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
the Eucharist THE Subiect of this Treatise Chap. 1. Of the Omnipotency of God and what he is able to performe Chap. 2. The first Passage of the difficulties in the Blessed Eucharist explicated Chap. 3. The Second Passage of them explicated Chap. 4. The Third Passage of them explicated Chap. 5. The Difficulty of a Body being in diuers places at once answered from more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation Chap. 6. The same answered by the like difficulty drawne from Eternity Chap. 7. The same answered from the Vbiquity of God acknowledged by all Christians Chap. 8. The difficultyes of a Body wanting Circumscription of Place and of an Accident without a Subiect explayned by the difficultyes discouered in the power of Seeing and the Circumstances thereof Chap. 9. The Contents of the Chapters of the secoÌ„d Part wherin is proued the Doctrine of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation in the Eucharist THE Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist proued from the Figures of the Old Testament from the Prophesyes of the Rabbyns from the New Testament froÌ„ Miracles from the first beginning of the Sacramentaries doctrine c. Chap. 1. That the Ancient Fathers taught our Catholike doctrine and first of such their Testimonies as concerne their appellations and naming of the Eucharist Chap. 2. Of the Fathers Authorityes touching the Chang made in the Eucharist from whence is demonstrated the doctrine of Transubstantiation Chap. 3. Of their Authorityes contayning their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Mysteries Chap. 4. Of their Authorityes confessing the inexplicable Greatnes of this Mystery Chap. 5. Of their Authorityes expressing the Effect of the Eucharist and the Veneration exhibited to the same Chap. 6. Of their Authorityes shewing that the Celebration of the Eucharist contayneth a proper and true Sacrifice from which doctrine as from all the other Heads of their Testimonies is necessarily euicted and proued the doctrine of the Reall Presence Chap. 7. Of the diuers manners of the Protestants Euasions and Answeres to the Authorityes of the Fathers Chap. 8. That all the chiefe obiected Authorityes of the Fathers vrged by our Aduersaries are impertinent Chap. 9. That by the Confessions of the most Learned Protestants the Fathers do teach the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation Chap. 10. Of certayne Considerations drawne from Luther the Lutherans and other Protestants concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist Chap. 11. That there are many Congruentiall Reasons shewing the conueniency why Christ might be induced to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist to vs Christians as also the Conueniency of the manner of Transubstantiation Chap. 12. The Conclusion Chap. 13. THE CHRISTIANS MANNA THE FIRST TRACT The subiect of this Treatise CHAP. I. O a O Altitudo diuitiarum Rom. c. 11. ALTITVDO diuitiarum Sapientiae Scientiae Dei Thus did that b That heauen rapt Apostle viz. S. Paul who 2. Cor. 12. saith of himselfe I know a man euen rapt to the third Heauen Heauen rapt Apostle burst forth into admiration of Gods vnsearchable Wisdome through the contemplation of his will and pleasure whereby he was moued to draw some out of that heauy and dreadfull masse of damnation caused through the all-spreading fall of our first Parents as also to leaue therin others no more interessed in the fault of Adam then the rest Vessells and Vassalls of wrath and thrall to eternall perdition And thus may we Catholikes haue no lesse reason to admire the inscrutable Wisdome and Goodnesse of the said diuine Maiesty if we enter into consideration of diuers Articles of Faith taught by the Catholike Church and belieued by her obedient Children to see how far some of them are estranged from all humane Prudence and how far discosted others do lye from the reach of Mans capacity And to particularize this in some Examples we find that answerably hereto it was our Sauiours good pleasure among all the Apostles to institute him as Head of the rest who openly forsooke his Lord and Maister and after increased his sinne of Abnegation with the aggrauating circumstance of Periury So as Iesus thought it best in the abyssmall depth of his Wisdome to build the Confession of Faith vpon the deniall of Faith and to appoint him who disclaimed in Christ to be the future Anchor and stay of all those who should after trust in Christ In like sort the Sacraments which are ordained to be certaine conduits passages wherby to deryue into Mans soule Gods grace do consist of externall signes or formes wherein