Sacramentis c. 3. 4. 5. But Manna was both for substance and signification as is proued afore better then bread only representing the body of Christ Againe lib. 6. de Sacramentis c. 1. Sicut verus est Filius Dei c. Euen as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true Sonne of God not as Men are his Sonnes by grace but as a Sonne of the Substance of the Father so it is true Flesh euen as himselfe said which we take Out of which sentence it followeth that as Christ is truly and really the Sonne of God So is that which we take in the Eucharist the true body and bloud of Christ Againe lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. he proueth the same from the mysterie of the Incarnation in these words Liquet quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo generauit hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Quid hic queris Naturae ordinem in Christi corpore cùm praeter naturā sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus ex Virgine It is manifest that a Virgin brought forth a Sonne beyond the course of Nature And this Body which we make proceedeth from the Virgin Why doest thou heere expect the course of Nature since our Lord Iesus is borne of a Virgin aboue nature But if the Bread did only signify our Sauiours Body in the Eucharist this proofe of S. Ambrose had bene superfluous S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate speaking of the Truth of the Body and Bloud in the Eucharist thus concludeth An hoc veritas non est c. What is not this Truth Let it not be a truth to those who deny Christ Iesus to be true God Thus Hilarius heere proueth the Mysterie of the Eucharist by the Mysterie of the Trinity S. Athanasius as he is cited by Theodoret in 2. Dialog thus writeth Corpus est cui dicit c. It is a Body to whom it was said Sede à dextris meis of which Body the Diuells with all the wicked Powers as also the Iewes and Grecians were Enemies by meanes of which Body Christ was both the High Priest and an Apostle and this Body is specified in that Mysterie which is deliuered to vs when himselfe said This is my Body which is deliuered for you and the bloud of the New Testament not of the Old which is shed for you But Diuinity hath neither a Body nor Bloud Heere he proueth that Christ hath a true Body in that Christ as an High Priest gaue his Body to vs in those wordes Hoc est Corpus meum but if
his true body were not deliuered to vs therby his reason would proue nothing against the Heretikes denying the Truth of his Body in that it might be replyed that the Eucharist was but a Figure of the apparent and seeming body which they taught that Christ had S. Cyprian sermone de Coena Domini saith Coena disposita c. The Supper of those sacramentall Banquets being prepared the Old and New Institutions did there meete togeather and the Lamb which the Ancient Tradition proposed being spent the Maister gaue to his Disciples an inconsumptible meate Heere by the words Cibum inconsumptibilem cannot be vnderstood the Body of Christ as it is eaten by Faith because in that the Iewes by their Paschall Lamb had that meate to wit by representation as well as we Christians Neither by the said words can be vnderstood the Bread in the Eucharist because Bread is as well consumptible and to be spent as a Lambe is In the same Sermon he also saith of which place I haue entreated before Sicut in Persona Christi c. Euen as in the Person of Christ his Humanity appeared but his Diuinity was hid or latent so in the visible Sacrament the Diuine Essence doth ineffably infuse it selfe From which words the truth of the Doctrine of the Eucharist is proued from the Mystery in the Incarnation Origen homil 7. in Lib. Numeri Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei est verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Quia caromea est verè cibus Then to wit in the Old Law the Manna was meate obscurely Enigmatically but now indeed the Flesh of the Word of God is true meate euen as himselfe said Quia caro mea verè est cibus But the Manna was the body of Christ tropically and figuratiuely Tertullian lib. de Idololatria thus saith Prâ—h Scelâ—â—l semel Iudaei c. O Villany the Iewes once offered violence vnto Christ but these Men dayly do wrong his body O that their hands might be cut off In which place he inueigheth against certaine men who made such Priests or at the least Deacons which were artificers or makers of Idolls But if Tertullian had thought that there were only Bread in the Eucharist representing the Body of our Sauiour he would not compare such as handled the Sacrament vnworthily with those which crucified Christ Where also we are to note that he there speaketh not of such who with affectation and intended purpose did wrong Christ by violating the Sacraments but of those only who being sinners dared to deliuer the Sacrament to the Communicants Irenaeus l. 4 contra Haeres c. 34. Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis Panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia EucharistiaÌ„ iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as the Bread proceeding from the Earth receauing the inuocation of God is not now common Bread but it is the Eucharist consisting of two things to wit a terrene thing and a celestiall thing so our Bodyes receauing the Eucharist are not corruptible as hauing thereby the hope of rising againe Where Irenaeus maketh a Comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Article of the Resurrection But our Body really truly after the Resurrection shall become immortall and not in signification only therefore the Bread is truly become the Body of Christ and not in signification only Now how the Eucharist may be termed terrena see S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in the sixt chapter of this 2. Tract S. Iustinus Martyr in Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum Imperatorem saith Non enim vt communem Panem neque communem Potum haec sumimus Sed quemadmodum per Verbum Dei Incarnatus Iesus Christus Saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuit sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factum cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostrae per mutationem aluntur illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these as common Bread and common Drinke but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour being Incarnated by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our health saluation euen so we learne that through the prayers of the Word of God that meate whereby our bloud and flesh are nourished through the alteratioÌ„ therof being made the Eucharist is the Flesh and Bloud of Iesus who was incarnated In which wordes there is a comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Incarnation of Christ and he proueth the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist from the Mysterie of the Incarnation inferring that by the same power the Bread might be made the Body of Christ by the which power God was Incarnated but if he did vnderstand that the Bread was the Body by representation only then in vaine is brought the Example of the Incarnation since it is no Miracle that Bread should signifie the Body of Christ Add heerto that Iustinus Martyr if he did meane the Body only in signe had reason to explane himselfe to the Emperour in that he heere did write an Apology for the Christians to whome besides other crimes it was obiected that in the mysteries of their Religion they did eate Mans flesh OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONFESSING The inexplicable greatnesse of this Mysterie CHAP. V. THE fourth Classis may conteyne such passages of the Fathers wherin is acknowledged a Supreme Mysterie in the Eucharist For first they teach that it transgressing the bounds of humane capacity is to be apprehended only by faith Thus aduancing the dignity and worth of faith as being able to vnderstand that which the vnderstanding of which Faith is but an Act cannot naturally vnderstand So cloudy darke is that Faculty of the mind except the mysts therof be dispelled and diffipated by the illuminating beames of Gods grace Hence it ariseth that they are very frequent in their exhortations that we should not fluctuate in any vncertainty of Iudgment but assure our selues by disclayming from sense humbling our Iudgments and voyding our minds of all preiudice of opinion of the infallible Truth therof since it is wrought by the vertue of his words who is Truth it selfe a Veritas Via Iohn 14. Ego sum Veritas Via So well those holy Doctours did know that the more Chrystalline cleare the chiefest faculties of our Soules are become and the more polished freed from all naturall blemishes the glasse therof is the more perfectly we may behould this high Mysterie since during our exile heere all such abstruse difficulties we do but see as it were per b Per speculum 1. Cor. 13. speculum in aenigmate But when we are arriued by meanes of death into our Countrey for Heauen is the soules proper Orbe then all such heauenly mysteries being now ouer
