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
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
ponderous and weighty for vs as pressing our vnderstanding too much shall bnecome there most light and easie to be apprehended according to that to speake allusiuely in Philosophy Nullum Elementum ponderat in sua propria Sphaera for then we shall contemplate not only all Creatures but other thinges worthy of knowledge intuitiuely in God as now we do behould God discursiuely in his Creatures But to returne The Fathers finally do referre the miraculous change made in the Eucharist only to Gods Illimitable Puissance within which vast circumference euery thing is conteyned that may in any sort exist confessing fully that it cannot be wrought by any inferiour Power for he only is able to performe such as I may terme them possible Impossibilities since his Omnipotency doth facilitate that which otherwise in Nature is not factible Heere now I refer to the Iudgment of the impartiall Reader how vnaptly and vntowardly all such passages of the Fathers are applied to Bread and Wyne signifying only the body and bloud of our Sauiour We will then come to those Testimonyes acknowledging so great a Mysterie heerein Eusebius Emyssenus or whosoeuer else was the Author of that Treatise entitled Sermo de Corpore Demini which Booke was alledged by Paschasius Corbeiensis eight hundred yeares since thus writeth in the said booke Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum c. Let all doubt of infidelity dâ—part from thee since â—e who is the Author of the gyft is witnesse of the Truth And againe Ad cognoscendum c. To know and perceaue the Sacrifice of the true Body let the Power of him who consecrateth it confirme thee therein So cleare is this Father herein S. Leo Serm. 14. de Passione Domini Ipsum per omnia c. Let vs tast him fully both in spirit and in flesh S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in Ioan. explicating those words Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum thus writeth Firmam fidem Mysterijs adhibentes numquam in tam subâ—imibus rebus illud Quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus c. We firmely belieuing these mysteres neuer let vs in such high points either thinke or bring forth this word Quomodo How c. S. Augustine l. 3. de Trinitate c. 4. Quod cùmper manus c. Which thing speaking of Bread when it is brought by mens hands to that visible forme it is noe otherwise sanctified to be so great a Sacrament then by the inuisible working of the spirit of God since all those things which are in this worke performed by corporall motions God doth worke But this working of the holy Ghost is not necessary that Bread should signify only the Body of Christ Adde hereto that S. Augustine in this place doth reckon the worke heere in the Eucharist among other great Miracles to wit the Raine of Hebas obtayned of God the Wand of Aaron which budded fresh the Wand of Moyses turned into a Serpent the water turned into wyne by Christ And in Psal 33. Conc. 1. vpon those words of the Psalme Et ferebatur manibus suis c. thus writeth Hoc quomodo potest fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur in manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis Who can vnderstand how this can happen in Man For who is carried in his owne hands A man may be carried in the hands of another but in his owne hands he cannot be carryed How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid we find not but in Christ we find for Christ was carryed in his owne hands when commending his body he sayd Hoc est Corpus meum for then did he carry that body in his owne hands But if Christ did carry his body in his owne hands only in signe and representation as a Man bearing about him the picture of himselfe then were it no difficult thing and yet S. Augustine saith it is a thing impossible and cannot be performed but only by Christ Neither do our Aduersaries satisfy this place in replying that Christ did carry himselfe in a Sacrament but none but Christ can institute a Sacrament and consequently none can carry themselues as Christ did This I say auayleth nothing because our Aduersaries doe confesse that Christ is said to carry himselfe in the Sacrament not because a Sacrament is an Instrument of conferring Grace for this they deny but because it is a signe of Christ and so in this last respect there is no difficultie for one to carry himselfe Finally S. Augustine tract 26. in Ioannem explicating that Panis quem ego dabo Caromea est thus writeth Hoc quando caperet caro quod dixit panem carnem vocatur Caro quod non capit Caro. When would flesh conceaue or apprehend how he called Bread Flesh That is called Flesh which Flesh apprehendeth not But flesh or a sensuall vnderstanding may easily conceaue that bread may be called flesh figuratiuely and by way of representation only S. Hierome epist. