sunt sub vmbra culminis mei We are your Subiects and therefore stand obliged to acknovvledge the strictest Band of Allegiance due either by the Lavv of Nature by the Lavv of God or by the example of any Christian Subiects tovvards their Princes euer since our Redemption till the fall of that most vnhappy and Apostating Monke Let not then the perpetrated crymes of some fevv so diuert the beames of your Gracious Clemency from vs all as that the PunishmeÌ„t due only vnto them like the Effect of another Originall Sinne should propagate and extend it selfe vpon the vvhole Body and Posterity of Catholikes but rather reiecting all the subtile Machinations vvyse follyes of our Politick Aduersaryes vvhich vve trust that finally God vvill frustrate haue a frequent remembrance of that saying Superexalt at Misericor dia iudiciuÌ„ Iustitiae tuae in vvhich vvords your Highnes may thinke that the Apostle Iames preacheth to King Iames. BVT NOW as fearing to become ouer tedious for vvhich reason as also out of an humble ReuereÌ„ce I do forbeare hereafter in this Treatise to direct further speaches to your Highnes I heere vvill cease casting my selfe at your Maiestyes feet as lovv as Humility and Loyalty can prostrate themselues and praying to the Almighty to preserue you in a Blessed Gouerment ouer vs many many yeares and after the Period of this life to graunt your Highnes the Honour and Happines in being another Dauid by enioyning tvvo Ierusalems Your Maiesties most Loyall humble Subiect R. N. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GOOD Christian Reader Heere I present thee with a small Treatise of a large Subiect it being one of the chiefest Questions of Christian Religion coÌ„trouerted at this day betweene the Catholike and the Caluinist It is written with intention to confirme thy Iudgment in so weighty a Point being already rectified to reforme it being erroneous and therfore I expect a retaliation charitably to entertaine my charitable meaning If this little worke the yong Samuel proceeding from the long barren wombe of my Braine may become profitable to any one I haue my desire As for the censures which will passe therof I presage they will be as various as Mens iudgments are various but heerin I am indifferent for how meane soeuer it is as it is and of all the Elements I least pryze the Ayre Yet heere by the way I must aduertise my ignoraÌ„t Protestant Reader for to the more Learned this is needlesse who euer dislikes what is not so courteous as to come within the reach of his narrow head-peece that I do looke that he should charge these poore Leaues especially the first Part heerof with mayne Contrarieties and Contradictions Yet if his Pryde would vouchsafe to remember or rather to learne that all true Contradictions do euer consist in one and the same reference of Circumstances and that such seeming heere are reconciled by different Respects explicated in the marginal Annotations he might well rest satisfied Wherfore I do heere premonish all such but particulerly them who eyther by Pen or Tongue are become publike Patrones of the Sacramentarian Nouelty not maliciously to insist alone in the said naked appearing Repugnances concealing their Illustrations tragically by this means amplifying the strange supposed Paradoxes forsooth defended by vs Catholikes heerin Which if they shall attempt by diuorcing the one from the other now after this conuenient forwarning they are to be reputed but as Men conscious of their owne bad Cause and willing fraudulently to abuse the weake Iudgments of their followers I haue deuided this Treatise into two Parts In the first I proue that it is possible for the existence of any thing euer presupposeth a possibility of the same existence that the sacred Body and Bloud of our Sauiour may truly really be contayned vnder the formes of Bread Wine and that though the effecting therof doth transcend Nature yet doth it not ouerthrow Nature This labour I am forced to vndertak◠〈◊〉 regard of our Aduersaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—oâ—â—â—station with God heerin for they maintayne in their Wrytings with great estuation and heat of dispute like a Raging waues Iudae Epist raging waues of the sea foaming out their owne shame that to be at once in diuers places or to want all circumscription of place besides many other difficulties occurring in the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist are against the nature of a true Body and therfore caÌ„not be accomplished by God In which point they partake ouer neere with the ancient Philosophers though perhaps with their greater offence towards God then it was in those Heathens since in such cases that saying houldeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Falsa fides infidelitate peior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason why the Sacramentaryes do belieue the words of Christ in the doctrine of the Eucharist so little is because they belieue their Sense therin so much for they are resolued that their outward sense shall heere euen prescribe Lawes to their faith whatsoeuer may seeme to be incoÌ„patible therwith