id est animam c. He that laid downe a greater thing for thee to wit his soule why should he disdayne to deliuer to thee his Body Therfore let vs Priestes as well as others heare how admirable a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I beseech you and let vs tremble therat for he hath deliuered his Flesh to vs he hath laid downe himselfe to be sacrificed And the same Father l. 3. de Sacerdotio O miraculum ô Dei benignitate c. O the Miracle ô the goodnesse of God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the very same instant of tyme is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Gaudentius tract 2. in Exod. saith Quod annuntiatum est credas c. Thou maist belieue that which is shewed thee for that which thou takest is the body of that Heauenly Bread and the bloud of that sacred Vine for when he deliuered conseerated Bread and Wine to his Disciples he said Hoc est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus Let vs belieue him whom heretofore we haue belieued for Truth knoweth not to lye S. Ephrem lib. De Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5. thus writeth Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia Si ista curiosè rimaris iam non fidelis sed curiosus vocaberis Esto fidelis atque innocens participa immaculato corpori Domini tui fide plenissima certus quòd agnum ipsum integrum comedis Why doest thou search things which are inscrutable If thou doest weigh these things curiously then thou shalt be called not faithfull but curious Be thou Faithfull and Innocent participate thou of the immaculate Body of thy Lord being assured through a most strong faith that thou doest eate the very whole Lambe it selfe And the same Father after in the said booke Hoc sanè excedit omnem admirationem c. This verily exceedeth all Wonder all Thought and all Speach which the only Begotten Sonne of God Christ our Sauiour hath performed to vs. He hath giuen to vs fire and the spirit to eate and drinke to wit his Body and Bloud Heere the Myracle exceeding Mans capacity the difficulty of belieuing it and the inscrutablenesse therof do proue that the Eucharist in his Iudgment was not only materiall bread signifying the body of Christ S. Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 2. de Paschate thus writeth Absque confusione dubio come de corpus sanguinem bibe si saltem vitae desiderio teneris neque sermonibus qui de carne habentur fidem deneges neque ob passionem offendaris Constans esto firmus stabilis in nulla re propter Aduersariorum sermones fluctues Eate his body and drinke his bloud without any confusion or doubt if at least thou haue any desire of health neither deny thy faith herein for any speaches which may proceed of flesh neither be thou scandalized by reason of his Passion Be thou constant firme and stable neither fluctuate nor doubt thou by reason of any speaches of the Aduersaries where we are to note that he persuadeth his Reader to this so great a Mystery though the Aduersaries to wit the Gentile Philosophers doe scoffe thereat meaning in that the Christians belieued that they did eate the Flesh of Christ which cohortation of Nazianzene were needlesse if only we doe eate the flesh of Christ in signe and Figure S. Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. thus writeth Considerandum est quomodo fieri queat vt cùm vnum illud corpus assiduè per totum orbem terrarum tot fidelium millibus impertiatur totum cuiusque perpartem euadat in seipso totum permaneat It is to be considered how it can be effected that that very one same Body can dayly throughout the whole world be distributed to so many thousands of the faithfull it notwithstanding remayning whole in it selfe and whole or entyre in euery part But this were idely demanded if the Body of Christ were eaten only in signe since there is no difficulty in apprehending the eating of it in signe and figure S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 5. saith Deinde ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis quòd corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem numquid debemus de eius fide tâ—stâ—ficatione dubitare Et infra Dicit tibi Sacerdos Corpus Christi tu dicis Amen Hoc est verum Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus Furthermore euen our Lord himselfe doth testify vnto vs that we take his Body and Bloud What ought we to doubt of his credit and testimony And afterwards The Priest sayth to thee The Body of Christ thou sayst Amen This is true therefore let thy affection hold that which thy tongue confesseth The first Councell of Nyce as it appeareth in the Acts of the said Councell thus saith Item etiam hic in diuina Mensa c. Furthermore in this diuine Table let vs not only with humility consider the Bread the Cup but lifting vp our mind in faith let vs vnderstand that in that sacred Table there is placed that Lambe of God who taketh away the sinns of the world that he is vnbloudily sacrificed by Priests and we truly taking his precious Body Bloud do belieue the taking therof to be a signe of our Resurrection and therfore we take not in a great quantitie but in a small that therby we may know it to be taken not for society but for sanctification In these words the CouÌ„cell perswades vs that we should not rest in the formes of Bread Wine as if nothing were there else but that we are to consider that there is the true Body and Bloud of Christ though to our Eye it seemeth otherwise Now that this is the meaning of the CouÌ„cell appeareth First because it there teacheth that we do take Preciosum Corpus eius verè his precious Body truly where the word Verè doth beare an opposition to that which is in Figure Secondly in that the Councell saith that the Lambe of God is sacrificed by Priests vpon the holy Table which wordes cannot extend to Christ as he is in heauen only Thirdly in that the Councell saith that we are to apprehend by faith that the Lambe of God is placed vpon that holy Table therfore the Councell did teach that Christ himselfe was vpon the Altar and not only in Heauen as our Aduersaries do hould So forcible and strong is this graue Testimony of so Ancient and Reuerend a Councell in defence of our Catholike doctrine heerin OF THEIR TESTIMONIES EXPRESSING The effect of the Eucharist and the veneration exhibited to the same CHAP. VI. THE fifth Mount of the Fathers Authorities in this Controuersie is gathered or heaped togeather out of such their Sentences coÌ„teyning the Effect Vertue and Energy of the Eucharist as also their care reuerence and veneration exhibited to the same Concerning the first point they teach that it is the
truly made Flesh we truly take the Word made Flesh in our Lords meate how can he not be thought to remaine naturally in vs. And in the same place he also saith De naturali in nobis Christi veritate c. Of the naturall verity of Christ in vs whatsoeuer we speake we speake foolishly and wickedly except we learne of him for it is he that said Caro mea verè est esca Origen Homil. 13. in Exod. expounding the 21. Chapter of that Booke saith Volo vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis nostis qui diuinis mysterijs inesse consucuistis qucmodo cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione seruatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur reos enim vos creditis certè creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat I will admonish you by the examples of your Religion Yow know well who haue bene accustomed to be present at the diuine Mysteries how when you take the body of Christ you obserue with all warinesse and veneration that no part of the consecrated Gift do fall downe for you belieue them to be guilty and you belieue truly if any parcell thereof doe fall downe through negligence Tertullian lib. de Corona Militis speaking of diuers Christian Rites Calicis aut Panis etiam nostri c. We doe suffer with griefe that any part of our Cup or bread should fall vpon the Earth S. Irenaeus l. 8. contra Haeres c. 34. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt c. How doe they say againe that the Flesh commeth into corruption and receaueth not lyfe which is nourished of the body and bloud of our Lord Where he maketh the receauing of the Eucharist to be a Pledge of our Resurrection and Immortality S. Pius the first Bishop of Rome of that name did set downe certaine seuere punishmēts for such by whose negligence any part of the Body or Bloud of our Lord did fall vpon the ground yea or vpon the Altar commanding the place to be licked with the tongue to be scraped But if the Eucharist were not the true Body of Christ but only by representation there were no reason why there should be greater diligence giuen to preuent that no part thereof doe fall vpon the ground then there was that the water of Baptisme the Images of Christ or the Holy Bible should not fall vpon the ground His Decree touching the former point appeareth out of Gratian de Consecrat distinct 2. Can. Si per negligentiam c. S. Dionysius Areopagita lib. de Hierarchia Ecclesiast c. 3. part 3. thus speaketh to the Blessed Eucharist O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacramentū obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi perspicuè nobis fac appareas nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple O most Diuine and most holy Sacament vouchsafe to remooue from thee the veyles or couerings of those signifying signes appeare to vs perspicuously and fill our spirituall Eyes with a singular and cleare resplendency of thy Light Heere it cannot be said that he did so inuoke the bread because such Inuocation were most ridiculous Neither can it be said that Dionysius did make an Apostrophe or Chang of speach from the Symboles of the Eucharist to Christ signified therby inuoking Christ before the Symboles for heere Dyonisius doth not inuoke Christ as he is in Heauen but inuokes the Sacrament it selfe and demandeth of it such things as are to be obtayned of God alone Add hereto that the ground of this Answere doth warrant the Catholikes praying before Images for if a man may pray to Christ before the Symboles of his Body by the same reason may he pray to him before his Image The said Father also in the former booke thus further writeth Pontifex quòd Hostiam salutarem c. The Priest when he sacrificeth the healthfull Hoast which is aboue him doth excuse himselfe speaking to it Tu dixisti Hoc facite c. Thou hast said Doe you this c. But the Bread is not aboue vs neither is there more reason that we should excuse our selues for handling the Bread then for handling the Water of Baptisme or other sacred things belonging to our Christian Faith Such was the reuerence of this most ancient Father for he liued in the time of the Apostles to wardes the blessed Sacrament And though our Aduersaries do impudently maintayne that this booke was not written by the said Dyonisius yet others of them do acknowledge at least that it is the worke of a most ancient Father yea Peter Martyr prizeth this booke as he is not affraid to wrest a place of the said worke for the defence of his Heresie herein Now that the Author of this worke is most ancient it appeareth from this one consideration to wit that the Author therof is cited for an ancient and reuerend Father by S. Gregorie Homil. 34. in Euangel but if S. Gregory who liued aboue a thousand yeares since did account this Author for an Ancient and Venerable Father then what estimation of him ought we to haue OF THEIR TESTIMONIES SHEVVING That the Celebration of the Eucharist contayneth a proper and true Sacrifice CHAP. VII THE last Branch of Authorities shall be deduced from the common Doctrine of the Fathers which teacheth that when our Sauiour had in place of the disobedient and degenerating Iewes adopted vs Gentiles that euen out of a more then Seraphical burning charitie towards vs he was content before his death to bequeath to his Church the true Sacrifice of himselfe there to be daily offered vp vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The which was according to the a The Psalmist Psal 109. in these words Iurauit Dominus non poenitebit eum Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Psalmist so long afore shaddowed by that of Melchisedech wherof one b One Father viz. Chrysostome homil 35. in Genes Father with reference therunto saith Videns Typum cogita oro veritatem and of which by reason of it perpetuall continuance to be in the Church the once Glory and Pride of Africke thus writeth c Perpes est hoc Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Perpes est hoc Sacrificium semper permanens Holocaustum Now heere it will not seeme needfull to alledge the Authorities of the Fathers though most frequent and punctuall therein expounding the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as a Type of the Eucharist therefore for greater breuity I will content my selfe in laying downe the Sentences and Iudgement of the said Doctours wherein they plainly acknowledge that the Eucharist doth conteine in it selfe a Sacrifice not in a forced and Metaphoricall but in a true and natiue acception of the Word And yet for the more cleere conuincing of our Aduersaries herein I will for beare all Inferentiall Deductions drawne by long circuitions and ambages
of Sequeles and will tye my selfe only to such their sayings wherein we find the Eucharist to be called Sacrificium Victima c. or where the words Immolare Offerre and the like are said of the Eucharist or finally where the word Altare is expressely mentioned which word euen by the confession of Doctour d Doctor Reynolds viz. in his Conference with M. Hart. pag. 552. Reynolds necessarily implyeth a true Sacrifice Which point being once cleared we shall thereby more easily discouer the malice of our Sectaryes against Gods Church since they labour to wound her in the Maister-veyne of Christian Religion by depriuing her of the most auayleable healthfull Oblation of Christs Body and Bloud left for the better expiating of Mans sinnes Which Mysterie of our Catholike Faith these new Brethren are loth to acknowledge in that besides other Reasons it comprehendeth as being a Sacrifice no small difficulties For it is a Sacrifice remitting our Sinnes where no Bloud e No Blould is shed Christs Bloud was to be shed in a bloudy manner but once in that he was but once to dye according to that Heb. 9. Christ was offered once to take away the sinnes of many And from his Passion the Sacrifice of the Eucharist receaues it vertue and force And therefore in this sense Sins may be said to be remitted in the Eucharist by sheding of bloud Besides Christs bloud is truly shed though in an vnbloudy manner in the Sacrifice of the Masse through the worth wherof our Sinns are remitted is shed and yet without f VVithout shedding of bloud Heb c. 9. shedding of Bloud there is no remission or if bloud be heere shed yet in an incruent and vnbloudy manner Where what is heere sacrificed remaines g Remaynes inconsâ—mptible Christs Body in the Sacrifice of the Masse remaines inconsumptible in that it being glorified is impatible and not capable of any such alteration or change And yet his Body as it is a Sacrifice may be said in some sense to be consumptible in that by the reason of the receauing and eating of it it ceaseth to be vnder the formes of Bread and Wyne and consequently ceaseth to be that to wit to lye vnder those formes which afore it was Now that there should be a Transmutation and chang of the thing sacrificed is apparent in that it is one particle in the definition of a true Sacrifice as also the same appeareth by the example of all the Sacrifices in the Old Law in consumptible and yet euery such true Litation necessarily implyes a consumption and destroying of the thing sacrificed Where Innocency assayles Iniquity and to preuent the punishment of God for the sinne of Man both God h God and Man In that Christs Body is vpon the Altar and that his Humanity is neuer more to be seuered from his Diuinity therfore it followeth that his Diuinity is there present with his Humanity as in the first Tract is fully demonstrated Man are vpon the Altar Where the holy thing was but once to be immolated i Once to be immolated To wit in a bloudy manner and this was performed but once viz. at the time of his Passion And yet he is often to be sacrificed in the Eucharist in that himselfe faith Hoc facite and yet was commaunded to be often immolated Where being a true Sacrifice is yet according to the k According to the Apostle Viz. 1. Cor. 11. in these words Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniâ—t Apostle a Commemoration of a true Sacrifice Where that which descended from l Descended from God to man The Eucharist as it is a Sacrament that is an externall signe of an inuisible Grace and refection which is conferred to vs whilest we take the Eucharist aright so it proceedeth from God as all Sacraments doe but as the Body of Christ is there sacrificed vp by the Priest so according to the nature of a Sacrifice it