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. Nec Morses dedit c. Neyther did Moyses giue to vs true Bread but our Lord Iesus is the Guest and the Banquet the Person eating and the thing eaten But it cannot be truly said that Moyses did not giue Panem verum that is the body of Christ if the Eucharist were no otherwise the Body of Christ then by signification Adde heerto that S. Hierome heere implyeth a difficulty in being the thing eaten and the party eating which point cannot be referred to Christ eating Bread which only representeth his Body S. Chrysostome Homil. 60. ad popul Antiochenum saith Credamus vbique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit Superet sensum rationem nostram sermo quaeso ipsius quod in omnibus rebus sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus non illa quae ante non iacentes solummodo aspicientes sed verba eius quoque tenentes nam verbis illius defraudari non possumus Sensus noster deceptu facillimus est quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est Corpus meum nulla dubitatione teneamur sed credamus Let vs belieue God in euery thing neither let vs gainsay him though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation I beseech thee therefore that his speach may ouercome our Sense and Reason Which point we are to obserue in all things but especially in the Holy Mysteries not only behoulding those things which lye before vs but also laying full hould of his words for his words cannot deceaue vs but our sense may easily be deceaued Also in Homil. 51. in Matth. Qui mains
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
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
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
or to seuerall Eyes according to the different Angles to vse the imposed Phrase herein of Irradiation or Incidency made by the entrance of the Obiect into the Eye wherby we may be admonished that in points of faith one and the same Authority doth seeme of a different weight according as the VnderstaÌ„ding is afore either lightened with Gods Grace or darkened with the myst of Passion And thus far hereof where we see that the Body contrary to the accustomed manner is able to schoole and instruct the soule HEERE now I will conclude this first Part in which the Reader hath all the chiefe obscurities of this great Mysterie explicated at large and diuers of them paralelled by other acknowledged difficulties both in Diuinity and Philosophy For the close wherof I only wish him to haue his mind euer fixed in this one position which is That what Faculty or Operation God doth impart to any thing created the same he also eminenter retaineth to himselfe since otherwise the Creature should transcend in Might the Creatour and is able to performe it without the help of any secondary Cause being in such cases sole Agent of the same Effect Which Axiome if he do apply to most of the r Most of the abstrusest Points To instance this ground in some difficulties of the Eucharist God hath imparted to a Substance the facultie of supporting and sustentating an Accidence by meanes of Inherency therefore it followeth out of this Principle that God is able of himselfe to support an Accident without it Subiect for otherwise he should giue more power and ability to the Subiect then he keepeth to himselfe or can by himselfe performe which were both impious and absurd to maintaine In like sort God hath giuen this property to Place for the better conseruing of the Subiect conteyned that it should circumscribe euery sublunary naturall Body with a certaine coextension answerable to the Quality of euery such body Therefore God can of himselfe as we belieue he doth in the Sacrament of the Eucharist keep a Body without any such circumscription of place since otherwise it would follow that he hath so qualified this circumstance of place to performe that which himselfe immediately cannot This might be exemplified in many other difficulties touching the doctrine of the Reall Presence neither is there found herein in a cleare Iudgement the least appearance of any Contradiction abstrusest Points in this Question of the Eucharist he shall easily acknowledge that the extending greatnesse of them become confined by him who is only confined within his owne illimitable Power and vnsearchable Wisdome himselfe being the sole bound to himselfe The end of the first Tract THE CHRISTIANS MANNA THE SECOND TRACT The Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist proued from the Figures therof in the Old Testament from the Prophesies of the Rabbins from the New Testament from Miracles c. CHAP. I. IN the precedent Passages the possibility of the Catholike doctrine herein is I hope most cleerly and irrefragably proued partly by soluing all the abstrusest difficulties which are accustomed dangerously to inuade our Iudgment by the assault of the Eye of other the senses and of naturall Reason and partly by shewing that God still is God and his diuine Maiesty euer himselfe I meane that he is in Power infinite boundlesse and inscrutable And that whensoeuer this proud slyme of Man presumes