as the forme the colour the tast c. the maintayning therof to be reputed as an exploded Errour In which kind of proceeding they appeare in my conceipt to deale more niggardly with the faith of Christ then euer the c Donatists August de Vnitate Ecclesiae Donatists did with the Church of Christ since they though banishing the Church out of all the other partes of the World yet were content to allot to it the whole Countrey of Africke wheras these labour to withdraw our faith heerin from all the chiefe Powers of our Mind and to confine it within the narrow compasse of the ball of the Eye or the end of the tongue So far off is the Soule immersed in Sense from apprehending truly this high and reuerend Mystery The second Part heerof iustifying his Maiesties learned Iudgment heerin deliuereth the diuine Authorities of both the Testaments for confirmation of the Reall Presence it contayneth the Prophesies of the ancient Rabbyns therof it reporteth the Myracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same it discouereth the weaknesse of such testimonyes as are out of the Scripture obiected to the coÌ„trary finally it displayeth the innouation and first appearance of the Sacramentarian Doctrine But because our Aduersaries do vse diuers circulations and inflexions to and fro for they most strangely detort the holy Scripture and insolently reiect the other proofes therfore to draw them to a more particuler fight I haue reduced the issue of this point to the iudgments of the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church in whose * In whose wrytings See hereof the later end of the Marginall References of the first Chapter of the Second Part at the letter q Wrytings many of the Sacramentaries seeme to haue good confidence and from whose Censures they cannot iustly appeale since it is said Non d Non te praetereat
and Influence ouer a Mans Penne forcing her Enemyes at vnawares euen in impugning her to defend her for so our Sectaryes doe mightily strenghten this our Catholike Faith when in refuting of it they acknowledge the Fathers to be our chiefest Patrons and extorting at their hands the like benefit which Premethâ—us Thessalus recorded by Plutarch had receaued from his capitall Aduersarie who in fight intending to kill him launced only with his sword a most dangerous mole or wenne and so thereby without any further hurt restored him to his more perfect health But as heere I haue deliuered the Protestants Assertion to wit that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did with a full consent maintaine the Reall Presence so I take it not impertinent heere to set downe briefly another Position to wit That the Primitue Church did neuer ioyntly erre in Faith and Religion Which Proposition is most true both in reason it selfe and by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries In Reason for seing that Christ fouÌ„ded his Church with such solicitude as he did and being founded did water it for it encrease and continuance with the shedding of his own most precious Bloud and the Bloud of infinite Martyrs during those Primitiue tymes can it stand with his diuine and benigne Prouidence presently after his AsceÌ„sion or at the most vpon the death of his Apostles to abandon his former care had therof Or shall we imagine him so vnkind and vnmercifull who through a mercifull kindnesse was content corporally to dye to preuent our eternall death as instantly then to repudiate his most deare and chast Spouse by suffering an vtter disparition and vanishing away of the true Faith By the acknowledgment of the Protestants the former Assertion is also most true as shall euidently appeare out of their owne words from the Reference b From the Reference appropriated Answerably hereto we find that Iewell in his defence of the Apology thus saith The Primitiue Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath euermore beene accounted the purest of all others without exception Kemnitius saith in his Exam. Conc. TrideÌ„t part 1. pag. 74. VVe doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall Men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof And in the same part he also saith VVe are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture by the testimony of the Ancient Church Doctor Sarauia in defens tract de diuersis Ministrorum gradibus pag. 8. writeth Spiritus Sanctus qui in Ecclesia praesidet verus est Scripturarum Interpres ab eo igitur est petenda vera interpretatio cum iâ— sibi non possit esse contrarius qui primitiuae Ecclesiae praesedit per Episcopos eam guberuauit ipsos iam abijcere consentaneum veritati non est In like sort the Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. acknowledgeth that The Ancient Church is the true and best Mistresse of Posterity and going before leadeth vs the way Finally Doctor Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza thus writeth in his Suruey of the pretended Holy Discipline For M. Caluin and M. Beza I doe thinke of them as their writings doe deserue but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers I must confesse All which prayses and commendations