the bread is not annihilated for Annihilation is an action which terminateth and endeth in Nothing but this action in the Eucharist by the which the bread ceaseth to be doth not terminate in nothing but in something to witt in the body of Christ not annihilated A Change which is caused by a e Successiue The words of Consecration are the cause of this conuersion and therefore this conuersion is not made without a true successiue pronouncing of the said words Successiue pronouncing of seuerall words and yet wrought in an f Instant Though all the words successiuely pronounced doe worke this Conuersion yet the said words haue no perfect signification and consequently causeth not the change till the last instant wherein the last word is pronounced for in that last instant and not before the effect of the words doe really and truly exist â—hat is the Conuersion of Bread into the Body of Christ and of the wine into his Bloud The like difficulty we find in the words of Baptisme which produce no effect till the last Instant Now heere it is to be obserued that though the signification of the words and the Conuersion be perfected together in one instant yet in order of Nature they reciprocally precede and follow one the other for as the truth of this Proposition This is my Body depends à rei essentia of the essence or being of the thing touched in this Proposition so the Conuersion doth precede the signification of the words but as those words are the Cause of the Conuersion so the words precede the Conuersion instant A Change wherein the Priest may be said of Bread g To make In a sober construction the Priest may be said to make the Body of Christ in that by his only and no lay persons pronouncing of the wordes of Consecration the bread is really turned into the Body of Christ and in this sense the Ancient Fathers doe most frequently teach that the Priest maketh the Body of Christ See Cyprian l. 1. epist 2. 9. lib. 3. epist 25. Athanasius 2. Apolog contra Arianos Basil l. â— de Baptisin c. S. Chrysostome l. 3. 6. de Sacerdotio Hierome lib. contra Luciferianos Now though the Fathers in this their peculiar sense were accustomed to write so in regard that none could consecrate but a Priest yet if we will speake in precise termes the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ because Christs Body being afore the Priest by his words doth not produce it of new but only causeth it to be vnder those externall formes of Bread and wine vnder which afore it was not to make the Body of Christ yet the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ A Change wherein the Body being made h Of Bread The Body of Christ may be said to be made of Bread because the Bread is truly and really conuerted into his Body though the Body doth truly exist before any such Conuersion And in this sense diuers ancient Fathers doe write that the Body of Christ is made of Bread Cyprian saith Serm. de Coena Domini Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei factus est caro Gaudentius tract 2. de Exodo Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum facit S. Augustine in his Sermon cited by S. Bede vpon the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith Non omnis Panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi so vsuall and obuious was this phrase with the ancient Fathers which is so harsh to the curious eares of our new Brethren of Bread a thing farre different from flesh is the very same which was made of the flesh of the Queene of Heauen A Change where by the force of Consecration the Body is without Bloud and yet euen then the Body is i Not without Bloud The reason hereof is because Christ is there whole vnder either of the externall formes in regard of the naturall vnion of his soule with his Body which vnion is neuer more to be dissolued since he is neuer more to die But if his Body should be without Bloud then should it be a dead Body and consequently himselfe were hereafter to die againe contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 6. Christus resurgens ex inortuis iam non moritur mors illi vltra non dominabitur not without Bloud In like sort by the same vertue the Humanity of Christ is only intended and yet k His Diuinity The Humanity of Christ is euer accompanied with the Diuinity and therfore his Humanity being in the Sacrament by force of Consecration his Diuinity is also there with it per concomitantiam as the Deuines do speake Now that where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity of Christ must be also is proued from this Principle of Faith to witt That Christ is one diuine Person subsisting in two natures and therefore wheresoeuer the Body of Christ is it can haue no other then a diuine subsistence which subsistence is the same in matter with the diuine Essence So as we see by force of the Hypostaticall vnion which is neuer to be dissolued where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity is also his Diuinity which is euer l In all places If the Diuinity of God were not in all places then should it be circumscriptible or at least definitiue in place and consequently not Infinite then it were no true Diuinity in all places is * Heere of new In like sort all do grant that the Diuinity of Christ was in the wombe of the B. Virgin before her Conception and yet the Diuinity was there after another manner at the tyme of her Conception heere of new truly and really exhibited A Change where the Body of our Sauiour is present and yet m Represented It may be said to be represented First because the externall formes of Bread and wyne doe represent the Body of Christ as it dyed vpon the Crosse and the Bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse for the Eucharist is a commemoration of the Passion of Christ according to those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat And in this respect his Body may be said to be represented in the Eucharist because it is not there after the same manner as it was vpon the Crosse but only by similitude and in this sense Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium is to be vnderstood where he saith Secundum quemdam modum SacramentuÌ„ Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Secondly it is said to be represented or in figure because the externall formes of Bread and wyne are the signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ there present
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
à notis conspicitur taâ—â—tsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamâ—â— vinum sed Sanguin in Christi esse which latter words are afore related Doe not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Bloud of Christ according to the word of our Sauiour himselfe For though sense may suggest this to thee yet let thy faith so confirme this as that thou iudge not the matter from thy tast And againe after Hoc sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certaine that this Bread which we see is not Bread though our Tast do tell vs that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behould though it seemeth wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Bloud of Christ. And can any Catholike at this time speake more plainly then are the sayings of this Father One who is most ancient learned and of whose booke from whence these testimonies are produced there was neuer any doubt made S. Cyprian serm de Coena Dom. Panis iste queÌ„ Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit Essentia This Bread the which our Lord gaue to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word it is made Flesh And as in the Person of Christ the Humanity did appeare and the Diuinity did lye hid so in the visible Sacrament the diuine Essence hath ineffably infused it selfe But what Omnipotency is required to giue a signification to any substance Or if the Change be only by adding a new signification how can the Bread be said to be changed non effigie sed natura Lastly the Diuinity was truly and really latent in Christs Humanity therfore the Body and Bloud must be truly and really latent vnder the formes of Bread and Wine which to be Cyprians meaning appeareth euen by the word Ineffabiliter there added by him but what difficulty or mysterie is it that Bread should signify Christ Tertullian l. 2. ad Vxorem where speaking of Christian Women that are married to Gentiles and shewing that such marriages are hurtfull to the receauing of the Blessed Sacrament thus saith Non sâ—iet Maritus c. The Husband shall not know what thou doest tast before all other meates and if he did he belieueth not the Bread to be him whom it is said to be Which wordes do euidently imply a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haereses cap. 34. disputing against such Heretikes as denyed Christ to be the Sonne of the Creatour thus disputeth Quomodo autem constabit ijs c. How shall it be made euident to such men that Bread wherupon thankes are giuen to be the Body of Christ and the Cup the Bloud of him if they will not acknowledge him to be the Sonne of the Maker of the World That is the Word of him by the which Word the Wood doth fructifie the Springs do flow who first giueth a kind of grasse then an Eare of corne lastly the Eare full of wheate Heere we are to obserue that Irenaeuâ— proueth Christ to be the Creatour from this that Bread by force of Consecration is made the Body of Christ therfore he belieued that Bread was really and truly changed into the Body of Christ and not only in signification for it is not an imposition of a new signification but a true and reall chang which necessarily requireth Gods Omnipotency OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONTEYNING The Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Great Mysteries CHAP. IIII. A THIRD point which indeed is the CeÌ„ter wherin the Lines of diuers such passages doe meet manifesting the Fathers beliefe heerein may be the Obseruation of their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other things Thus they compare it with the Paschal Lambe with the Manna with Panis Propositions teaching that it doth transcend all these as much as a Diuine and inconsumptible substance excells a terrene and corruptible the Body the shaddow and the Truth the Figure But if Christs Body be heere only by representation then is the Eucharist a thing corruptible a shadow and a meere Figure and then may our Sauiour worthily vse towards them the expostulation in Esay Cui a Cui comparastis me Esa 46. comparastis me Others also in regard of the sublimity therof compare it with the Creation as I touched before where not to insist in other points we find that by force of the Creation all Creatures are conteyned in the Creatour for in ipso viuimus c. and by force of this Sacrament the Creatour is conteyned after a peculiar manner vnder the formes of some of his meanest Creatures Some likewise do teach besides other such comparisons that Christ in the Sacrament is to the eye of the soule as when Angells by assuming bodyes appeared to Men though these being spirituall seemed corporall and Christ being Corporall appeareth heere only as spirituall Finally diuers of them seeme to equall it with the Mysterie of the Incarnation and one Father resembleth the difficulty herein to that where Christ being as well God as Man was borne of a Woman and a Virgin Now if the chiefest obscuritie in the Eucharist doth rest in Types Representations and Resemblances how cold disproportionable dissorting yea absurd and false are the comparisons heere made with those former stupendious Mysteries of Christianity and particulerly of the Incarnation Where to omit all other passages therof aboue our capacity we find the Vine to bud out of the Branch the Ocean to flow from a shallow Riuer and the Sunne to borrow it light from a small Starre First then occurreth S. Leo serm 7. de Passione Dom. who thus saith Vt ergo Vinbrae c. That therfore the Shaddowes might giue place to the Body and Images or ResemblaÌ„ces to the presence of the Truth the ancient obseruation is taken away by a new Sacrament the Hoast is changed into an Hoast bloud excludeth bloud and the Legall Solemnity whiles it is changed is fulfilled and accomplished S. Augustine l. 3. Trinit c. 10. Illas etiam Nubes c. What man knoweth how those Clouds and Fires were made which the Angells assumed and tooke on to signify what they were to deliuer or speake yea though our Lord or the Holy Ghost appeared in these formes Euen as Infants knew not that which is placed vpon the Altar and consumed after the celebration of Piety is finished how it is made and by what meanes it is vsed in Religion And if they neuer learned either by their owne experience or of others and should neuer see the formes of those things but in the celebration of Sacraments when it is offered giuen and said to them by most graue authority