to assigne limits to him by obiecting that Omnipotency cannot passe it selfe and the like he endeauours but to graspe the water or to bind the Ayre since he labours to restraine him euen Him whose Ocean euer flowes without any borrowed streames whose Day stil continues without ensuing Night and whose Center is without any bordering Circumference It now remayneth briefly to demonstrate that not only it is possible that Christs sacred Body and Bloud may lye really vnder the formes of bread and wine but that actually in the Eucharist so it doth Which point though it receaue it chiefest synewes strength of proofe from the two Oracles of Gods written Word to wit from the Propheticall and Apostolicall Scriptures yet such is the petulancy and wantonnesse of our Aduersaries in detorting those sacred Testimonyes as that they tell vs except we will admit their owne expositions of the said Scriptures though contrary to the words themselues and to all the accessarie circumstances we do but idely diuerberate the ayre with impertinent allegations And thus Let vs produce such Texts of God Word which conteyne euen by their owne confessions the Types or Figures of the holy Eucharist during the time of the Law which Tyme a VVhich Tyme serued According to that Omnia eiâ— contingebant in figuris 1. Cor. c. 7. serued but as the Eue to the greatest Festiuall day of Christianitie as that it was shaddowed by the Paschall b Paschall Lambe Exod. 12. S. Augustine saith of this Figure l. 2. contra literas Petiliani cap. 37. Aliud Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus That the Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist is further testified by Leo Serm. 7. de Passione Domini by Cyprian lib. de Vnitate Ecclefiae by Chrysostome homil de proditione Iudae by Hierome in c. 26. Matth. by Tertullian l. 4. in Marcionem and diuers others Lambe by the c The bloud of the Testament Exod. 24. That this bloud was a figure of the Eucharist appeareth out of Luc. 22. where our Sauiour plainly saith Hic calix nouum Testamentum est in meo Sanguine In like sort Matth. 26. Our Lord in these words Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti seemeth in both places to allude to the words of Moyses Hic est Sanguis Testamenti quem misit ad vos Deus Now heere it cannot be replyed that the bloud of the Testament was a Figure only of the Passion and not of the Eucharist and the reason hereof is this in that a Testament ought to be made by a free man before his death and by some publique Instrument for the remembrance thereof after the Testators death All which circumstances are more truly and liuely found in the Institution of the Sacrament then in his Passion Bloud of the Testament and by the Manna d Manna descending Of this we read Exod. 16. That the Manna was a Figure of the Eucharist appeareth from our Sauiours owne words Ioan. 6. Patres vestri manducauerunt Manna in Deserto mortui sunt Qui manducant hunc Panem viuent in aeternum The same is confirmed by the Fathers See hereof Ambrose l. 5. de Sacramen c. 1. and De ijs qui initiantur Mysterijs c. 8. 9. Augustine Theophylact Cyâ—il and Chrysostome in c. 6. Ioannis descending from Heauen vpon the Iewes wherein we affirme that the accomplishment of these figures ought to be more noble and worthy then such naked representations and that therefore if nothing be in the
not adoring Now heere it cannot be replyed that the meaning of this Father is that the faithfull doe eate the Body of Christ existing only in Heauē with the mouth of faith because the Faithfull do only adore it This is false for euen according to the iudgment of S. Augustine the wicked do adore the Body of Christ and eate his Body from the Altar For epist 120. ad Honoratum c. 27. where speaking of the wicked he saith Adducti sunt ad Mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine cius sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur quia non imitantur Finally S. Augustine l. 50. Homil. 26. warneth most earnestly that Men should be carefull that no part of the Hoast should fall vpon the ground Chrysostome homil 3. in epist ad Ephes Et tu ad saluturem hanc hostiam c. And thou art ready to come to this healthfull hoast which euen the Angells do behold with feare And Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs Agnus Dei immolatur c. The Lamb of God is offered vp in Sacrifice The Seraphims are present couering their faces with wings But how phantastical and imaginary a conceipt were it to thinke that these places can be applyed to Bread and Wine signifying only the Body and Bloud of Christ Againe Homil. 60. ad Populum Antiochenum he saith Cogita quali sis insignitus honore c. Bethinke thy selfe with what honour thou art heere graced what Table thou enioyest We feed of that and are vnited therewith the which the Angells beholding are afraid and dare not looke vpon the same in regard of the illustrious splendor thereof And in the like sort Homil. 