giuen by so many of our Aduersaries to the Primitiue Church and the Fathers of those Ages are vnworthily wrongfully and vntruly applyed if so the Church of that Tyme or the Fathers therof should haue generally erred in matter of faith appropriated to this place Now these two Propositions to end this Chapter withall I will combyne and incorporate togeather in this one Argument wherby our Aduersaries may more clearly discerne the ineuitable and dangerous resultancy issuing from such their confessed yet true Assertions Thus then Whatsoeuer the Primitiue Church did iointly teach in matter of Fayth the same is by the confession of the Protestants most true But the Primitiue Church did ioyntly teach by the confession of the Protestants the Doctrine of the Reall Presence Therfore the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true The PropositioÌ„ is acknowledged by our Sectaries in the Marginall Reference The Assumption is abouÌ„dantly confessed by them throughout this whole Chapter for it caÌ„not be denyed but that doctrine which was taught by all the chiefest learned Fathers of the Primitiue Church was the generally taught and receaued Doctrine and Faith of those Ages and Tymes therfore the Conclusion is most truly and necessarily inferred And thus my nyce Protestant Reader if so his stomake can endure the the tast of an Argument hath heere a Compound to wit that the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true made of the mixture or the two former Simples l By D. Humfrey In Iesuitismi part 2. raâ— 5. OF CERTAINE CONSIDERATIONS Drawne from Luther the Lutherans and other Protestants teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist CHAP. XI HAVING in the former Chapter proued euen froÌ„ the Testimonies of our Aduersaries so receauing from them therby a benefit but not a courtesie that the ancient Fathers though most remote froÌ„ vs in circuÌ„stance of Place and Tyme were neuerthelesse conspiring with vs in faith beliefe of the Eucharist and therfore altogeather opposite to the professed doctrine of the Sacramentaries Thus the Fathers God is not as our Aduersaries God euen our * Euen our Enemyes Deuteron 32. Enemies being Iudges It will not in this place seeme I hope inconuenient if I present to the Readers iudgment two obseruations the deliberate consideratioÌ„s wherof though but Morall inducements are able to obtund and blunt the most forcible reasons vrged to the contrary The first of these shal be taken from Luther whose malice towards the Pope for indeed he breathed nothing but Malice Pride and Lust was so implacable as that he endeauoured by all meanes possible to annoy and endomage the Sea of Rome and therupon as the World knoweth he did burst out from the Catholike Church by denying the most poynts denyed at this day by the Protestants Hence now I would demaund how chanced that he changed not his opinion in the Article of the Reall Presence aswell as in the rest since the detriment comming to the Pope by this meanes must haue beene very markeable and far extending for it would haue brought in an Innouation of the externall daily worship of God throughout all Christendome Truly we can assigne no other reason but that the euidency of the Euangelists and the Apostles Texts for a Himselfe confesseth to wit in his epistle ad Argentinos himselfe of this point confesseth no lesse was so vnauoydable as that he could pretend no colour of dissenting from the Church of Rome heerin And so being heere conuinced with the perspicuity of Christs owne words was constrayned to acknowledge him to be in the
resurrection as also in Heauen before his Ascensiō Againe these Mysteries could not be truly performed except the Body of Christ did truly really mooue from one place to another But Christs Body being in euery place cānot be said to moue from place to place for true Locall Motion of a Body cānot be conceaued without obteyning of a new place which afore it had not so many points of Christian Religion and of all true Philosophy Luthers Vbiquity impugneth of our Faith and retayning ouer much leauen of Eutyches his Heresie so easily will a Lutheran transplanted grow vp a perfect Eutychian And thus much of Luthers errour herein in this progressiue digression Now heere we are to note that the difficulties in this Passage sway much the iudgements of our sensible and materiall Christians for so I may well style them since they measure their faith by the Lesbian Square of their Sense And therefore in regard thereof I haue thought good in two or three subsequent Chapters seposed only to this end to exemplify the said difficulty of multiplicity of places in other points acknowledged and confessed by our Aduersaries Wherefore I could wish that when they doe looke vpon the Mysteries of Christian Religion they would shut the Eye of Sense and Naturall Reason since so they might no doubt by seeing the lesse be able to see the more and be like herein to that great Apostle who by loosing his Eyes obtained Light q Eutiches Heresy The Heresy of Eutiches besides other points was that the Flesh of Christ was not of the same nature with ours And