is made of the Bread into the Body but a Consubstantiall coexistency of both which opinion though resting only in the manner of the Conclusion we repute no lesse then Heresy since in points doctrinall once s Definitiuely For the Generall Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius the third defined for an Article of Faith the doctrine of Transubstantiation though this doctrine was generally belieued afore in the first Chapter of the Decrees of that Councell He therfore that reiecteth the authority of a lawfull Councell reiecteth the authority of Gods Church and consequently his Errour though resting but in the manner or circumstance of any question cannot be small since in such his Errour is included his greater Errour in thinking that a true and lawfull Generall Councell may definitiuely and sententially erre definitiuely true or false who erreth litle erreth much We also dissent from the Sacramentaries who relying altogeather vpon their sense herein like Labans sheep led mainly by their Eye do inforce an impossibility of our Doctrine whereas Faith assureth vs that the Body of Christ is heere really exhibited And therefore we teach that the vnderstanding which is in this place the Eye to the Eye though borrowing all knowledge from Sense euen in knowledge heere controles Sense and secureth vs that his Sacred Body and Bloud through the vertue of his owne speaches is heere really present though through the dignity thereof veyled ouer from our sight and yet not veyled ouer with any thing since they are not t Are not things The Philosophers do teach that Substantiae only are truly and perfectly Entia And that Accidentia are only Analogicè Entia being in their owne nature imperfect And thus in this sense the Accidents of Bread and Wine vnder which the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour lye may be truly tearmed Non Entia things but formes vnder which it lieth Thus against the Sacramentaries we hold it most cleare that heere to peruert Christs words is to impugne Christs power THE SECOND PASSAGE CHAP. IIII. BVT let vs passe on to the difficulties of another nature We find that Christs Body by force of those operatiue words is in diuers places Churches at one and the same time for though Christ be incircumscriptibly in the Sacrament yet we teach that as a Body by Gods power may want all a VVant all Circumscription See the explication of this difficulty hereafter in the next Passage at the letter D Circumscription so by the same power it may haue diuers b Diuers Circumscriptions A Body may by Gods Power haue at one time diuers Circumscriptions which is to haue seuerall places extensiuely And the reason hereof is because that only implies a contradiction and consequently as we touched afore cannot be done by God which impugnes the very essence of a thing so as it doth presuppose a Being and a Not-Being of the said thing But to be in place or in diuers places at once is extrinsecall and accidentary and not of the Essence but what is extrinsecall or Accidentary is posterius and later then the thing it selfe and consequently by Gods Omnipotency may be deuided from the nature and essence thereof The proofe of this doctrine is also deduced from the example of our Sauiour who neuer leauing Heauen appeared to S. Paul vpon the Earth as we read Act. c. 9. 22. That it was not any voice which spake to him made by Gods Power or the ministery of the Angells only as some doe answere but our Sauiour himselfe appeareth both because mention being made hereof in diuers places of the Actes it euer toucheth Pauls seeing of Christ in his owne Person So we read Act. c. 22. That Ananias put Paul in remembrance of his seeing of Christ In like sort c. 26. Christ himselfe saith That he appeared to him thereby to make him a witnesse of the things which he saw but he could not be a witnesse thereof especially of the Resurrection except he had truly and really seene the very Body of Christ And answerably hereto we read that S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. after he had reckoned diuers who had seene our Sauiour after his Resurrection concludeth in the end with these words Nouissimè tamquam abortiuo visus est mihi which saying of his had beene false except he had seene Christ himselfe seeing that the rest numbred by S. Paul had seene him in his owne true and naturall Body Neither can it be said as some others would haue it that S. Paul saw Christ as he was in Heauen and not heere vpon the Earth or in some neere place of the aire and this for diuers reasons First because those that were with Paul did heare a voyce and saw a great light Act. 9. 22. but the Eares and Eyes of his Companions could not penetrate so farre as Heauen Secondly because the light which appeared to S. Paul himselfe was so great as it almost stroke him dead for the time which could not haue had in likelyhood such force if it had come so farre as from Heauen Thirdly if S. Paul had seene Christ only in Heauen it might haue beene obiected to him that he was no true witnesse of his Resurrection and that what he had said to haue seene was only in imagination and a strong apprehension of the Mind Now our Aduersaries cannot heere obiect that if our Sauiour did appeare heere vpon the Earth or in the Ayre truly and really to S. Paul that notwithstanding he was not circumscriptible in that place for the time in that he is only circumscriptible as he is in heauen This vrgeth nothing For for a Body to be circumscriptible in a place it is not required that it should not be circumscriptible in no place also but only it is required that it should be truly commensured with that place so as the Termini of the Place and the Body be answerable the one to the other Circumscriptions much more then may it be at once in diuers places Sacramentally since c Vnity of Essence The essentiall vnity of a thing dependes not of the vnity of Place seeing a thing is one before it hath one place so as to be in place is but subsequent and accessory to the nature of any body but it dependes of the internall principles of the said thing Vnity of Essence and Nature is not dissolued by diuersity of place Hence is it that it may be neere d Neere to the Earth The same Body in seuerall places may be neere to the ground and far of from the ground Neither doth this imply any contradiction for seeing that when a Body is in diuers places and the relation is terminated to diuers places it therefore necessarliy followeth that this diuerse relation is multiplied for it is to be vnderstood that those contrary relations are in one and the same subiect per diuersa fundamenta to wit in a different respect of seuerall places which diuersity of respect taketh away all
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
shall offer vp his owne body and bloud for sacrifice vnder the formes of Bread and Wyne yet they proceed against them and this is an ordinary disease and distemperature of Heresy in other like cases with a Lordly and peremptorie Arrest pronouncing that such their writings are Suppositious g Suppositious and Forged All these testimonies of the Rabbins besides many moe are recorded by Galatinus de arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 10. c. 5. 6. 7. c. Yet Doctor VVhitaker absolutely reiecteth them l. 9. contra Duraeum pag. 818. And yet the sayings of the said Iewes in other points recorded by the former Galatinus are of such weight in the iudgements of other learned Protestants as that we do find them vrged in their bookes against their Aduersaries Thus we find them produced by Parkes against VVillet pag. 170. by Philip Mornay in his booke Touching the truenesse of Christian Religion and englished Anno 1592. pag. 434. 436. and in diuers pages following In like sort by Pauâ—us Phagius a Protestant touching Traditions deliuered by word of mouth and finally by the silenced Ministers in their defense of their Reasons for their refusall of subscription pag. 188. If then the authorities be of force to be alledged by the Protestants for proofe of other points shall they not be of the like weight being produced for iustifying of our Catholike doctrine in this Controuersy Now whereas some of our Aduersaries to maintaine that these and other like sayings for iustifying of Christian Religion were first forged by Galatinus or some of his time and fathered vpon the Iewes for their greater credit this is most false for we find that one Hieronymus de sancta Fide being a Iew and conuerted to Christianity in the time of Pope Benedict the 13. which was a good time before Galatinus whose Phisitian he was wrote a booke entituling it Hebraeo-mastyx or Vindex Impietatis ac Perfidiae Iudaicae wherein he proueth diuers points of Christianity from the three alledged Testimonyes and Sentences of the said former Iewes mentioned by Galatinus This booke of his is printed at Franckford Anno 1602. and Forged Let vs come to the Tyme of Grace when we Gentiles first became Antipodes as it were to the Iewes since our heauenly Sunne then setting to them did instantly rise vnto vs and lay downe Christs owne words wherin he ordayned this most Reuerend high Mysterie to wit Hoc h Hoc est Corpus meum The Reall Presence is euidently proued out of these words of the Institution recorded by all the Euangelists And first to giue a short Exposition of euery such word therein which may inforce the true Presence of Christs body we say and teach thus The Pronowne HOC must be taken heere either Adiectiuely or Substantiuely if it be to be taken Adiectiuely then it is to agree with some Substantiue and consequently it must demonstrate Corpus and not Panis because the word Panis being in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in both tongues of the masculine Gender And yet this Pronowne being in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed heere by the Euangelists and in Latin Hoc is in both the said Tongues of the Neuter Gender so in the other sentence following Hic est Sanguis meus the Pronowne Hic cannot demonstrate Vinum because Vinum is of the Neuter Gender Now if the particle Hoc be taken substantiuely then Hoc must heere signifie Haec Res but that this word Hoc or Haec res should predicate of the bread there present were ridiculous and absurd for we doe not vsually say Hoc signifying Haec res if the thing be present and knowne except the said thing be of the Neuter Gender and the reason hereof is in that seeing the Subiectum ought to be more knowne then the Pradicaâ—um if therefore the Subiectum be knowne to the hearers in particuler it ought not to be deliuered by an vniuersall Name but only then it is so vniuersally to be deliuered when it is only knowne in generall Therefore seeing the Apostles did at the Last Supper see bread in our Sauiours hands and knew it to be bread it had beene an absurd kind of speach if our Sauiour had said of the bread Hoc est Corpus meum since he ought to haue said Hic Panis est Corpus meuin This point is also made more euident out of the Greeke Text for if Hoc should haue demonstrated Bread then by the same reason the Pronowne Hic in these words Hic est Sanguis meus should demonstrate Vinum and not Sanguis But S. Luke is manifestly against this second point who cap. 22. thus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Hic Calix nouum Testamentum in Sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur where the words in Greeke signifying qui effunditur are not ioyned in construction with those words in Sanguine meo but with the other words Hic Calix Therefore whereas S. Luke saith that the Cup was shed for vs but the Cup it selfe or the wine in the Cup is not shed for vs but the bloud of Christ it followeth that Calix heere doth not signifie a Cup of wine but a Cup of bloud Therefore it remaineth by force of inference of the former premises that the Pronowne Hoc in the words of the Institution doth demonstrate not Bread but that which is conteyned vnder the species and forme of bread the which thing though afore it was bread yet after the words ended and perfected by our Lord it was the body of Christ Touching the Verbe EST in the said words of the Institution which word our Aduersaries doe striue to prooue that it is heere taken for Significat whereas the Catholikes doe teach that the word Est implyeth heere no other signification then it owne naturall signification Now this is proued First because we find not Tropes or Figures to be placed in Verbes but by reason of some peculiar thing or nature which is implyed in one Verbe and not in another but the Verbe â—â—st signifieth nothing else then a Coniunction of one thing with another or a common being incident to all things Againe this Verb Est caâ— neuer leaue it owne signification in that it is the Copula of all Propositions Therfore since of necessity it is in euery Proposition it cannot leaue it owne signification and receaue another Lastly and chiefly this Verbe hath the most simple and most common signification so as all other Verbes may be resolued into it and something besides Thus were solues Plato legit id est Est lâ—geâ—â— hence it followeth that this verbe Est because it being the most simple of all Verbes cannot be resolued into it selfe and something besides cannot be drawne to receaue the signification of any other Verb. Now against this doctrine the example of words obiected when Est in taken ordinarily for Significat preuayleth nothing As for example â—raecari est Oraâ—e the reason heer of being in that the essence of