61. Huic supernae potestates c. The higher powers doe asist and waite hercupon because they behold the vertue of the things there placed more then we doe and doe admire the inaccesible splendour and lightnesse thereof And that these places of this Father are to be taken literally appeareth out of another place of his wrytings to wit l. 6. de Sacerdotio in these words Ego verò commemorantem quemdam audiui c. I did ouer heare one reporting who tould that a certayne old and venerable Man to whom many Mysteryes had afore bene reuealed was vouchsafed by God to be made worthy of a Vision and that during this tyme viz. of celebrating the sacrifice of the Altar he did see whole multitudes of Angells to descend suddenly downe as much as the sight of Man could endure being clothed with shyning vestements and standing round about the Altar and bowing downe their heads in such sort as if one should behould shoulders bearing thēselues in the presence of their King Thus farre S. Chrysostome The truth of which narration I do not so much vrge since I presume our Aduersaries will esteme it as fabulous but I vrge that S. Chrysostome thought it to be true since otherwise he would neuer haue recorded it and consequently that he belieued that Angells were truly and really present at the Altar during the tyme of the celebration of the Eucharist In like sort Homil. 41. in priorem ad Corinth Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus aut accedimus pro istis Agnum illum iacentem peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes We do not in vayne celebrate the memory of the dead at the Diuine Mysteries neither doe we in vayne approach beseeching that Lambe there lying for them taking away the sinnes of the World which wordes imply manifestly that the Eucharist was in his tyme inuoked The same Father Homil. 60. ad Pop. Antiochenum Non sufficit c. He could not be contented to become Man to be beaten in the meane while with wands but he doth bring vs into one masse as I may say with himselfe Neither fide solùm sed reipsa by faith only but in very deed he hath made vs his Body In which place we find the very distinction inuented by our Aduersaries to be excluded by S. Chrysostome In like manner Homil. 61. ad Popul Antiochenum he affirmeth that Christs Flesh by meanes of this Sacrament is mingled with ours not only by Charity but reipsa in very deed See him also Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth where he saith that we are so vnited to the Body of Christ by the Eucharist as his Body was vnited to the word by the Incarnation to wit truly and really and not figuratiuely but all these sayings of Chrysostome were very idle if we receaued Christ only in a signe and by representation S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae Sororis eius thus writeth Ad altare cum fide procumbit cum qui superillud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans She viz. Gorgonia did prostrate herselfe before the Altar with faith praying to him with great clamour who is worshipped vpon the said Altar But Gorgoma prayed not to Bread or Wine Which action of hers as she acknowledging therby the true presence of Christs Body and Bloud vpon the Altar is much reprehended by Peter Martyr l. contra Gardinerum obiect 38. saying that she was not well instructed in Christian Religion so far different was his iudgment from the iudgment of S. Gregory heerin but of this place more heerafter S. Gregory Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. among other things thus writeth Quemadmodum parum fermenti c. Euen as a little Leauen doth make the whole masse like to it selfe so that body which is made immortall by God entring into our Body doth transferre and change it into it selfe And after Fidelium corporibus c. That Body is ioyned with the bodyes of the faithfull that by that coniunction with the Immortall Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality S. Ambrose l. 1. in Lucam expounding those words Apparuit ill◠Angelus thus writeth Non dubites assistere Angelum quando Christus assistit Christus immolatur Do not doubt but that an Angell is there present when Christ is there present when Christ is sacrificed The same Father l. 3. de Spiritu sancto c. 12. expounding those wordes of the Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum cius thus writeth Itaque per scabellum terra c. Therfore by the Footstoole the Earth is vnderstood by the earth the Flesh of Christ which we now do adore in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before Where he saith that the Flesh of Christ being vnited with the Word is adored by vs in the Mysteries that is in the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem thus writeth Sic Christophori erimus id est Christum ferentes c. So shall we be Christophori that is Men bearing Christ when we shall receaue his Body and Bloud into our Members and as S. Peter saith We shall be made Partakers of the diuine Nature S. Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate Sienim verè verbum c. For if the Word be