the stupendious wonder is though I grant c Some congruentiall Reasons Among diuers other Reasons this is the chiefest That seeing Man aswell consists of a corporall Substance as of a spirituall Substance the Soule therfore our Sauiour thought it conuenient that the Sacraments should consist of materiall and externall signes or formes answerable to the nature of our Bodies and so externally working vpon the Body internally and spiritually they worke vpon the Soule according to that saying of Tertullian lib. de resurrect Carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro inungitur vt anima consecretur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur some congruentiall reasons may be giuen therof to obserue that things materiall and sensible are ordayned to sanctify our immateriall spirituall soules where through the action of them being in their very vse d Eleuated aboue themselues The manner how the Sacraments do worke in Mans Iustification being not the Conclusion it selfe betweene the Protestants and vs but a circumstance only of the Conclusion is disputable and not a point of Faith and therfore is seuerally defended by the School-men For some of them do teach that the Sacraments are Causae morales of our Iustification euen as he is the true cause of a Mans death who comaundeth the Man to be killed though himselfe do not touch the Man Thus doth Scotus Durand Bonauenture others hould But the more probable opinion is that of S. Thomas 3. part quaest â—2 art 4. who teacheth that the Sacraments are Causae efficientes Physicae Instrumentales of our Iustification and that the vertue heere infused by God is not any new inherent quality either spirituall or corporall but only the Motion vse of God therein for in that God doth vse this Sacramentall action to produce Grace he doth eleuate the same action maketh it to beget a supernaturall effect the which effect it could not if it were moued by any other then God eleuated aboue themselues transceÌ„ding their owne worth and dignity they produce spirituall celestiall Effects Thus we see that things not capable of sense much lesse of Grace cause that in another which themselues enioy not like the Sunne which animateth the inferiour Bodies with heate and life and yet it selfe not e Not hauing either heate The Distinction which the Philosophers do heere vse is that the Sunne and other Heauenly
pretended when first it l VVhen first it beganne I know well that most of the vulgar Sacramentaries diuulge in their writings that the doctrine of Transubstantiation first came in in the Lateran Councell holden vnder Innocentius the 3. yea Doctor VVhitaker himselfe is not ashamed to teach so much lib. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 480. The falshood of which common error is by seuerall meanes discouered First because that Councell was gathered chiefely to condemne the contrary doctrine of Berengarius then first broaching this Heresy so as this Councell did then suppresse and disallow all innouation of doctrine which very point is acknowledged by Fox himselfe Acts and Monurn pag. 1121. who thus there writeth About the yeare of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresy and in that number was first Berengarius who liued about Ann. Dom. 1060. Secondly It is most improbable that a Councell gathered out of all the most distant Nations of Christendome should vpon a present so conspiringly imbrace an innouation of doctrine so contrary to Sense as the Catholike doctrine herein is Thirdly and Lastly The Protestants themselues doe acquite this Councell from bringing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation since they doe charge diuers Fathers therewith lyuing long before this Councell of Lateran As for Example to omit those confessions of the Protestants which hereafter vpon another occasion shall be alledged we find that Doctor Humfrey in Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. thus writeth In Ecclesiam quid inuexerumt Gregorius Augustinus Intulerunt onus cerimoniarum c. Transubstantiationem c. In like sort we find that Vrsinus Commonefact cuiusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Caena pag. 211. reprehendeth Theophylact and Damascene for the doctrine of Transubstantiation in these words Theophylactus Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem Yea Damascene was so full in this doctrine that he is charged therewith by diuers other Protestants to wit Doctor Fulke against Heskins pag. 217. 