a signe is signification therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est iâ— vnderstood the essence of the same signe Now then seing in those said former examples and propositions one signe doth predicate of another for words are nothing else but signes it followeth that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat and yet without any Trope therin Touching the word CORPVS in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure then in the former Verbe Est Now that this word Corpus cannot signifie figuraâ— Corporis as our Aduersaries pretend is most euident And first this is proued out of the words following to wit Quod pro vobis dâ—tur in Greeke being for the word datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also out of these other following touching the Cup Qui pro vobis effunditur in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these two Greeke Participles being put in the Nominatiue case ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which â—â— called Corpus and Sanguis and not with any words put in other cases as Corporis and Sanguinis Therfore either the true Body Bloud is in the Eucharist or his Body by way of representation and signification only to wit the Bread and Wine were giuen for vs and shed for vs which is absurd to affirme Secondly the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate Bread there is nothing left of which these wordâ— â—igâ—â—â— Corporis should predicate except they will say that the tâ—ue and naturall Body of Christ is a signe and figure of it selfe Lastly the Body of Christ wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body to wit the Church or for his true and naturall Body but for a signe and figure of his body we neuer find it to be taken Therfore the Construction of the Sacramentaries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced without any example or president of that kind throughout the whole Scripture But the more euideÌ„tly to proue that the words of the Institution caÌ„not be taken figuratiuely I do further present besides what hath bene already alledged to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations First that this Pronowne Hoc designing some particuler thing prâ—uents all Figuratiue constructions And therfore we find that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe the Pronowne Hoc is wanting as in these Ego sum Ostium Ego sum Vitâ— c. Secondly In all Metaphoricall speaches that are vsed by way of Explication it is not accustomed that one thing do predicate or be affirmed of another thing except the Praedicatum be some such thing in the which the propriety according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended is more knowne and euident then it is in the other thing of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed And this is the reason that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another for the most part in genere or in specie at least But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution For heere according to our Aduersaries the Body and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread and Wine and yet the vertue of nourishing which they heere assigne to be the ground of the supposed figuratiue speach is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ then in the Bread and Wine which before his pronouncing of the words Christ did hould in his hands Thirdly It is to be obserued that in the words of the Institution the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate or are affirmed of Bread and Wine but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing but with confusion and vncertainty to wit of the Pronowne Hoc And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature doth predicate of another thing of a different nature as Christus erat petra c. Fourthly we are heere to note the words following to wit quod pro vobis datur qui pro vobis effunditur c. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne Thus one may say Caesar was a Lion by reason of his courage fortitude which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the nature of the Metaphor But now if the addition of words following doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed then doth such an Addition manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation as in these words That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse who was borne of a Virgin where we find that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor do intimate a Propriety and literall acception of the former words concerning Christ In like sort we say that those words Quod pro vobis tradetur Qui pro vobis fundetur c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you c. and VVhich shall be shed for you c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing which they should haue done if the Propositions to which they are adioyned had bene Metaphoricall but they do signify that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption which point hath no necessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus c. A text in respect of a i A Sacrament instituted heerin Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plaine words least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law and of Baptisme Sacrament instituted herein of a Testament k A Testament left therby That the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe a Testament appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plaine and litterall words then a VVill or Testament that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention as touching the Will of the Testator And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper and familiar words The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men left therby and of a Precept l A Precept or Law That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist appeareth out of those words Accipite Edite hoc facite But the words of Lawes and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous and cleere since
be nourished of God But the flesh is washed really and truly with water as also it is annoynted really and truly with oyle therfore it ought really and truly to feed vpon the Body and Bloud of Christ Ignatius epist ad Smyrnenses as Theodoret citeth Dialog 3. thus saith Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse Carnem Saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit They do not admit to wit certaine Heretickes denying that Christ had true Flesh the Eucharists and Oblations because they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which flesh suffered for our sinnes the which the Father through his benignity raysed vp againe Heere Ignatius sayth not that the Flesh of Christ is giuen to vs in some one manner or other as our Aduersaries would expound him but he saith that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ Heere also we are to note that these Heretickes against whom he heere speaketh did refuse the Eucharist least they should be inforced to confesse that Christ had true flesh if they did admit the Eucharist which was the Flesh of Christ But if the Eucharist did only signify the flesh of Christ they had no reason to deny the Echarist for they did not deny the Images and Figures of Christ but only his true Flesh for such bodies as are only apparent and not true bodyes may be painted or figured out in Images as appeareth by the Images and Pictures of Angells OF THE FATHERS AVTHORITIES touching the Change made in the Eucharist CHAP. III. A SECOND Branch of the Fathers Testimonies may extend it selfe to the Change which is made in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which change that it is reall is necessarily included in their writings For they teach that after the Mutation is once made the Bread remayneth not and in further acknowledgment heerof they purposely do paralell it with other reall Mutations As first with that of the Water turned by our Sauiour into Wine But if an imminent Act of his will was of Power to turn water into wine cannot a Transient operation of the said will breaking out into words of a positiue Assertiō change wine into Bloud Secondly they compare the change heere with that of the Wands of Moyses turned into Serpents But what proportion can there be betweene these stupendious Mutations and a little representatiue Bread and Wine still remayning Bread and Wine Therfore we may iustly say that as those true Serpents a True serpents Exod. 7. of Moyses did eate vp those counterfaite Serpents made in emulation therof by the false Prophets euen so ought the reall Transelementation taught by the Fathers exyle and banish this but Sacramentall and Sophisticated chang brought in by the Sacramentaries They further teach for the more facilitating of this great worke that he who could first giue the Essence and Forme to euery thing could more easily superinduce a second forme And therefore with good reason one of them saith Non b Non minus est Ambros de mysterijs initiand c. 9. minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Since the first includeth an Absolute and Primatiue Creation the very Maister-peece of Gods Omnipotency and such as Man cannot apprehend but by apprehending that Nothing is Something The second implieth a former Existence of something and consequently only a new kind of inuesting of it Which later point much more the First the Fathers ascribe only to his power who causing all changes is yet himselfe vnchangeable and producing all mutations is immutable Ego c Ego sum Dominus Malach. 3. sum Dominus non mutor Now then by reason of the true and reall chang heere made the Fathers doe further write that our Sense which in other things hath a great Soueraignty ouer our Iudgemēt is heere deceaued for though the Eye would persuade vs that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet they say plainly that there is neither bread nor wyne thus teaching that the vnderstanding heere corrects the Eye in seeing though only by the Eye it learnes that there is any seeing and affirming that the vnderstanding for Faith is an Act therof which seeth not at all heere only truly seeth Thus if we belieue those ancient Doctors a Faith wrought out of sense only is no better then Israel whereof the d The Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Apostle speaketh according to the Flesh But now to descend particulerly to their authorities sorting to the passages of this Chapter First then Eusebius Emissenu serm de Corpore Dom. sayth Inuisibilis Sacerdos c. The inuisible Priest doth change through a secret power of his word the visible Creatures into the substance of his body and bloud And againe he saith more plainly Quando bencdicendae c. When the Creatures which are to be blessed are placed vpon the Altars before they be consecrated with the inuocation of the highest Power they are the substance of Bread and wine but after the words of Christ they are the body and bloud of Christ. What meruayle if those things which he could create by his word he can chang being already created Proclus Bishop of Constantinople lib. de Trad. diuinae Liturgiae Per quas preces Spiritus sancti aduentum expectabant vt eius diuina praesentia propositum in Sacrificio panem vinum aqua permixtum ipsum illud corpus sanguinem Saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi efficeret By the force of these prayers meaning the words of the Institution we expect the comming of the Holy Ghost that so his diuine presence might make the bread and wine mingled with water the very Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Sauiour Augustine serm quem citat Beda in c. 10. prioris ad Cor. Non omnis panis c. Not euery bread but that receauing the benedictiō of Christ fit Corpus Christi is made the Body of Christ where the word fit includeth heere a true change at least against the Lutherans Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. Non sunt humanae c. The words heere performed are not in the power of Man we only hould the place of Ministers but it is he that sanctifieth and changeth the things And then after Qui dixit c. He who said This is my Body confirmed the fact with his word And homil de Eucharist in Encaenijs Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites Quemadmodum enim sicera adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread Doest thou see Wine Do these things passe into the Common passage as other meates do Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as wax laid neere to the fire doth assimilate it selfe to it nothing of the substance
therof remayning or superfluously redouÌ„ding So maist thou suppose the Mysteries heere to be consumed by the substance of the body Gaudentius tract 2. de Exod. Ipse Naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium Corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino Sanguinem suum He who is the Creatour and Lord of all Natures who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth and againe who of the bread maketh his proper Body for he is able and he promised to do it and who made wine of water and of wine his owne Bloud And after againe O altitudo diuitiarum c. O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and knowledge of God! Doe not thinke that terrestriall which is made heauenly by him which passeth into it and made it his owne Body and Bloud And finally Non infringamus os illud c. Let vs not breake that most solide and firme bone This is my Body This is my Bloud Now what remayneth in the sense of any one which he cannot conceaue by this exposition let it be consumed and burnt away with the ardour heate of faith Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium Videmus quod accepit Saluator c. We do see what our Sauiour tooke into his hands as the Euangelist noteth that he did rise from Supper that he did take these things and when he had giuen thankes he said This is mine and This and This. And we do see that it is not equall nor like to the proportion or Image in flesh to the inuisible Deity to the lineaments of MeÌ„bers for this is of a round forme and insensible according to Power And he would through grace say Hoc meum est Hoc Hoc And yet euery one belieueth his speach for who belieueth not to be his very true Body doth fall from grace and saluation Now when he heere saith that it is to be belieued though it be repugnant to sense this must needs be vnderstood of the Body it selfe and not of the signification therof since the sense rather helpeth then hindreth why we should belieue the SacrameÌ„t And when he saith that we ought to belieue that it is ipsum verum Corpus the true Body hereby are excluded all Tropes and Figures S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo c. Wherfore we now truly belieue euen by the word of God that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God c. That these things which are seene to wit bread and wine are changed into that Body of oar Lord is to be attributed to the vertue of Benediction S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 4. Tu fortè dicis Panis meus c. Perhaps thou sayest My bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the words of Consecration but after Consecration is finished of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Though our Aduersaries doe answer this place by reiecting this booke as not written by S. Ambrose yet is it cited vnder his name by Lanfrancus Guitmundus and others who liued aboue fiue hundred yeares since In like sort in his booke de mysterijs init c. 9. he thus writeth Fortè dicas Aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quòd Christi Corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non esse hoc quod Natura formauit sed quod Benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m Naturae quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur Virgam tenebat Moyses proiecit eam facta est serpens c. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Nam Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur c. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae vt ignem de Caelo deponâ—râ—t non valebit Christi Sermo vt species mutet Elementorum De totius mundi operibus legisti Quia ipse dixit facta sunt ipse mandauit creat a sunt Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Perhaps thou mayst say I see another thing how prouest thou to me that I take the body of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to proue What then or how great examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature formed but what benediction hath consecrated And that there is greater force of Benediction then of Nature for euen Nature it selfe is changed by Benediction Moyses houlding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent c. Now if Mans Benediction or blessing be of such force as that it can chang Nature what do we say of that diuine CoÌ„secration where the very words of our Lord our Sauiour doe worke for this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speach of Christ And if the speach of Elias was of such power as to draw fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ be of force to chang the formes of the Elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they are made he commanded and they are created Therefore the words of Christ which of nothing could make that which was not can they not chang those things which are into that which afore they were not for it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures to things then to chang Natures So cleare and euident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true and reall chang in the Sacrament of the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutauit in Vinum c. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turne water into Wyne which is neere to Bloud and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wyne into bloud Wherefore with all assurednesse let vs take the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of Bread is giuen to thee his Body and vnder the forme of Wine is giuen his Bloud The same Father in the same Booke also saith thus Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem nudum vinum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet neâ— ex gustu rem iudices c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Et vinum quod
his true body were not deliuered to vs therby his reason would proue nothing against the Heretikes denying the Truth of his Body in that it might be replyed that the Eucharist was but a Figure of the apparent and seeming body which they taught that Christ had S. Cyprian sermone de Coena Domini saith Coena disposita c. The Supper of those sacramentall Banquets being prepared the Old and New Institutions did there meete togeather and the Lamb which the Ancient Tradition proposed being spent the Maister gaue to his Disciples an inconsumptible meate Heere by the words Cibum inconsumptibilem cannot be vnderstood the Body of Christ as it is eaten by Faith because in that the Iewes by their Paschall Lamb had that meate to wit by representation as well as we Christians Neither by the said words can be vnderstood the Bread in the Eucharist because Bread is as well consumptible and to be spent as a Lambe is In the same Sermon he also saith of which place I haue entreated before Sicut in Persona Christi c. Euen as in the Person of Christ his Humanity appeared but his Diuinity was hid or latent so in the visible Sacrament the Diuine Essence doth ineffably infuse it selfe From which words the truth of the Doctrine of the Eucharist is proued from the Mystery in the Incarnation Origen homil 7. in Lib. Numeri Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei est verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Quia caromea est verè cibus Then to wit in the Old Law the Manna was meate obscurely Enigmatically but now indeed the Flesh of the Word of God is true meate euen as himselfe said Quia caro mea verè est cibus But the Manna was the body of Christ tropically and figuratiuely Tertullian lib. de Idololatria thus saith Prâ—h Scelâ—â—l semel Iudaei c. O Villany the Iewes once offered violence vnto Christ but these Men dayly do wrong his body O that their hands might be cut off In which place he inueigheth against certaine men who made such Priests or at the least Deacons which were artificers or makers of Idolls But if Tertullian had thought that there were only Bread in the Eucharist representing the Body of our Sauiour he would not compare such as handled the Sacrament vnworthily with those which crucified Christ Where also we are to note that he there speaketh not of such who with affectation and intended purpose did wrong Christ by violating the Sacraments but of those only who being sinners dared to deliuer the Sacrament to the Communicants Irenaeus l. 4 contra Haeres c. 34. Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis Panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia EucharistiaÌ„ iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as the Bread proceeding from the Earth receauing the inuocation of God is not now common Bread but it is the Eucharist consisting of two things to wit a terrene thing and a celestiall thing so our Bodyes receauing the Eucharist are not corruptible as hauing thereby the hope of rising againe Where Irenaeus maketh a Comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Article of the Resurrection But our Body really truly after the Resurrection shall become immortall and not in signification only therefore the Bread is truly become the Body of Christ and not in signification only Now how the Eucharist may be termed terrena see S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in the sixt chapter of this 2. Tract S. Iustinus Martyr in Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum Imperatorem saith Non enim vt communem Panem neque communem Potum haec sumimus Sed quemadmodum per Verbum Dei Incarnatus Iesus Christus Saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuit sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factum cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostrae per mutationem aluntur illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these as common Bread and common Drinke but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour being Incarnated by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our health saluation euen so we learne that through the prayers of the Word of God that meate whereby our bloud and flesh are nourished through the alteratioÌ„ therof being made the Eucharist is the Flesh and Bloud of Iesus who was incarnated In which wordes there is a comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Incarnation of Christ and he proueth the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist from the Mysterie of the Incarnation inferring that by the same power the Bread might be made the Body of Christ by the which power God was Incarnated but if he did vnderstand that the Bread was the Body by representation only then in vaine is brought the Example of the Incarnation since it is no Miracle that Bread should signifie the Body of Christ Add heerto that Iustinus Martyr if he did meane the Body only in signe had reason to explane himselfe to the Emperour in that he heere did write an Apology for the Christians to whome besides other crimes it was obiected that in the mysteries of their Religion they did eate Mans flesh OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONFESSING The inexplicable greatnesse of this Mysterie CHAP. V. THE fourth Classis may conteyne such passages of the Fathers wherin is acknowledged a Supreme Mysterie in the Eucharist For first they teach that it transgressing the bounds of humane capacity is to be apprehended only by faith Thus aduancing the dignity and worth of faith as being able to vnderstand that which the vnderstanding of which Faith is but an Act cannot naturally vnderstand So cloudy darke is that Faculty of the mind except the mysts therof be dispelled and diffipated by the illuminating beames of Gods grace Hence it ariseth that they are very frequent in their exhortations that we should not fluctuate in any vncertainty of Iudgment but assure our selues by disclayming from sense humbling our Iudgments and voyding our minds of all preiudice of opinion of the infallible Truth therof since it is wrought by the vertue of his words who is Truth it selfe a Veritas Via Iohn 14. Ego sum Veritas Via So well those holy Doctours did know that the more Chrystalline cleare the chiefest faculties of our Soules are become and the more polished freed from all naturall blemishes the glasse therof is the more perfectly we may behould this high Mysterie since during our exile heere all such abstruse difficulties we do but see as it were per b Per speculum 1. Cor. 13. speculum in aenigmate But when we are arriued by meanes of death into our Countrey for Heauen is the soules proper Orbe then all such heauenly mysteries being now ouer
the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases speaking of the Eucharist as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles So i Augustine Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol Augustine And Norunt qui mysterijs imbuti sunt So k Origen Homil. 13 in Exodum 9. in Leuiticum Origen They taught that in extremity of sicknes it was to be taken of euery Christian pro Viatico as appeareth out of the first Councell of l Councell of Nyce Canon 12. Nyce m Eusebius l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius and n Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdot Chrysostome Finally hither may be referred what the Fathers of the Primitiue Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples Vestments Chalices and other religious Vessels all vsed in the celebration of the Eucharist All which things as o Hierome Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith propter consortium corporis sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur And p Optatus l. 6. contya Parmenianum Optatus writeth that they being contaminata Sacrilegos faciunt And hence it riseth that it was obiected to the Arians by Athanasius that fregerunt mysticum Calicem which offence was acknowledged to be most heynous by the Councell of Alexandria as q Athanasius Apologia 2. Athanasius writeth To the same end to wit as tending to the facred function of consecrating the Eucharist may be referred what the Fathers haue written of the Dignity of Priesthood Of which point entreates r Nazianzen Apolog. 1. Oratione ad Iulianum Nazianzen s Chrysostome Lib. de Sacerdot Chrysostome and others as also of their vowed t Vowed Chastity Of which point do occur most frequent Authorityes in the wrytings of the Fathers Chastity principally directed for that purpose Now who shall weigh all these seuerall Obseruations accompanyed with the former heads set downe at large and all litterally and plainly expressed in the Fathers Writings and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typicall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all most sutable agreeable to the worth of his true and reall being there how can he be otherwise perswaded then that those Doctours did iointly agree with vs in this high Article of faith Wherfore the determination of this matter to wit whether the Fathers were SacrameÌ„taries or Catholikes heerin I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned for this were to wrong their Iudgments in making a Point so euident the Obiect of their graue Resolutions as I referre it euen to the fyue Senses of the ignorant and illiterate OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Euasions to the Authorities of the Fathers CHAP. VIII ALTHOVGH in setting downe the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters I haue illustrated most of theÌ„ with such short Animaduersions as best vnfould the true Sense of the said Authorities consequently preuent all such sleighty elusions as are vsed by our Aduersaries for the auoyding of the same Neuerthelesse I haue thought good heere to amasse togeather all their diuers kinds of Answeres being seuerally applyed in generall to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads for coÌ„monly to all Testimonies of one Nature they do appropriate one the same Answere Thus shall the discreet Reader haue at once a Synopsis or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble euasions being full of tergiuersation and distrust Now then one Kind of their Answers if so I may terme it is to giue no answere at all for when they are pressed with such perspicuous and euident places of the Fathers as are in no sort to be obscured with any myst of words for the Sunne is sometimes so radiant as that it cannot be ouerclouded then in their Replyes to Catholike Bookes therin they are content not taking notice therof like men of good natures to suffer all such sentences quietly to passe by them in Gods name the Kings Thus we find most cleere passages of the Fathers set downe in Catholike Bookes yet neuer answered by Caluin Peter Martyr or others who haue vndertaken a refutation of the said Bookes but altogeather passed ouer as if no such places had bene obiected Such carefull Pylotes they are as willing to auoyd the most dangerous Rocks Which course of theirs I caÌ„not condemne as impoliticke since it is lesse disaduantagious silently to giue way to all such Assertions then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same for we see that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance Of the many Authorities of the Fathers wherunto the Protestants to wit Caluin Peter Martyr c. giue no Answere at all I haue thought good to note these few viz. The Passion of S. Andrew Origen homil 13. in Exod. in â— 25. hom 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet c. 36. 37. EphreÌ„ lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo Chrysostome Hâ—mil 83. in Matth. 51. in Matth. Homil. 21. in Acta Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs lib. 6. de Sacerdotio Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione diuinae Liturgiae besides many other Testimonies of these and other Fathers The first forme then of their Positiue Answers may be assigned to those Authorityes wherin the Fathers doe absolutely call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ as where they teach that we doe eate his Body and drinke his Bloud or that the Body and Bloud which we receauâ— in the Eucharist is our pryce the Pledge of our Saluation or the like To the Testimonyes of this Nature our Aduersaries do shape a double Answere For either they vnderstand those places of the True Body and Bloud of Christ as it is in Heauen and receaued by vs by faith or else of the signes thereof which we truly and really doe take in the Eucharist But if we doe obserue intensly and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages it will be euident that neither part of this Answere is in any sort satisfactory For first that the Fathers meaning is not that we take his Body as it is in Heauen by faith is proued in that you shall for the most part euer find that in such places they teach that we receaue it from the Altar or at the Priests hands and consequently not as it is in Heauen or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body and Bloud or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words as doe force the Place to be interpreted of his Body and Bloud as it is vnder the externall formes and not as it is in Heauen And as touching the second Branch of their former Euasion to wit that the said Testimonyes are not to be interpreted of the Bread and Wyne signifying and figuring his Body Bloud in which they say Christs Body is symbolically taken is no lesse manifest the reason whereof being this