is offered by him to God God to Man is offered vp by Man to God Where the m The Creatour In that the Priest receauing the Body of Christ his body is there accompanied with the Diuinity of Christ as is said aboue Creator by meanes thereof vouchsafeth to be contayned within his Creature and the Supreme Agent within his Mynisteriall Agent Where as one Father saith n Idem est Conuiua c. S. Hierome Epist ad Hedibiam quast 2. Idem est Conuiua Conuiuium idem comedens qui comeditur And as another teacheth where one and the same body is borne vp by the hands of the said body Ferebatur o Perebatur Christus So writeth S. Augustine in Psal 33. concion 1. Christus in manibus suis So the hands became the Altar whereupon the Body was sacrificed Finally where the Priest is become the Sacrifice according to that Father Caro sacrificij nostri corpus est effectum Sacerdotis nostri But to leaue these subtilties Heere we are to aduertise the Reader that the Fathers teaching the Eucharist to comprehend in it selfe a true Sacrifice This their doctrine cannot be applyed to Bread and Wine First because the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine either in respect of the naturall Substances of the things themselues or their significations and representations is inferiour to the Sacrifice of the Old Law as appeareth aboue in the Figures of the Eucharist And secondly in that the Fathers do ascribe an infinite vertue to the Sacrifice heere made of the power wherof we haue entreated in the former precedent Chapter but no such imputatiue efficacy can with any probability be assigned especially now in the time of Grace to the sacrificing of a little Bread Wine Thus according to the Fathers what to a vulgar Eye heere seemes to be offered vp is not and what is seemes not And now to proceed to these their Testimonies First we read besides those few places already alleaged though ranged to some one of the former heads in regard of the particuler respect there specified in S. Leo serm 8. de Passione and in S. Cyril l. de Adoratione in spiritu veritate That the Body of our Sauiour is offered vp as a sacrifice in the Mysterie of the Eucharist S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitate c. 14. Quid gratius offeri aut suscipi posset quà m Caro Sacrificij nostri Corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri What can be offered vp or accepted more thankfully then that the Flesh of our Sacrifice should become the Body of our Priest The same Father l. 2. quaest Euangel q. 3. shewing why Christ commaunded the Leprous Man to offer vp Sacrifice for his clensing thus writeth Quia nondum institutum erat c. Because as yet this Sacrifice being the Holy of Holies which is his Body was not as yet ordayned The said Father lib. de Ciuit. Dei 8. c. vlt. l. 22. c. 8. maketh frequent mention of Altars S. Chrysostome l. 6. De
Sacerdotio Per id tempus Angeli Sacerdoti assident caelestium potestatum vniuersus ordo clamores excitat locus Altari vicinus in illius honorem qui immolatur Angelorum choris plenus est id quod credere abundè licet vel ex tanto illo Sacrificio quod tunc peragitur At that time the Angells draw neere to the Priest the whole Order of the Heauenly Powers causeth great voyces and the place neere to the Altar by reason of the honour of him who is there immolated is full of Angells which thing we may fully belieue in regard of so great a sacrifice there performed Againe Homil. 17. in Epist ad Hebraeos In multis locis c. In many places are offered not diuers Christs but one only Christ euery where remayning entire both here there being but one Body not many Bodyes And Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth he saith Pro victimarum c. He hath commaunded himselfe to be offered vp in place of the slaughter of sheep and such like Sacrifices And Homil. 53. ad Populum Si quis vellet c. If any should endeauour to destroy this Altar would not you destroy and kill him with stones And Homil. 20. in 2. epist ad Corinth Tu Altare honoras c. Thou doest honour the Altar which receaueth vpoÌ„ it the Body of Christ. S. Gregory Nyssene Orat. de Resurrect Dominus praeoccupans impetum Iudaeorum c. Our Lord preuenting the violence of the Iewes being both Priest and Lambe made himselfe a Sacrifice But thou demaundest of me when this did happen Euen then when he gaue to his Disciples his Body to eate and his Bloud to drinke S. Ambrose in cap. 1. Lucae Cùm sacrificamus c. When we do sacrifice Christ is present Christ is immolated And in Psalm 38. Etsi nunc Christus non videatur offerre ipse tameÌ„ offertur in terris cùm corpus cius offertur Although Christ may be thought now not to offer notwithstanding he is offered heere vpon Earth when his Body is offered Optatus Mileuitanus l. 6. contra Parmenianum thus writeth Quid est enim tam saâ—rilegum quà m Altaria Dei in quibus aliquando vos obtulistis frangere radere remouere in quibus vota populi membra Christi portata sunt quo Deus Omnipotens sit quo postulatus descendit spiritus Sanctus vnde à multis â— ignus aeternae salutis tutela fidei spes resurrectionis accepta est What is more sacrilegious then to breake to scrape to remoue the Altars of God vpon the which your selues sometymes haue offered In the which the Vowes of the People and the Members of Christ are borne where God who is Omnipotent is called vpon whereupon the Holy Ghost being prayed vnto descendeth from whence the Pledge of eternall Saluation and the defence of fayth and hope of the Resurrection is taken And a little after Quid est Altare c. What is the Altar but the seate of the Body and Bloud of Christ And againe Quid vos offenderat Christus c. In what hath Christ offended you whose Body and Bloud doth there stay by certaine tymes And againe after Hoc tamen immane c. Notwithstanding this cruell and heynous offence is performed whensoeuer you haue broken the Chalices which are the Porters or Carryers of the bloud of Christ Eusebius l 1. demon Euang. c. 6. writeth much concerning Altars in the time of the Ghospell S. Cyprian l. 1. â—p 9. speaking of a certaine Priest deceased who for leauing of a temporall and worldly prohibited businesse to be performed by another Priest deserued not according to Cyprians Iudgement to haue the sacrifice offered for him because saith he he did withdraw the Priest of God from the Altar Tertullian lib. de Poenitentia mentioneth kneeling before the Altars of God Dionysius Areopagita c. 3. Eccles Hierarch makes mention of Altars Hippolytus Martyr Orat. de Antichristo bringeth in Christ thus speaking Venite Pontifices Sacerdotes qui preciâ—sum corpus Sanguinem meum quotidie immolastis Come hither yee High Priests and other Priests who dayly doe sacrifice my precious body and bloud In the Canons of the Apostles viz. 3. 4. there is frequent speach touching Altars Lastly S. Andrew the Apostle as his Disciples do write in his Passion thus saith Ego Omnipotenti Deo immaculatum Agnum quotidie sacrifico c. Qui cùm sit verè sacrificatus verè à popiâ—o carnes eius manducatae integer perseuerat vinus I doe dayly sacrifice vnto Almighty God the immaculate Lambe Who when he is truly sacrificed and his flesh truly eaten of the People doth neuerthelesse perseuere whole and aliue Thus haue I gone ouer certaine principall Heads carrying in themselues a naturall dependency â—rke the foure Beasts in Ezechiel which were ioyned one to another by their wings wherin is conteyned a short CompeÌ„dium of the Fathers writings in this Point out of which abstract we may easily extract their Faith and Beliefe had in this high Mysterie and withall conclude that the Sacramentaries are no more distant remote from the Times wherin the Fathers liued then from the Doctrine maintayned in the said Tymes For as we haue shewed the Fathers not contenting themselues with ordinary positiue and measured speaches deliuered of the Eucharist do vse high and superlatiue Titles of the dignity and worth therof The Sacramentaries only affoard such appellations as Nature hath already giuen to the same The Fathers acknowledging heerin a true and reall Change haue paralelled it with the greatest supernaturall ChaÌ„ges whatsoeuer The Sacramentaries can find no other alteration but that afore it being common Bread Wine is now only reserued a strange and stupendious Mutation for the vse of their Winy Communion The Fathers postpose the Types of the Old Law to it yea compare it with the chiefest Articles of Christian Faith The Sacramentaries as long as they teach that it but Typically represeÌ„teth the Body Bloud of Christ can at the most but prize it at the equall valew of those Legall Figures The Fathers ascribed the CoÌ„uersion there made only to the Omnipotency of God affirming that not sense but only Faith is able to conceaue the Mysteries therin The Sacramentaries for the more couÌ„tenancing of their Bread and Wine verbally somtymes acknowledge that a liuely Faith only is of force to apprehend the difficulties of these their representing Elements O the penetrating Faith of our Sectaries the worke no doubt of the Holy Ghost the seed of Abraham able according to the Apostle to moue Mountaines transcending the narrow and niggard Limits of Sense and Reason since it is of power most supernaturally to apprehend how one thing may represent and signify another thing But to passe on The Fathers do attribute euen most diuine and celestiall effects to this Sacrament The Sacramentaries what efficacy they assigne therunto to wit the apprehending of Christ by