that the VVord was not changed into true flesh but rather into an apparent only and seeming flesh So as the VVord rather counterfaited it selfe to be Man to be borne to haue died c. then that there was any such true performance of these things He further taught that because the Diuinity was in the Sunne the starres c. that therefore this apparent Body of the VVord was there also And hitherto doth Luthers Vbiquitie tend for how can Christs Body be a true and naturall Body if it be in all places THE THIRD PASSAGE CHAP. V. NOVV to ascend to the last Mount of difficulties in this miraculous Transelementation We are to obserue that though the Body of Christ be heere indued with Life yet it is not a Not obiectiuely sensible That is that the externall sense of another cannot apprehend it to haue life Now the Catholikes doe generally teach that in regard of the peculiar manner of the existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Adiectiues which include a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist though they may be said of it as it is in heauen The reason hereof being in that the Body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine without any reference respect or order ad Corpora circumstantia And therefore though his Body as it is in the Sacrament be a naturall and corporall substance indued with life sense and colour yet it is not there tangible sensible or visible c. because to be actually tangible sensible or visible implieth a reference ad Corpora circumstantia in whose senses and eyes the Body is so to appeare obiectiuely sensible though it be a true corporall Substance it is not tangible and though it be coloured it is not visible In b In like sort we teach Christs Body in the Eucharist hath eyes and eares because it is there a true and perfect body which it could not be except it were organized with those parts And yet those organs of Sense do not exercise in the Eucharist as they are in the Eucharist these facultyes as the Eye to see the eare to heare The reason hereof is that which was touched afore to wit that not only Adiectiues which haue relation ad Corpora circumstantia but also Verbes which imply a presence of his Body in the Eucharist with reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist in regard of his spirituall and peculiar manner of existing there though they do predicate of it as it is in heauen Now to see to heare c beares a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia to wit to the externall obiect of the Eye and to the sound caused by some body c. Notwithstanding Christ in the Eucharist may be said to see to heare c. and this for a double reason First because it is there the said body which it is in heauen but his body in Heauen seeth heareth c. therefore his Body in the Sacrament doth see and heare though not quatenus est in Sacramento A second Reason may be in that as his body is in the Sacrament so it is accompanied with the Diuinity in the fruition whereof the Humanity seeth and heareth all things And in these two respectes the ancient Fathers according to that saying of S. Basil Verba Inuocationis c. quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit c. 27. lib. de Sp. sancto as also the Priest in those words Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis did and doth daily pray vnto Christ as he is in the Eucharist as being most confident that he doth there heare him like sort we teach that it heere performing the operations of Sense and enioying the organs of Sense doth yet performe them without the help of those said organs We heere also find Quantity without c VVithout Diuision The Body of Christ as it is considered in it selfe hath a true quantity and consequently it is diuisible but yet in regard that it existeth in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit and not of a naturall body as being exempted from all extension of place for it is whole in euery part therefore it may in this sense be said that it is not diuisible Diuision Magnitude without d Magnitude without place Most of the difficulties in this Chapter are solued by knowing what is of the essence of Magnitude or Quantity and what not therefore I will insist the longer in setting downe the iudgements of the best learned herein The Philosophers then doe assigne three things to concurre to Magnitude of which the one euer causeth the other The First of these three is that euery Magnitude should haue an extension in it selfe and haue Partem extra Partem that is that one Part should not be confounded in it selfe with another Part and consequently an intrinsecall site and disposition of parts And this is of the very essence of euery Magnitude and cannot be separated from the same Thus we say that a Body is an extension in Longitude Latitude and Profunditie Superficies an extension in Longitude and Latitude A Line an extension in Longitude only So as extension euer presupposeth different parts of the body and consequently a Body cannot want extension The second thing agreeing
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
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