Because the words of those Testimonyes doe almost euer intimate some effect or efficacy of the Eucharist which to Bread and Wyne is incompetent as that it nourisheth our Soules or that it is the Price or Pledge of our Saluation or hope of our Resurrection or that it suffered for our Sinnes or some other such spirituall worke energy or operation whereof the bare Symboles of the Eucharist are not capable Thus may the obseruant Reader cleerely discerne the feeblenes of this their Answere and conclude with himselfe that such Testimonyes of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christs Body as it is in Heauen since the Words precedent or consequent restraine it to the Altar Nor of Bread and Wyne Symbolically and Sacramentally representing the Body and Bloud of Christ since Bread and Wyne cannot produce the spirituall Effects there specified so cleare it is that our Sectary in approaching to answere the said Sentences doth ineuitably runne vpon some one circumstantiall pyke or other of the said Authorityes wherewith he is most dangerously wounded That this my Reply may be more cleerely conceaued I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serue as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature The like couse of exemplifying I will obserue in all other kynds of their Answers and though such places were afore alledged yet here they are produced vpon a different occasion S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desiderauit vnde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis Only she desired that remēbrance of her might be made at thy Altar from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed or giuen by the which the hand-writing which was contrary to vs is defaced Out of this place we proue as we shewed aboue that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine is vnderstood the Body and Bloud of Christ Now heere it cānot be answered that the Body of Christ is meant as it is in Heauen because he saith that this Victima is dispensed or distributed from the Altar which thing agreeth not with his Body as it is in Heauen Neither can it be said as some seeme to interprete it of the Bread and Wine Typically signifying the Body and Bloud of Christ in that the Bread Wine was not the Sacrifice which was offered for vs vpon the Crosse And thus much of this first kind of our Aduersaries Answere Another forme of euading the pressures weights of the Fathers Authorityes is this That if in the alleaged Authority there can be found but any one word which is to be accepted not litterally but figuratiuely metaphorically or in some other forced construction then our Allegoricall Sectarie inferres therupon that the whole Sentence though most strōgly fortifying the Catholike doctrine heerin is to be taken figuratiuely not literally vrging that seeing both the points are cōtayned in one and the same Sentence or Period and that the one by our confession is not to be vnderstood literally why should the other obiected by vs be taken literally The Transparency of which Answere is easily seene through And first we are to know and obserue that euery thing which is not deliuered in plaine and literall words proceedeth not alwayes from an intention of Rhetoricke or Amplification in the Writer but often euen out of Necessity since somtimes we are forced therunto as not hauing that natiue habit of speach words wherwith otherwise we would apparrell the true conceipts of our Mind which scarsitie of apt wordes may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers yet hence it followeth not that all the rest adioyned therto must partake of the same want Againe whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words or out of a delicacy and choicenesse of a Mans pen yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent since by this reason we may inferre that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleaged as literally to proue or disproue any thing and why because some adioyning parcell therof is set downe in a Figuratiue kind of speach And thus we cannot alleadge contrary to all ancient Expositours that Text in the Apocalyps These are they which haue washed their Robes haue made them white in the Bloud of the Lambe cap. 7. to proue that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saued by the Bloud of Christ because forsooth in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors to wit the long Robes wherby are signified the Bodyes of the Saints and the word Lambe meaning therby Christ and therfore it should follow vpō the said ground that the word Bloud must also be here a Metaphor not signifying bloud indeed and so excluding the Bloud of Christ frō our saluation but some other thing shaddowed therby Yea which is more if this kind of Answere were solide we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalmes literally to be expounded of Christ or his Church in which Authorityes we Christians mainly insist against the Iewes since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes Schemes and other Figuratiue speaches And yet we see that it is most incongruous to maintaine that any whole Psalme is to be interpreted Allegorically because we find certaine Figures in some Passages thereof Thus it is euident how defectiue this Answere is which consisteth in resoluing the Fathers sentences into Figuratiue Senses But our Aduersaries boldnesse stayeth not heere in deprauing after this sort Mans word but extendeth it selfe to corrupt in like manner by ouer much origenizing and mystically interpreting it Gods sacred word This second Forme of Answere I will illustrate with this Testimony following S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs thus writeth Num vides Panem num Vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne nec cogites Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread doest thou see Wyne doe these things goe into the common passage as other meates Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as Waxe being put in the fire is assimilated or made like to it no part of the substance remayning or redounding So heere imagine that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body Of this place I haue entreated aboue But heere now we are to take notice that our Aduersaries labour to delude the force therof by answering that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi are not to be vnderstood literally for so they should be false in that the externall Formes of Bread and Wyne which are conteyned in the word Mysteria are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ for we see that the Accidences of
he is in Heauen If so why doe these Anti-Saints and Enemyes of Gods Seruants at other times spend themselues out in such estuation and heate of rayling inuectiues the scumne of base malice and proper Scene of too many of our Sectaryes against the Catholikes for performing that which now for their owne aduantage in a different example though like reason they willingly yet falsly obtrude vpon the Fathers thus if the Sacramentary do escape the sword of Iehu yet shall the sword of Elisaeus slay him and thus we see how weake this his answere is wherein his gayne heere made is like to the gayne of ground which a running Water causeth getting no more on the one side of the Banke then it looseth on the other This their Answere shal be exemplified in that Testimony of S. Dionysius who lib. de Hierarch Eccles c. 3. part 3. thus writeth O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacramentum obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi perspicuè nobis fac appareas nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari aperto tuae Lucis fulgore imple O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open or remoue the couerings of thy signifying signes and make thy selfe to appeare clearly to vs and fill our spirituall Eyes with the open Fulgor of thy Light Wherto Peter Martyr lib. contra Garainer part 1. obiect 150. answereth according to the tenour of the former Euasion Where we see besides what is already said that Dionysius doth not heere inuoke Christ only before the Sacrament as the Catholikes do before his Image but he doth inuoke the Sacrament it self desireth such things of it as are required only of God from whence it followeth that Dionysius thought that Christ being God and Man was contained truly in the Sacrament or rather that Christ with the externall Symbols togeather was the Sacrament The sixt and last Ward wherwith our Aduersaries seeke to put by the dāgerously pointed Sentences of the Fathers is appropriated only to such their Authorities wherin it is affirmed that in the celebratiō of the Eucharist there is a true Reall Sacrifice performed meaning the offering vp by the words and hands of the Priest the very Body Bloud of Christ to his Father Now to these Authorities they frame an answere wouen of seuerall threeds either of ignorant or wilfull mistakings For they say that the Eucharist might be termed by the Fathers a Sacrifice for diuers reasons And first by reason of the Oblation of the Faithfull who in the Supper of our Lord do consecrate themselues to God Or of the Preaching of the death of our Lord. Or of the diuers exercises of Piety as of Faith Hope Penitency Charity c. or of Prayers or of Thanksgiuing to God or finally of the Almes all which seuerall points were particulerly performed say they in those former ancient Tymes in the Celebration of the Eucharist which may be rightly termed Spirituall Sacrifices Now that these Actions supposing that in a Metaphoricall construction they might be so styled and were vsed then are not vnderstood in the former passages of the Fathers I thus proue in that those Doctours plainly teach that the Body and Bloud of Christ is the Sacrifice which is offered vp in the Church but those former Actions cannot be meant and signified by any kind of speach euer heard of by the Body and Bloud of Christ As for example S. Ambrose writeth in Psal 38. Etsi Christus nunc non videatur offerre ipse tamen offertur in terris cùm corpus eius offertur Though Christ now may be thought not to offer vp or sacrifice yet he himselfe is heere offered vp vpon earth when his body is offered vp Which wordes can in no sort be applyed to those former actions specified to be in the Administration of the Eucharist Againe the Fathers teach that onely Priests and no others can offer vp this Sacrifice Thus doth S. Hierome epist ad Euagrium yea the Councell of Nyce it selfe exempteth Deacons from offering vp the Sacrifice and Tertullian l. de velandis Virginum Women in generall and Epiphanius haeres 79. particulerly the Virgin Mary but it is manifest that Prayers Almes Laudes giuing of Thanks an internall offering vp of the Soule of all which points the former answere is aggregated are offered vp and performed by the whole People much more then they may be by Deacons A second Branch of their Euasions to the said Authorities is deduced from the Etymologies of the word Sacrificium or Sacrificare which is but Sacra facere therfore say they because the Consecration or Distribution of the Eucharist is Sacra actio the Action or Celebratiō of it is called Sacrificium and the Minister who performeth the same may be said Sacrificare which Grammaticall or Dictionary Answere vnworthy indeed the learned Eares of the Iudicious is thus refelled First because in all Etymologies we are to respect non tam à quo quà m ad quid not so much the Primatiues or Originalls from whence they are deriued as the applications wherunto by vse and custome they are particulerly tied And thus answerably hereto we graunt that Baptisme is Sacra actio since it is Lauacrum Regenerationis and yet we cannot read in any place of their Writings where Baptisme is called Sacrificium or he who baptizeth is said Sacrificare Againe though euery sacred Action might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and abusiuè be called a Sacrifice yet this would aduantage our Aduersaries nothing since in the former testimonies of the Fathers not the transient Action of celebrating the Eucharist but the permanent thing which is sacrificed to wit the Body and Bloud of Christ is called by them the Sacrifice Lastly though by this sleight the Sacramentaries might seeme to wrench the ordinary and naturall construction of all such places where the word Sacrificium or Sacrificare is found yet this is impertinent to diuers passages of the Fathers aboue cited wherein the words Oblatio or Offerre are As that besides many others of S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitat c. 14. Quid gratiùs offerri aut suscipi possit quà m caro Sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri The third and last kynd of their expounding the former Authorities is that the Supper of our Lord is called a Sacrifice or an Oblation because it includeth in it selfe a certaine Commemoration or Representation of a true Sacrifice viz. of the death of Christ To this we reply that it is true that the Action of the Eucharist is a Similitude or Memoriall of the Sacrifice of the Crosse yet hence it followeth not that the Fathers therefore thought not that a true and proper sacrifice was offered vp in the celebration of the Eucharist Now that the Fathers did belieue the Eucharist to be a true Sacrifice and not only a representatiue Sacrifice is clearely euicted out of these ensuing obseruations First because Baptisme is a Sacrament representing the death of Christ