Faith do teach that it riseth only from the signification and remembrance of Christ implyed in the externall Signes the which may as auailably euen by their owne Principles be performed by any of their ten-shilling-Sermons The Fathers exhibited with great humility all due reuerēce adoratiō to Christs Body there present The Sacramentaries cannot be induced to giue any such respect at all Finally the Fathers do maintayne that the Eucharist is a true and Propitiatory Oblation The Sacramentaries acknowledge no other Oblation in the Church then only a spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiuing Thus we see what Alienaton there is betweene the Writings of the Fathers and of our Nouellists But we are not to meruaile that the Sacramentaries doe neuer speake in one and the same Catholike Idiome with those Primitiue Doctours since they are deafe heerin and will not be brought to heare what the Church of God either in those ancient Tymes or in these latter dayes do teach concerning the same And we know it is a Conclusion in Philosophy that He who neuer heareth neuer speaketh But before I conclude this Point I will put the Reader in remembrance of some other Obseruations contayned in the Testimonyes of the Fathers which may at least morally assure him that they maintayned our Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist Most of which Obseruations though different from the foresaid heads are to be found in their former alleaged Authorities Others of them in other their Sentences Of both which for aduantaging the Readers memory and for auoyding a wearisome prolixity I will only referre him to the places where such their Sentences may be read As first we find that the Fathers resting vpon the doctrine of the Reall Presence as a confessed Article of Christian Faith did from thence as from an acknowledged Principle refell diuers Heresyes Thus did a Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus against the Valentinians proue from this Mystery that Christ was the Sonne of God the Father which Doctour also proueth from the same ground the resurrection of the flesh giuing a reason thereof in these words Quoniam b Quoniam corpore Irenaeus ibidem corpore sanguine Domini alitur In lyke sort he proueth against the c Gnostici l. 5 c. 2. Gnostici that Christ came in true flesh euen from the former dogmaticall point of the Eucharist After the same manner d Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate Hilarius proueth that Christ had a true Body and Bloud in that his true flesh and bloud was in this Sacrament Finally Cyril of Alexandria e Cyrillus l. to in Ioan. c. 13. teacheth against the Arian that Christ both according to his Diuinity and Humanity did exercise his influence vpon vs in that his Body and Bloud was taken in the Eucharist to nourish in vs a spirituall lyfe Secondly they acknowledge a great miracle to rest that Christ as being in the Eucharist is in diuers seuerall places at one and the same tyme. Thus doth f Chrysostome l. 3. de Sacerdot Chrysostome g Basil in Liturgia Basil and Gregory h Nyssenus Orat. de Paschate Nyssene Thirdly they assigne a reason why Christ would latently be vnder the formes of bread and wyne to wit lest otherwise the Communicants should receaue his body with horrour and feare So i Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis Ambrose k Cyril apud D. Thomam in Catena circa caput 2◠Lucae Cyril of Alexandria and l Theophilact in c. 26. Matthai Theophilact doe teach Fourthly they affirme that Christ as he is taken in the Eucahrist is neither corrupted nor diminished placing a great difficulty therin as we find out of m S. Andrew In his Passion written by his Disciples S. Andrew The lyke we read in n Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Cyprian o Augustine Serm. 2 de verbis Apostoli Augustine and Cyril p Cyril Catech. 5. Myst of Ierusalem But this difficulty were idly suggested if Christ were in the Sacrament only in representation Fifthly they teach that the Vnion of Christ with vs in the Sacrament is not only spirituall and fide tantum but reipsa in very deed and truely This is affirmed by q Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate Hilarius and r Chrysostome homil 45. in Ioan. 83. in Matth. Chrysostome Yea they further proceed writing that this spirituall Vnion which is made through fayth and grace doth ryse from the corporall Vnion of Christ with vs as the Effect procedeth from the Cause so s Cyril l. 4. in Ioan. c. 14. 15. Cyril and t Tertullian I de resurrect Carnis Tertullian Sixtly they mantayne that the Body of Christ is truly taken aswell by the wicked as the vertuous and godly meere contrary to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries who affirme that Christs Body because it is in the Sacrament only Typically is only taken by the faithfull Yea the Fathers are not affraid to say that his Body is receaued by the wicked ore sacrilego with a sacrilegious mouth so distinguishing this kind of receauing from a spirituall and fruitfull receauing See heerof u Augustine tract 27. in Ioan. l. 5. de Baptismo contra Donat. c. 8. Augustine x Chrysostome homil 83. in Matthaeum Chrysostome y Origen in Psal 37. Origen z Cyprian l. 3. epist 15. Cyprian and a Basil l. 2. de Baptismo c. 3. Basil Seauenthly they do teach that Christ at his last Supper did eate his owne Body Thus b Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Matth. Chrysostome and c Hierome In Hedibiam Hierome But this cannot probably be vnderstood according to the Caluinian participation through Grace and faith since no new accession or increase of Grace came to Christ after the very first moment of his Incarnation Besides it is most absurd to say that the Flesh of Christ is the instrumentall cause of the Grace giuen to Christ Eightly and lastly they intimate diuers things touching the Praxis and vse of the Blessed Eucharist which are altogeather incompetent to a Typicall and figuratiue Presence As first to omit the Adoration and Inuocation of the Eucharist already entreated of they did place a great religious act in taking this Sacrament fasting as d Augustine epist 118. Augustine and Chrysostome do witnes yea e Chrysostome Epist 3. ad Ciriacum Chrysostome affirmeth it to be a sinne to take it not fasting They also affirmed that a most diligent examining of our Conscience ought to precede the participation therof So f Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdotio Chrysostome They cōmaunded that it should not be seene of such as were Infidels So g Dionysius Cap. 7. Eccles Hierarch Dionysius and which is more that it should not be seene of the faithfull yet vnbaptized as appeareth out of h Augustine Tract 11. in Ioan. Augustine Hence it is that in the presence of