204. Oecolampadius l. epist Oecolampad Zuing. l. 3. pag. 66◠so true is that confession of Antony de Adamo a famous Protestant who thus writeth hereof in his Anatomie of the Masse pag. 236. I haue not hitherto beene able to know when this opinion of the Reall and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne And thus far of this point where only it can be obiected that as the former Councell inuented only the word Transubstantiation but not the doctrine so the Councell of Nice inuented the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the doctrine thereof were afore beganne and entered into the Church whereas of the other we are able to note the Author who first did disseminate it to wit Berengarius m Berengarius Archdeacon This appeareth out of Paschasiui lib. de verbis Instit Sacramenti Archdeacon of Angiers The Tyme when Anno 1051. The place where France The paucity at the first beginning of his followers some few schollers first allured to him by gifts The astonishment of the Church hereat as wondering at so strange a Paradoxe like men gazing at a new appearing Comet And lastly the n Contradiction and Opposition For he was written against by Lanfrancus Guitmunaus and Algerus Contradictiō Opposition Censure of the Church giuen against his doctrine in ten o Tenseuerall Councells To wit in Concilio Romano Vercellensi Turonenfi Romano vnder Nicolas the 2. Romano vnder Gregorie the seauenth Romano vnder Innocentius the 3. Viennensi Romano vnder Iohn the thirtenth Constantiensi Tridentino seuerall Councells his Heresie being condemned in them all and himselfe personally Anathematized in some of them So deseruedly was he depriued of the Communion of the Holy Church since he laboured to depriue the Church of her Holy Communion Adde hereto for the greater accession of reasons herein that he was so irresolute in this his Opinion as that he did abiure it three seuerall tymes so forsaking his faith twice for so often he reuolted after his Oath taken with breach of Faith though finally he dyed therein Catholike And thus much of the first origen of the Sacramentarian Heresie from whence it appeareth that it is of a far later Date then our Catholike Faith the discouery of all which particulers doth sufficiently argue the falshood therof since it is true that to reduce an Heresie to the beginning therof is a confutation of the said Heresie Let vs I say alledge all this yet will our Aduersaries maintayne the former Innouator though not as an Inuentor of any New Heresie but as a Restorer forsooth of a former more ancient Faith wheras indeed it is most certaine that before the reuolt of Berengarius this rare Vtopian Nouelist iumping in doctrine with Berengarius and our Sacramentaries was p Neuer heard of For though Ignatius in epist ad Smyrnenses maketh mention of some who denyed the Reall Presence in the Eucharist yet those Heretickes were not properly and formally Heretickes in this point but chiefely in the Article of the Incarnation for seeing they denyed that our Sauiour tooke vpon him true flesh they consequently and by way of inference only denyed that his flesh was in the Eucharist neuer heard of in any place or tyme. And as touching so many Councells condemning Berengarius they reiect and traduce them all most vnworthily affirming them either to be Schismaticall or at the most but Men and therin subiect to Errour Fye of this Iewish obstinacy of our Sectarie who spurnes at the alledged Testimonies of whole Councells the highest Tribunalls in Gods Church because they are but Men and yet himselfe expecteth for Heresie cannot subsist without Pride that others should sweare fealtie to his Iudgment being but the seely weening of one Man Lastly let vs demaund of thē that seeing they cānot be induced to admit our Interpretation of Scripture nor any other afore alledged Authorities or Reasons and seeing it is against the custome of al Schooles against Reason it selfe that the Parties should become their own Iudges that they relying only vpon Scripture themselues only should expound Scripture whether they will be pleased to acknowledge for Vmpiers in this point the most ancient and learned Fathers Men in their life time though much disterminated by Sea and Land yet all breathing one and the same Faith And though Neutralls to our present factions yet parties no doubt to the causes of the said factions Finally such as we who now liue in these Autumnall and decaying dayes of the Church may in their writings be able to glasse the face and beauty of Christs intemerate Spouse I meane the purity and integrity of the faith of Christians during the Period of the Primitiue Church But heere euen at the sound and name of the Primitiue Church our Aduersaries grow pale and yet they blush they are affraid to accept of these conditions as men guilty to themselues of their future ouerthrow and yet they are ashamed that the world