represent him truly when he spake those former words in the Mount A second Point which we are to obserue in the state of this Question is That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is by the Scripture sometimes called Bread for so we find it termed by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Panis quem frangimus c. The Bread which we breake is it not the participation of the Body of Christ Now this appellatiō may be for a double reason First in that it is an accustomed Dialect of Scripture to call a thing by that name which afore it was or of which it is made as hertofore I haue shewed Thus we read Gen. 3. that Eue is called the Bone of Adam because she was made therof And Exod 7. the Serpents of Moyses are termed Wands because the Wands were turned into Serpents For this very reason we find that the Eucharist is somtimes called Bread by the Fathers which places our Aduersaries are not ashamed to obiect against vs. Examples heerof we haue in Origen l. 8. contra Celsum where he calles the Eucharist Panes oblatos Bread which are offered vp in Sacrifice where instantly after he shewes that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ therby distinguishing it from other bread In like sort the Eucharist is called by Irenaeus l. 4. contra Haeres c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meate or bread sanctified or made the Eucharist In this sense also the Eucharist is called bread by Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph Chrysostome also homil 24. in prior ad Cor calleth the Bread the Body of Christ meaning bread consecrated not common Bread Finally S. Augustine c. 19. l. de fide ad Petrum calles the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread Wine The second reason why the Eucharist may be called Bread by the Scripture is in regard of the similitude which it hath with bread I meane in nourishing the soule as the bread nourisheth the body And in this sense it is so called in Iohn 6. Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And by reason also of the said resemblance we find the Eucharist termed Bread by the Fathers for Dionysius Eccles hierarch c. 3. part 3. calles the Sacrament Diuine and Heauenly Bread for the same reason Tertullian l. 3. contra Marcion termes the Eucharist Bread to wit the bread of Life for there the Trope is that the Body of Christ is called Bread because it nourisheth like bread and not that the bread is there called the Body Betweene which two Propositions there is great difference since the first which is commonly vsed by the Fathers to wit the Body of Christ is Bread presupposeth a true being there of Christs Body but yet in regard of nourishing our soules with some resemblance of bread wheras the other Proposition to wit the bread is the Body of Christ neither hurteth nor aduantageth our cause since therto is only required that bread be in the Eucharist as far forth as belong to signification that is that the externall formes therof be there for by reason of the Accidences only the bread and wine do signify thus may Bread be said to be some where in respect of it Accidences only and not of it Substance though the body of Christ hath not any such relation of being I meane only in regard of it Accidences not of it Substance And heere we may see how our Sectaries dissent from the Fathers since they alluding to the nourishment therof doe figuratiuely call the body of Christ Bread wheras the other with reference only to a naked representation do figuratiuely call the Bread the Body of Christ And thus much of these two Reasons why the Scriptures and the Fathers doe sometimes call the Eucharist Bread or Wyne Whereunto I might adioyne a third cause in that the Scripture and consequently the Fathers doth often call things as they externally appeare to the Eye So the Scripture as aboue I shewed calles Angells which appeared in humane shape Men the Brasen Serpent a Serpent c. Wherefore the Eucharist may be tearmed Bread and Wyne either by the Scripture or the Fathers in that to the Eye it seemeth only as Bread and Wine To this point I thinke good to range this one Note touching the writings of the Fathers which is that some of the Fathers though most seldome do say that the substances of the externall Symboles doe remaine after Consecration Where they are to be vnderstood that they speake of the essence and nature of the Accidences and not of the substances of Bread and Wyne An example whereof we find in Theodoret Dialog 2. who there teacheth that the Mysticall signes after consecration do remaine in their former substances figure and forme Now this is meant of the nature of the accidences and not of the Substance of bread and wyne This is proued diuers wayes first because the two Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which Theodoret being a greeke Father heere vseth containe euery kind of essence and nature aswell of accidences as of substances Secondly because Theodoret doth expound himselfe in the words following saying that we see and touch the said colour and forme which words haue necessarily reference only to the outward Accidences Thirdly in that we Catholikes doe vrge this very place in proofe of the Reall Presence for heere Theodoret plainly saith that the Body of Christ is to be vnderstood to be belieued and adored in the Eucharist and therefore to be vnderstood belieued adored saith he because the bread of the Eucharist to wit the bread consecrated is truly that which is vnderstood belieued and adored The same exposition doth a Testimony alledged out of Gelasius admit lib. de duabus naturis which testimony we also produce in that it teacheth that the bread is changed into a diuine substance by the working of the Holy Ghost Thus we see that the Sacramentaries are not ashamed so needfull and begging of proofes is Heresy out of the least appearance of aduantage or naked sound of wordes to retort the very same sayings of the Fathers against vs in which we for the fortifying of our Catholike doctrine do vehemently insist Belike they thinke that the Fathers were irresolute in their faith or that their writings doe stand according to the Prospectiue of ech Mans humor so as the Sense may that way looke as euery Eye behoulding the words would haue it Heere now I will end this consideration of the Eucharist being called bread with a short animaduersion of our Aduersaries petulant frowardnes discouered herein who lighting vpon some few straying passages where the Eucharist is called Bread presently as if they had found another Sparta to enrich with their discourse they crie out in great prodigality of words that it is nothing but materiall bread and yet when in euery leafe or page of
then was agreeing to the Institution of our Lord for their Supper maketh shew of an iterated or at least renewed Sacrifice c. for they haue imitated more nearely the Iewish manner of Sacrifising then either Christ ordeyned or the Ghospell could well suffer And in another g Another place lib. de vera Eccles reformat place Caluin thus proceedeth Solenne est nebulonibus â—stis c. It is an accustomed manner with these Knaues so raylingly he tearmes the Catholikes to scrape togeather what faults soeuer they find in reading the Fathers Therefore when they obiect that the place ef Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus of the Sacrifice of the Masse and the Oblation of Melchisedech in like sort is so interpreted by Athanasius Ambrose Augustine Arnobius I answere in few wordes that the same Wryters do also in other places vnderstand by bread the body of Christ but so ridiculously as both Reason Truth force vs to dissent from them Thus Caluin Neither do we find KeÌ„mtius h Kemnitius pag. 798. to be much lesse sparing in censuring the Fathers concerning this point for he thus pronounceth of them Neque Veterum qualescumque sententiae c. Neither in this Controuersie the sentences of the ancient Fathers but the Canonicall Scripture is to be the Rule and Square of faith And againe reprehending the Fathers for calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice he saith that the so naming of it is de Naeuis quorumdam Veterum And thus much concerning our Aduersaries charging the Fathers of euery age euen from the Apostles to S. Augustine euen insimulating S. Augustine himselfe within the same supposed Errour with the doctrine of the Sacrifice And therfore no meruayle if Sebastianus i Sebastianus Francus lib. de abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Eccles Francus an eminent Protestant did peremptorily pronounce that Statimpost Apostolos c. Presently after the Apostles all things are turned vpside downe the Supper of the Lord is transformed into a Sacrifice And yet Hospinian not content heerwith proceedeth further saying k Iam tum primo in Histor Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. â—â—m tum primo illo saeculo viuentibus adhuc Apostolis c. The Diuell in the very first age and when the Apostles werâ— yet liuing gaue subtily more to this Sacrament then to Baptisme and by litle and litle withdrew Men from the first forme therof And thus far of the Protestants acknowledgment of the Fathers minds touching this point of the Sacrifice Now to come to the last Point which is to shew out of the ProtestaÌ„ts Writings that the Fathers did in plaine and direct wordes without the help of any inferences though neuer so immediate and necessary teach the doctrine of the Reall Presence First then to omit Gregory the Great as not being within the first fiue hundred yeares condemned by Doctour Humfrey heerin we find S. Chrysostome reprehended by the m The Centurists Cent. 5. col 517. Centurists because Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare In like sort Eusebius Emyssâ—nus is charged by the Centurists in that n Parùm commodè Cent. 4. c. 10. col 985. Parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit He spake vnprofitably of Transubstantiation Neither doth S. Ambrose o Ambrose escape Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. escape the like rebuke of the Centurists since he is affirmed by theÌ„ in the bookes of the Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose to confirme the doctrine of Transubstantiation which Father for the very same is taxed by p By Oecolampadius Lib. epist Oecolampad Zuinglij l. 3. Oecolampadius S. Cyril in like manner is heynously traduced by Peter Martyr for his doctrine of the Reall Presence for thus Martyr saith q I will not so easily Peter Martyr l. Epistol epist ad Bezam annexed to his Common places I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril who affyrmed such a Communion as therby euen the substance of the Flesh and Bloud of Christ is ioyned to the blessing for so he calleth the holy bread c. Martyr also r In another place In his second Alphabeticall Table annexed to his Common places of the Additions vnder the letter H. at the word Heresy in another place thus saith The Heresie of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ As also in a third s In a third place Epist ad Caluinum place he further reproueth the doctrine of Cyril and of diuers other Fathers in this point S. Cyprian also is charged in the booke ascribed to Vrsinus intituled Commonefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Coena who there t There writeth pag. 211. 218. writeth thus In Cyprian are many things which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation And hence it is that the Sermon of Cyprian de Coena Domini wherin he writeth so fully in defence of Transubstantiation is said by our Aduersaries to be but counterfait And yet notwithstanding D. Fulke against the Rhemish u The Rhemish Testament in 1. Cor. c. 11. Testament acknowledgeth the authour therof to be in the time not much inferiour to Cyprian and there produceth Authority out of the same Booke Lastly Ignatius is acknowledged by x By Kemnitius Exam. part 1. pag. 94. Kemnitius to haue confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that eminent place of his Eucharistias Oblationes non admittunt c. already herefore alledged Now seeing the voluntary Confessions of our Aduersaries concerning the Fathers Iudgements in this point are so cleare I cannot but approue the ingenuous playne and impoliticke dealing of some other Protestants who in regard of the truth hereof freely confesse the further Antiquity of this Doctrine And according hereto we find that Antony de y Antony de Adamo In his Anatomie of the Masse pag. 236. Adamo a markeable Protestant saith I haue not hitherto beene able to know when this Opinion of the Reall and Bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne And in like sort Adamus z Adamus Francisci In margarita Theolog. pag. 256. Francisci another Protestant confesseth no lesse thereof saying Commentum Papistarum c. The Papists Inuention touching Transubstantiation crept early into the Church Thus haue I heere set downe the Fathers Iudgments in this high Mysterie confessed by the most Learned though to their owne Preiudice of our Aduersaries by the foure former wayes to wit by acknowledging that the Fathers did teach the Reseruation the Adoration the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ech of these necessarily inuoluing our Catholike Faith and lastly the Conclusion it selfe in playne direct and literall words Wherefore if any of the Sacramentaries shall seeme to haue iust reason to vse hereat the complaint of that Apostata a Anti-Constantyne Thus Theodoret recordeth Iulian to say l. 3. c. 8. Anti-Constantine I meane Lucian We are wounded with our owne quills out of our bookes they take armour which in fight they vse against vs. Let such remember that Truth hath a Soueraignty