Because the words of those Testimonyes doe almost euer intimate some effect or efficacy of the Eucharist which to Bread and Wyne is incompetent as that it nourisheth our Soules or that it is the Price or Pledge of our Saluation or hope of our Resurrection or that it suffered for our Sinnes or some other such spirituall worke energy or operation whereof the bare Symboles of the Eucharist are not capable Thus may the obseruant Reader cleerely discerne the feeblenes of this their Answere and conclude with himselfe that such Testimonyes of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christs Body as it is in Heauen since the Words precedent or consequent restraine it to the Altar Nor of Bread and Wyne Symbolically and Sacramentally representing the Body and Bloud of Christ since Bread and Wyne cannot produce the spirituall Effects there specified so cleare it is that our Sectary in approaching to answere the said Sentences doth ineuitably runne vpon some one circumstantiall pyke or other of the said Authorityes wherewith he is most dangerously wounded That this my Reply may be more cleerely conceaued I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serue as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature The like couse of exemplifying I will obserue in all other kynds of their Answers and though such places were afore alledged yet here they are produced vpon a different occasion S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desiderauit vnde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis Only she desired that remēbrance of her might be made at thy Altar from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed or giuen by the which the hand-writing which was contrary to vs is defaced Out of this place we proue as we shewed aboue that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine is vnderstood the Body and Bloud of Christ Now heere it cānot be answered that the Body of Christ is meant as it is in Heauen because he saith that this Victima is dispensed or distributed from the Altar which thing agreeth not with his Body as it is in Heauen Neither can it be said as some seeme to interprete it of the Bread and Wine Typically signifying the Body and Bloud of Christ in that the Bread Wine was not the Sacrifice which was offered for vs vpon the Crosse And thus much of this first kind of our Aduersaries Answere Another forme of euading the pressures weights of the Fathers Authorityes is this That if in the alleaged Authority there can be found but any one word which is to be accepted not litterally but figuratiuely metaphorically or in some other forced construction then our Allegoricall Sectarie inferres therupon that the whole Sentence though most strōgly fortifying the Catholike doctrine heerin is to be taken figuratiuely not literally vrging that seeing both the points are cōtayned in one and the same Sentence or Period and that the one by our confession is not to be vnderstood literally why should the other obiected by vs be taken literally The Transparency of which Answere is easily seene through And first we are to know and obserue that euery thing which is not deliuered in plaine and literall words proceedeth not alwayes from an intention of Rhetoricke or Amplification in the Writer but often euen out of Necessity since somtimes we are forced therunto as not hauing that natiue habit of speach words wherwith otherwise we would apparrell the true conceipts of our Mind which scarsitie of apt wordes may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers yet hence it followeth not that all the rest adioyned therto must partake of the same want Againe whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words or out of a delicacy and choicenesse of a Mans pen yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent since by this reason we may inferre that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleaged as literally to proue or disproue any thing and why because some adioyning parcell therof is set downe in a Figuratiue kind of speach And thus we cannot alleadge contrary to all ancient Expositours that Text in the Apocalyps These are they which haue washed their Robes haue made them white in the Bloud of the Lambe cap. 7. to proue that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saued by the Bloud of Christ because forsooth in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors to wit the long Robes wherby are signified the Bodyes of the Saints and the word Lambe meaning therby Christ and therfore it should follow vpō the said ground that the word Bloud must also be here a Metaphor not signifying bloud indeed and so excluding the Bloud of Christ frō our saluation but some other thing shaddowed therby Yea which is more if this kind of Answere were solide we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalmes literally to be expounded of Christ or his Church in which Authorityes we Christians mainly insist against the Iewes since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes Schemes and other Figuratiue speaches And yet we see that it is most incongruous to maintaine that any whole Psalme is to be interpreted Allegorically because we find certaine Figures in some Passages thereof Thus it is euident how defectiue this Answere is which consisteth in resoluing the Fathers sentences into Figuratiue Senses But our Aduersaries boldnesse stayeth not heere in deprauing after this sort Mans word but extendeth it selfe to corrupt in like manner by ouer much origenizing and mystically interpreting it Gods sacred word This second Forme of Answere I will illustrate with this Testimony following S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs thus writeth Num vides Panem num Vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne nec cogites Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread doest thou see Wyne doe these things goe into the common passage as other meates Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as Waxe being put in the fire is assimilated or made like to it no part of the substance remayning or redounding So heere imagine that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body Of this place I haue entreated aboue But heere now we are to take notice that our Aduersaries labour to delude the force therof by answering that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi are not to be vnderstood literally for so they should be false in that the externall Formes of Bread and Wyne which are conteyned in the word Mysteria are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ for we see that the Accidences of
he is in Heauen If so why doe these Anti-Saints and Enemyes of Gods Seruants at other times spend themselues out in such estuation and heate of rayling inuectiues the scumne of base malice and proper Scene of too many of our Sectaryes against the Catholikes for performing that which now for their owne aduantage in a different example though like reason they willingly yet falsly obtrude vpon the Fathers thus if the Sacramentary do escape the sword of Iehu yet shall the sword of Elisaeus slay him and thus we see how weake this his answere is wherein his gayne heere made is like to the gayne of ground which a running Water causeth getting no more on the one side of the Banke then it looseth on the other This their Answere shal be exemplified in that Testimony of S. Dionysius who lib. de Hierarch Eccles c. 3. part 3. thus writeth O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacramentum obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi perspicuè nobis fac appareas nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari aperto tuae Lucis fulgore imple O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open or remoue the couerings of thy signifying signes and make thy selfe to appeare clearly to vs and fill our spirituall Eyes with the open Fulgor of thy Light Wherto Peter Martyr lib. contra Garainer part 1. obiect 150. answereth according to the tenour of the former Euasion Where we see besides what is already said that Dionysius doth not heere inuoke Christ only before the Sacrament as the Catholikes do before his Image but he doth inuoke the Sacrament it self desireth such things of it as are required only of God from whence it followeth that Dionysius thought that Christ being God and Man was contained truly in the Sacrament or rather that Christ with the externall Symbols togeather was the Sacrament The sixt and last Ward wherwith our Aduersaries seeke to put by the dāgerously pointed Sentences of the Fathers is appropriated only to such their Authorities wherin it is affirmed that in the celebratiō of the Eucharist there is a true Reall Sacrifice performed meaning the offering vp by the words and hands of the Priest the very Body Bloud of Christ to his Father Now to these Authorities they frame an answere wouen of seuerall threeds either of ignorant or wilfull mistakings For they say that the Eucharist might be termed by the Fathers a Sacrifice for diuers reasons And first by reason of the Oblation of the Faithfull who in the Supper of our Lord do consecrate themselues to God Or of the Preaching of the death of our Lord. Or of the diuers exercises of Piety as of Faith Hope Penitency Charity c. or of Prayers or of Thanksgiuing to God or finally of the Almes all which seuerall points were particulerly performed say they in those former ancient Tymes in the Celebration of the Eucharist which may be rightly termed Spirituall Sacrifices Now that these Actions supposing that in a Metaphoricall construction they might be so styled and were vsed then are not vnderstood in the former passages of the Fathers I thus proue in that those Doctours plainly teach that the Body and Bloud of Christ is the Sacrifice which is offered