though veyled ouer with those formes And thus is S. Basil to be vnderstood in sua Liturgia who calles the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figure or Representation of the Body of Christ And in this sense all the Sacraments of the new Law may be called Figures or Representations because they are externall signes representing and withall working an inward Grace represented A Change whereby that sacred Body at the first Institution of the Eucharist being yet mortall and passible was then receaued as n Immortal For as it was at the first deliuered to the Apostles it was in that spirituall manner vnder the externall formes as now at is after his death immortall and impassible A Change where the externall formes of the things changed doe by themselues after a sort o After a sort subiect The Accidences of Bread and Wine are said to be in themselues because they are not in a liquo suppofito or subiect and yet they do not truly subsist by any positiue act but are in Corpor◠Christi as they are preserued there though not by way of inherencie Now where our Aduersaries do vsually obiect that it is of the essence of an Accident to inhere in the Subiect and therfore the Accidences of Bread Wine must either inhere in the body of Christ which all Catholikes deny or else in the bread and wine and consequently no Transubstantiation I answere hereto that all chiefe Philosophers deny it to be of the essence of an Accident for Aristotle himselfe lib. ◠de Anima text 9. saith Aliud est magnitude aliud magnitudinis esse Now if the existence of an Accident be distinguished from it essence much more is the inherency thereof which is but the manner of it existency Besides if Inherency were of the essence of an Accident Aristotle would neuer haue demaunded 4. Physic text 58. whether that space were supposed to be vacuum where there should be only sound and colour intimating thereby that though by naturall Reason an Accident cannot exist without a subiect yet that inherency is not of the essence of colour or sound since otherwise his demaund should be absurd and idle for who should suppose Colour or Sound would necessarily presuppose a subiect and therfore a Body subsist and yet are not substances they inhere not and yet are Accidents they are in themselues in respect of negation and not of position in another by way of preseruation not of inherency A Change whereby the Testament made being Christs p Christs Bloud As the Bloud of Christ is taken for that Bloud which was in the Chalice vnder the externall species of wine so it is a Sacrament and consequently a Will or Testament But as his Bloud is taken for that Bloud which was shed vpon the Crosse so is his Testament sealed and established in the same Bloud And therfore according to this double acception of Christs Bloud we find that S. Luke did speake in these words Hic Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo where by the word Calix is meant Bloud and consequently the Testament Bloud was yet sealed in his Bloud A Change where the q Externall Formes We hold that when the Externall Species are corrupted the same substantiall Forme succeeds which would naturally haue succeeded if the Bread and Wine had not bene changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And yet we teach not that this commeth by any Generation for in euery Generation there is eadem materia numero vnder both the Termini or Formes which heere is not for the same Materia prima which was in the Body of Christ is not in the new introduced forme Now then though it doth not proceed from any preexistent Matter yet it cannot be said to be Created for Creation properly hath no reference or relation as proceeding meerly of Nothing to any former thing whatsoeuer but heere this new forme hath a necessary relation and dependency of the corruption of the former species of bread and wine for if the said formes were not and after became not corrupted this new substantiall forme would not succeed Lastly we teach that this new substance is substituted or brought in by God euen in that very Instant when the Formes of Bread and Wine cease to be And this neuerthelesse is not accomplished by any second and new Miracle for euen as when the matter of a Mans Bodie being sufficiently disposed God doth immediately create and infuse the soule and yet this is not called a Miracle because the order of things already set downe by God doth require it In like sort when the alteration of the species of Bread Wine is proceeded so far that then are made present requisite dispositions as the course of things requires to introduce some forme then doth God in that very instant minister the matter and so the substantiall forme is introduced Now heere we are to note that when any part of these formes are corrupted the Body of Christ either in whole or in part is not extinct therby but only ceaseth to be vnder those corrupted formes still continuing whole vnder the rest not corrupted and if all the formes be corrupted then it ceaseth to be there at all not much otherwise then when a Mans Leg is cut off the soule which was in the Leg dyeth not for if it dyed then he who wanted a leg should want a part of his soule but only ceaseth to informe that part informing all the rest and if all parts of the Body were disioynted asunder then the Soule not dying ceaseth only to informe any of the said parts externall Formes being corrupted a new substantiall Forme is introduced and yet heere is no Generation it is not produced out of any preexistent Matter and yet no Creation it is exhibited immediately and only by God and yet without any new Miracle To conclude A Change see heere repose in Motiō wrought without Change since the Body of our Sauiour suffered no alteration therby for it r Relinquished Nothing For Christs Body in the Sacrament enioyeth all those essentiall perfections of a true Body which afore it had in Heauen only it receaueth a new relation to the species of Bread and Wine as it is in the Sacrament which it hath not as it is in Heauen and consequently it is inuested thereby with some other circumstances accompanying that it existence vnder it species as to be freed from all extension of place as also to be freed from that relation of place which it hath as it is in Heauen relinquished nothing which afore it had but acquired some things which afore it had not Thus though what he heere is he was not yet what he was he heere is Now out of this Passage it appeareth how the Catholikes dissent herein both from the Lutherans from the Sacramentaries From the Lutherans for though they acknowledge the true presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet they teach that no reall Change
this Answere it should not be lawfull for a sinner to looke vpoÌ„ the picture of Christ nor to heare the word of God since both these do represent and offer Christ vnto vs. Hence then we may conclude that it was not the Apostles meaning that therfore they did sinne who did receaue the Eucharist vn worthily because it doth represent Christ manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans Corpus Domini And againe he there faith that such an one reus erit Corporis Sanguinis Domini In all which words the often and reuerent ingemination of flesh of bloud of the Body of Christ of the most dreadfull comminations and threats to the vnworthy receauers therof may seeme well to Paraphrase and comment our Sauiours owne words and to free them froÌ„ all ambiguous acceptation Yet do they most pertinaciously persist in their former Allegoricall Constructions abastarding therby the natiue and genuine sense therof Let vs not only fortify our doctrine with the warrant of Gods word but also repell all weake assaults forces gathered out of certaine wrested Texts of the said Word for the impugning of this our faith for thus do our Aduersaries bandie Scripture against Scripture as if the Pennes of the Euangelists and the Apostles had at vnawares made some blots or blurres of contradictions or mistakings Now to this their drift many Passages are vrged by them As first diuers q Diuers examples Many examples of this kind are alledged by the Sacramentaries as Agnus est Pascha id est Transitus Exod. 1â— Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. c. 10. Baptisâ—â—â—s est lauacrum regenerationis Tit. 3. Septem boues sunt septem anni Gen. 14. Ego sum ostium Ioan. 20. and diuers other such like To these I answere First that most of these places are sâ—lfly expounded And first as touching that Petra erat Christus These words according to the exposition of Ambrose Chrysostome and others vpon this place are not to be vnderstood of the materiall Rock which signified Christ for that followed not the Iewes but of the spirituall and inuisible Rock which prouided all necessary thingâ— for the Iewes which Rock was properly and truly Christ as God Now though the Trope be that Christ is there called the Rock yeâ— by the addition of the word Spiritualis the Trope is explaned and therfore this Proposition Spiritualis petra erat Christus is taken properly and not figuratiuely To that other Baptisâ—â—â— est lauacrum regenerationis I say that Baptisme doth not signify only here the Lauacre of Regeneration but it truly washeth the soule of Man from sinne if the effect therof be noâ— hindered by our indisposition To that Agnus est Pascha we reply that Agnus Paschalâ—s the Paschall Lambe is not heere Tropically called the Pascha because it signified Transitum but it was called the Pascha properly no otherwise then as the Festiuall Day was called Pascha from the word deriued à Transitu Domini because the Lamb was then sacrificed and that Day was made Festiuall in remeÌ„brance of that Transitus or Passâ—ouer To that Septem boues sunt septem anni we say it is a Parâ—ble and in such Parables Similitudes and Vâ—â—ions the verbe Est is â—â—ken for Significat and yet without any Trope the reason heerof being because as is aboue touched thâ— whole essence of all such things iâ— plâ—ced in signification And therfore the sense of these words is noâ— that the seauen Oxen did signifie the seauen yeares but that the Oxen appeared in vision to signify those yeares Secondly we answere that in all examples â—lledged by our Aduersaries there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope Figure but of the words of the Institution there followeth no explication Thirdly in most of the examples alledged by our Aduersaries for there are diuers others produced by them euer prâ—dicatâ—â— dispatatum de disparato that is that which is of a most different nature is said of another thing of a like different nature â—â— in those Boues sunt Anni Christus est Ostium c. for seeing that in these and such like the Propositions cannot be by any meanes properly and literally true we are forced to expound the same by Tropes and Figures But in these words Hoc est Corpus meum there is no such kind of strange and vnnaturall predication at least in the appearance of the words themselues Lastly if we should admit that in the examples produced Est is taken for Significat yet seing this verbe is more often taken in it owne naturall signification then otherwise it followeth that it should be so taken in the words of the Institution rather then without sufficient reason to the contrary to be expounded figuratiuely Examples to countermaund the naturall construction of the words of the Institution wherin by the word Est is vnderstood Significat In like sort they obiect where it is said That the Eucharist is to be taken in r In Remembrance of Christ Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe this in Remembrance of mee From hence it followeth not that because we are commaunded to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ that therefore Christs Body is not there really present For the meaning of these words is set downe by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. saying Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat you shall shew the death of our Lord vâ—till he shall come Therefore we are coÌ„manded to take the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lords death and Passion which is not present but absent or rather it is not but was Remembrance of Christ That Christ shall not leaue s Not leaue Heauen Act. 3. Oportet illum Caelum suscipere vsque ad tempus restitutionis omnium VVhom meaning Christ Heauen must receaue vntill the tyme of the restitution of all things It followeth not from hence that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen Ergo his Body is not in the Eucharist for we teach that Christ ought not to leaue Heauen or to descend with a Locall Motion when he is in the Eucharist for heere no question iâ— made of the Article of Ascension but rather of Christs Omnipotency to wit whether Christ by his Diuine Power may place himselfe in seuerall places at one Tyme of which Point it is sufficiently treated aboue in the first Part of this Treatise Heauen till the consummation of the world That Christ to shew himselfe to haue a true Body consisting of flesh and bones c. would haue it touched t Haue it touched Pâ—lpate videte quia Spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere Handle and feele for a Spirit hath not slesh and bones as you see mee to haue Luc. 24. To argue thus It is felt and seene Ergo It is a body is a good consequence and this is the force of our Sauiours words But it is no good sequele to argue thus negatiuely as our