vp in the Church but those former Actions cannot be meant and signified by any kind of speach euer heard of by the Body and Bloud of Christ As for example S. Ambrose writeth in Psal 38. Etsi Christus nunc non videatur offerre ipse tamen offertur in terris cùm corpus eius offertur Though Christ now may be thought not to offer vp or sacrifice yet he himselfe is heere offered vp vpon earth when his body is offered vp Which wordes can in no sort be applyed to those former actions specified to be in the Administration of the Eucharist Againe the Fathers teach that onely Priests and no others can offer vp this Sacrifice Thus doth S. Hierome epist ad Euagrium yea the Councell of Nyce it selfe exempteth Deacons from offering vp the Sacrifice and Tertullian l. de velandis Virginum Women in generall and Epiphanius haeres 79. particulerly the Virgin Mary but it is manifest that Prayers Almes Laudes giuing of Thanks an internall offering vp of the Soule of all which points the former answere is aggregated are offered vp and performed by the whole People much more then they may be by Deacons A second Branch of their Euasions to the said Authorities is deduced from the Etymologies of the word Sacrificium or Sacrificare which is but Sacra facere therfore say they because the Consecration or Distribution of the Eucharist is Sacra actio the Action or Celebratiō of it is called Sacrificium and the Minister who performeth the same may be said Sacrificare which Grammaticall or Dictionary Answere vnworthy indeed the learned Eares of the Iudicious is thus refelled First because in all Etymologies we are to respect non tam à quo quà m ad quid not so much the Primatiues or Originalls from whence they are deriued as the applications wherunto by vse and custome they are particulerly tied And thus answerably hereto we graunt that Baptisme is Sacra actio since it is Lauacrum Regenerationis and yet we cannot read in any place of their Writings where Baptisme is called Sacrificium or he who baptizeth is said Sacrificare Againe though euery sacred Action might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and abusiuè be called a Sacrifice yet this would aduantage our Aduersaries nothing since in the former testimonies of the Fathers not the transient Action of celebrating the Eucharist but the permanent thing which is sacrificed to wit the Body and Bloud of Christ is called by them the Sacrifice Lastly though by this sleight the Sacramentaries might seeme to wrench the ordinary and naturall construction of all such places where the word Sacrificium or Sacrificare is found yet this is impertinent to diuers passages of the Fathers aboue cited wherein the words Oblatio or Offerre are As that besides many others of S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitat c. 14. Quid gratiùs offerri aut suscipi possit quà m caro Sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri The third and last kynd of their expounding the former Authorities is that the Supper of our Lord is called a Sacrifice or an Oblation because it includeth in it selfe a certaine Commemoration or Representation of a true Sacrifice viz. of the death of Christ To this we reply that it is true that the Action of the Eucharist is a Similitude or Memoriall of the Sacrifice of the Crosse yet hence it followeth not that the Fathers therefore thought not that a true and proper sacrifice was offered vp in the celebration of the Eucharist Now that the Fathers did belieue the Eucharist to be a true Sacrifice and not only a representatiue Sacrifice is clearely euicted out of these ensuing obseruations First because Baptisme is a Sacrament representing the death of Christ
the Fathers workes vpon this matter they find it termed the Body and Bloud of Christ all such places or else we wrong them must needs be interpreted figuratiuely Thus insisting much in those phrases which are but rare in the Fathers and passing ouer with a censuring neglect such forme of speaches as most frequently occurre in their bookes A third Point which we hould in this high Mysterie is touching the effect therof of which much hath bene already deliuered only heere it will be necessary to recapitulate some of the former matter Heere we teach that though the end therof be principally to feed our Soules yet doth it giue a spirituall nourishmēt to our bodyes since our Bodyes therby are nourished to immortality taking euen frō the touch of Christs Flesh a certaine disposition to a glorious resurrection and immortall life sorting to that of Iohn c. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem c. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day Now though the Fathers in their Writings do conspire with the Scripture and vs heerin yet will our Aduersaries peruert such their Testmonies who finding that they say that the Eucharist doth nourish our bodyes somtimes without any further explication of the māner do therupō inforce that since Christs Body doth not nourish our bodies therfore only bread and wine and not his Body is in the Sacrament so materially and grossely do our Aduersaries mistake the Fathers iudgments heerin Examples of this we haue in many of the Fathers as Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haeres Nyssenus Orat. catechet c. 36 37. besides diuers others heertofore alleaged So as these very places ascribing according to their true exposition a greater vertue to the Eucharist then our Aduersaries will acknowledge may fully instruct vs as before is shewed at large that the Fathers belieued the very Body Bloud of Christ to be in the Eucharist A fourth Point also toucheth the efficacy of the Eucharist for we teach that the fruite and benefit therof consisteth not in delighting our Bodyes as corporall meates do but in nourishing and strengthening of our Soules and therfore in respect of the effect and fruite therof to eate the flesh of Christ is to belieue in him to remaine in him by Charity This we deduce out of the words of our Sauiour himselfe who speaking of this Mysterie Iohn 6. thus saith Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing And againe subioyneth to the former words Verba quae ego c. The words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life The meaning of which latter sentence being coincident with the former instructeth vs that a carnall vnderstanding of the Eucharist as if it should be eaten as other meates are for so the Capharnaites framed to themselues auayleth nothing but that we ought to cōceaue that things diuine and spirituall are heere deliuered to vs which we are not to entertaine in a humane sense but by faith and apprehension inspired by God yet so by faith as that we belieue Christs sacred Body and Bloud to be heere truly and really taken Hence now it is that the Fathers resting vpon the former words of Christ and therfore chiefly ayming at the auaylable receauing of the Eucharist do write sometimes that we are to eate the Body of Christ by Faith and not with teeth not excluding therby a corporall receauing of Christ as the Sacramentaries do suggest but teaching that the benefit and operation of the Eucharist is chiefely to nourish and fortify our Soules with spirituall and Theologicall vertues In this sense is S. Cyprian to be vnderstood in seuerall passages of his Sermon de Coena Domini who there thus concludeth Quod esca est carni hoc animae est fides In the same construction also is Athanasius tract vpon the wordes Quicumque dixerit verbum in filium hominis to be taken who there calleth the flesh of Christ Alimoniam spiritualem a spirituall nourishment in that it is giuen for meate of the Spirit and not of the Body The same Interpretation is to be made of S. Augustine tract 25. in Ioan. Quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti And tract 26. Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem viuum though the one if not both of these places by the iudgements of some not without great probability is to be vnderstood not of the Eucharist but of the spirituall eating of Christ through faith and beliefe of his Incarnation Now out of this former ground resultes an obseruation not to be neglected to wit that seeing the effect of the Eucharist is that the soule may remaine in Christ by faith and charity and that such as doe not truly belieue in Christ doe not with the intended fruit thereof eate the Sacrament therefore the Fathers leuelling only at the benefit which the Receauers reape thereby doe write somtimes that the Misbelieuers and Men of bad life do not eate in the Sacrament the body and bloud of Christ which sayings our Aduersaries doe most calumniously wrest inferring from thence that the Fathers doctrine was that such misbelieuers and other wicked persons do not take at all the Body Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and that therefore his Body and Bloud is not in the Eucharist which is most farre from their meaning who in such places as I haue said haue reference only to the profitable eating of Christs Body whereof the wicked are not partakers In this sense is to be vnderstood Origen in 15. Matth. S. Hierome in comment in c. 66. Isaiae in c. 22. Ieremiae and finally S. Augustin tract 59. where he saith that the rest of the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum but Iudas only Panem Domini because he receaued no fruite by his eating See him also in sermone de Verbis Apostoli where he writeth that the wicked doe not take the body of our Lord who as chiefly insisting in a fruitfull eating thereof there saith I llud manducare refici est I llud bibere quid est nisi credere And thus much concerning the true state of this question of the Eucharist which being heere sincerely set downe may serue to salue diuers such places of the Fathers as seeme to fortify and strengthen the Sacramentarian Heresy Some other few Passages there are of which our Aduersaries take hould which receaue their Answeres out of the circumstances of such places so as an obseruant Reader carefully there noting the scope of the Father as also the words precedent subsequent may easily find out and therefore as not being reduced to any one generall head of explication I remit them for greater breuity to the studious search of the iudicious Reader But before I finish this Chapter I will subnect therto some few short animaduersions which a discreet Reader may take as a Correctiue wherwith to tast the
more obscure writings of the Fathers herein without dāger The which obseruations in that they shall not be meerely aëry and speculatiue or like Accidences without Substances I will make choyce of S. Augustine i◠whome they shall as I may terme it inhere exemplifying them in him rather then in any other because our Aduersaries in this Controuersie with great vendication and shew of confidence seeme to rely vpon this Father First then he is to know that the Fathers omitting sometimes the literall sense of the words of the Euangelists or Apostles as confessed do giue some other Tropicall or Mysticall interpretation of them which course they often vse in exposition of other parcells of Scripture After this manner S. Augustine passing ouer the immediate literall and acknowledged sense of eating Christs Body thus saith in 26. in Ioan. Credere in eum hoc est manducare carnem eius Another Animaduersion may be diligently to conferre the more cleare places of a Father touching the Eucharist with the more doubtfull of the same Father for it is true that their Writings do affoard some darke sayings touching this Mysterie but it as is true that they do minister vs most pregnant and vnanswerable proofes for our Catholike doctrine heerin Thus do we find that diuers passages alleaged out of S. Augustine as particulerly in Psal 33. concion 1. vpon the words Et ferebatur manibus suis and l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. disputing vpon the formes wherin the Angells appeared and in Psal 98. vpon the words Adorate scabellum pedum eius do more strongly proue and fortifie this our Catholike doctrine then any other Countertexts obiected out of him do weaken it Seeing then that Augustine vnretracted doth not impugne Augustine is followeth euen in reason that the more obscure passages are to be illustrated by the more perspicuous and euident and not the contrary since Darkenesse cannot giue Light to light nor Vncertainty become a Rule of Certainty A third Caution is to remember that some of the ancient Fathers are so full and resolute in this point as that euen by the acknowledgment of all they are not capable of any solutions but confessed and therfore reiected to confirme the Reall Presence Now seeing that such Fathers so writing are not cōtradicted by any other Fathers it is therfore from hence necessarily inferred that those other Fathers that write more obscurely therof did neuerthelesse conspire and agree with the former in doctrine heerin which contradiction of any Nouelisme in Religion we find to haue bene in all ages as appeareth to omit the examples of Tertullian Origen Cypriā by the many registred Heresies by Irenaeus Epiphanius Augustine If then S. Augustine had written heerin contrary to the plaine testimonies of his age or the immediate tymes after him is it probable that none of them would haue taxed him as swaruing in this point from the vnity of Faith Or if the Fathers of his dayes other precedent tymes had in such their perspicuous sayings of the Eucharist broached a new Heresie in the Church can we suppose that S. Augustine who purposely elaborately wrot of other mens heresies would haue bene silent in so important a matter A fourth Caution which partly conspireth with the former is That we are to obserue what Fathers in any age haue liued in any strait enter course of friendship togeather eyther by writing or otherwise For we are to presume that the Faith of one of such if the contrary appeare not by wryting of eyther side was agreable to the faith of the other Seeing then that S. Augustine was tyed most firmly in freindship with S. Ambrose whose Testimonyes touching the Eucharist are acknowledged for vs euen by the Sacramentaries how can it be probably presumed that S. Augustine should dissent from him in so high a Mysterie and yet on note or remembrance thereof left in the monuments and writings of either of them How can it be I say that they should mainly dissent in faith since vnity of faith was the band of their most freindly agrement Or that they should be Heretickes one to another when their mutuall profession of being scourges of Heretickes gaue the first cementation and strenghtening to their inuiolable amity Or finally if we will belieue credible Authours how could they so conspiringly and vnanimously as if but one Soule had informed two Bodyes haue sayd in that diuine Hymme of theirs Te Deum laudamus Te Dominū confitemur if there had bin any disparity in theyr worship of God or different confession of him as their Lord The Fifth and last Caution which I will heere deliuer is to weigh whether the actions recorded by any Father do rather sort to the doctrine of the Catholiks touching the Reall Presence or to the opinion of the Sacramentaryes since the Fathers approbation of any such workes doth sufficiently warrant in theyr Iudgements the fayth wherunto such actions are truly appropriated Thus answerably heerto we find that S. Augustine lib. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. reporteth that a certaine a House infested The words of S. Augustine in that place are these One Hesperius hauing his house infested with wicked spirits to the affliction of his beasts and seruants desired in my absence certaine of our Priests that some would goe thither c. One went and offered there the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ praying what he might that the vexation might cease and God being thereupon mercifull it ceased Thus S. Augustine house infested with wicked spirits was deliuered of the said spirits through the offering vp of the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ as this holy Father there saith by certaine Priests thither sent Now heere he saith not that the particuler prayers of the Priests freed the house of them neither can we thinke that that Learned Doctour belieued the sacrificing of a litle bread and wine to worke such stupendious effects but he plainly affirmeth that this great Miracle was performed by the offering vp of Christs Body and Bloud Therefore it followeth euen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and demonstratiuely that S. Augustine belieued that Christs Body and Bloud was truly and really in the celebration of the Eucharist And thus much touching these Obseruations And now I will end this Chapter affirming that in regard of what hath beene deliuered in this second Part we may be the more bold to reproue the precipitate and wilfull blindnesse of the Sacramentaries who by reason of some few scattered darke passages found in the Fathers are not ashamed to vociferate and crye mainly out with Dioscorus the Hereticke in the Councell of Chalcedon We defend the opinions of the Fathers We haue their Testimonyes not by snatches or at the second hand but vttered in their owne Bookes Wee are cast out with the holy Fathers whereas indeed these vauntes are as farre from being iustified as their beliefe herein is distant from our Catholike beliefe THAT BY THE CONFESSIONS OF THE