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
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
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
id est animam c. He that laid downe a greater thing for thee to wit his soule why should he disdayne to deliuer to thee his Body Therfore let vs Priestes as well as others heare how admirable a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I beseech you and let vs tremble therat for he hath deliuered his Flesh to vs he hath laid downe himselfe to be sacrificed And the same Father l. 3. de Sacerdotio O miraculum ô Dei benignitate c. O the Miracle ô the goodnesse of God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the very same instant of tyme is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Gaudentius tract 2. in Exod. saith Quod annuntiatum est credas c. Thou maist belieue that which is shewed thee for that which thou takest is the body of that Heauenly Bread and the bloud of that sacred Vine for when he deliuered conseerated Bread and Wine to his Disciples he said Hoc est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus Let vs belieue him whom heretofore we haue belieued for Truth knoweth not to lye S. Ephrem lib. De Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5. thus writeth Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia Si ista curiosè rimaris iam non fidelis sed curiosus vocaberis Esto fidelis atque innocens participa immaculato corpori Domini tui fide plenissima certus quòd agnum ipsum integrum comedis Why doest thou search things which are inscrutable If thou doest weigh these things curiously then thou shalt be called not faithfull but curious Be thou Faithfull and Innocent participate thou of the immaculate Body of thy Lord being assured through a most strong faith that thou doest eate the very whole Lambe it selfe And the same Father after in the said booke Hoc sanè excedit omnem admirationem c. This verily exceedeth all Wonder all Thought and all Speach which the only Begotten Sonne of God Christ our Sauiour hath performed to vs. He hath giuen to vs fire and the spirit to eate and drinke to wit his Body and Bloud Heere the Myracle exceeding Mans capacity the difficulty of belieuing it and the inscrutablenesse therof do proue that the Eucharist in his Iudgment was not only materiall bread signifying the body of Christ S. Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 2. de Paschate thus writeth Absque confusione dubio come de corpus sanguinem bibe si saltem vitae desiderio teneris neque sermonibus qui de carne habentur fidem deneges neque ob passionem offendaris Constans esto firmus stabilis in nulla re propter Aduersariorum sermones fluctues Eate his body and drinke his bloud without any confusion or doubt if at least thou haue any desire of health neither deny thy faith herein for any speaches which may proceed of flesh neither be thou scandalized by reason of his Passion Be thou constant firme and stable neither fluctuate nor doubt thou by reason of any speaches of the Aduersaries where we are to note that he persuadeth his Reader to this so great a Mystery though the Aduersaries to wit the Gentile Philosophers doe scoffe thereat meaning in that the Christians belieued that they did eate the Flesh of Christ which cohortation of Nazianzene were needlesse if only we doe eate the flesh of Christ in signe and Figure S. Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. thus writeth Considerandum est quomodo fieri queat vt cùm vnum illud corpus assiduè per totum orbem terrarum tot fidelium millibus impertiatur totum cuiusque perpartem euadat in seipso totum permaneat It is to be considered how it can be effected that that very one same Body can dayly throughout the whole world be distributed to so many thousands of the faithfull it notwithstanding remayning whole in it selfe and whole or entyre in euery part But this were idely demanded if the Body of Christ were eaten only in signe since there is no difficulty in apprehending the eating of it in signe and figure S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 5. saith Deinde ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis quòd corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem numquid debemus de eius fide tâ—stâ—ficatione dubitare Et infra Dicit tibi Sacerdos Corpus Christi tu dicis Amen Hoc est verum Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus Furthermore euen our Lord himselfe doth testify vnto vs that we take his Body and Bloud What ought we to doubt of his credit and testimony And afterwards The Priest sayth to thee The Body of Christ thou sayst Amen This is true therefore let thy affection hold that which thy tongue confesseth The first Councell of Nyce as it appeareth in the Acts of the said Councell thus saith Item etiam hic in diuina Mensa c. Furthermore in this diuine Table let vs not only with humility consider the Bread the Cup but lifting vp our mind in faith let vs vnderstand that in that sacred Table there is placed that Lambe of God who taketh away the sinns of the world that he is vnbloudily sacrificed by Priests and we truly taking his precious Body Bloud do belieue the taking therof to be a signe of our Resurrection and therfore we take not in a great quantitie but in a small that therby we may know it to be taken not for society but for sanctification In these words the CouÌ„cell perswades vs that we should not rest in the formes of Bread Wine as if nothing were there else but that we are to consider that there is the true Body and Bloud of Christ though to our Eye it seemeth otherwise Now that this is the meaning of the CouÌ„cell appeareth First because it there teacheth that we do take Preciosum Corpus eius verè his precious Body truly where the word Verè doth beare an opposition to that which is in Figure Secondly in that the Councell saith that the Lambe of God is sacrificed by Priests vpon the holy Table which wordes cannot extend to Christ as he is in heauen only Thirdly in that the Councell saith that we are to apprehend by faith that the Lambe of God is placed vpon that holy Table therfore the Councell did teach that Christ himselfe was vpon the Altar and not only in Heauen as our Aduersaries do hould So forcible and strong is this graue Testimony of so Ancient and Reuerend a Councell in defence of our Catholike doctrine heerin OF THEIR TESTIMONIES EXPRESSING The effect of the Eucharist and the veneration exhibited to the same CHAP. VI. THE fifth Mount of the Fathers Authorities in this Controuersie is gathered or heaped togeather out of such their Sentences coÌ„teyning the Effect Vertue and Energy of the Eucharist as also their care reuerence and veneration exhibited to the same Concerning the first point they teach that it is the
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
Bread and Wyne remaine euen after Consecration seeing then say they that these words are not to be taken literally but figuratiuely therefore the whole sentence aforegoing is also to be taken figuratiuely and not literally And thus they seeke to euade this most pregnant Testimony whereby the Word Mysteria is vnderstood that the Substance only of the Bread and Wyne are consumed A third Branch of their Euasiōs shootes out to such Authorityes of the Fathers as refer the effectuating of this Mystery to Gods sole Omnipotency marshalling it in regard of the difficulties discouered therein with the abstrusest points of Christianity and ranging it by reason of the great Miracle there exhibited with the greatest Miracles euer performed by God Now their Answere heerto is that the Eucharist is wrought by the Omnipotency of God for seeing it is a Sacrament not Man but God only and consequently his Omnipotency is heere necessarily exacted is able to institute the same How rouing and wandring this is from the scope and drift of the Fathers shall heere appeare First from the words of the Fathers themselues which doe euen depose a contrary meaning in them for they in those places alledged of this nature doe not assigne the Omnipotency of God to the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament for hereof they intimate for the most part not the least touch but to it as therein one Substance by force of certaine words is truly turned into another Substance Secondly the weaknesse of the former Answere appeareth in that we graunt that an Omnipotency indeed is required to the Institution of any Sacrament wherby it should iustifie a Man but our Aduersaries will not belieue that the Sacraments as Instruments of Christ where due preparation is do confer immediately Grace for this were in them an ouer-vnkind relinquishing of Sense and too straite an Entercourse Cōmerce with their vnderstanding but they teach that the Sacraments do iustify vs only by signifying and representation because say they they are made things to vs in the signification wherof we apprehend Christ by Faith And so their Omnipotency heere formally resteth in creating a new signification of a thing to wit that the naturall substance of the Sacraments should represent signify Christ whom afore his Institution therof they did not signify Now if Omnipotency must necessarily concurre to the making that one thing may signify another thing then by the said ground euery seely Ale-wife is Omnipotent in that her red Lattice or Bush at the doore things of themselues indifferent as not carrying any reference to her profession are made by her to be a sufficient Type Signe or Representation to the Passengers of the Ale which she hath to sell so cleare it is that a Reall change not an Imposition of a new signification requireth an Omnipotency Now as in the former I haue done I will instance this answere in some one authority S. Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. of which place I haue entreated aboue thus writeth Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro c. This Bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in outward shew but in nature is by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh Now what intimation is heere made to ascribe the Omnipotency of God heere expressed to the Eucharist only in that it is a Sacrament Or with what tecture or pretext of Reason can any such exorbitant cōstruction be heere forged since as is already proued an Omnipotency is required in the Institution of Sacraments that they may truely performe that which they do signify to wit that they do iustify Man but this efficacy of them our Sacramentaries do altogeather reiect but no Omnipotency is exacted to make that a thing may signify what afore it did not for this not only God but Man is able to performe Their fourth Answere belongeth to such places which preferre the Eucharist before the Iewish Types and Figures wherin Christ was as perfectly shaddowed and signified as in the Eucharist if there be nothing else there but Bread and Wine The insufficiency of the Sacramentaries Answere heerto made is fully and at large displayed in the Marginall References touching the diuersity of the Types of the Eucharist and the Eucharist it selfe to which a To which place Viz. the first Chapter of this second Tract place I referre the Reader partly as affecting heere expedition breuity and partly as being loath wearisomely to cloy with a needlesse iteration of one the same thing the fastidious eares of our curious Age. Another forme of their shuffling Answeres is that wherwith they labour to breake through all such Passages of the Fathers which do assigne any reuerence whatsoeuer to the Eucharist eyther of Adoration Inuocation or in any other sort To all which they giue vs this yawning heedlesse and doubtfull solution That if any such reuerence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist it was not terminated in the Eucharist it selfe but directed to Christ signified therein and so by the mediation of those earthly Elements transferred to him who is in Heauen no otherwise then when the Papists for thus do they particulerly instance praying before Images direct not their prayers to the Image but to Christ or the Saint represented therein But heere I would aske them what secret Intelligence they now comming so long after can haue of the Fathers minds and intentions heerin If they insist in the words we find no appearance of the least glance thereof if they call to mind the practise of the Church of those Ages the securest Scholie or Paraphrase of the Fathers writings it seales vp the Truth in our behalfe Furthermore I say that the Sacramentary is of a Lethargious and forgetfull constitution a point according to the old Oportet c. very disaduantagious to his profession or if not so then is he so Serpentinely affected against the Catholikes as that so he may be opposite to them he is content to be vnfaithfull to himselfe For at other times he ryots both in Pulpit and by Pen with great profusion of Words and Tyme telling such as will belieue him that the Catholikes doe pray to Pictures and place in them a kind of Diuinity whereas now he is content courteously to acknowledge the lawfull and religious practise of the Catholikes therein since he cannot cast any aspersion of Idolatry or superstition vpon vs but he is forced except he will receaue a more dangerous Wound to insimulate the Fathers within the said Errour Heere then I demand of them for they are most fugitiue and vncertaine in answering heereunto will they acknowledge the Fathers Reuerence Adoration and praying to the Eucharist it selfe why then do they longer so pertinaciously persist in defending their Sacramentarian doctrine Will they seeke by inflexions and wyndings to diuert the honor done to the Sacrament to Christ only represented therein as
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 Fathers workes vpon this matter they find it termed the Body and Bloud of Christ all such places or else we wrong them must needs be interpreted figuratiuely Thus insisting much in those phrases which are but rare in the Fathers and passing ouer with a censuring neglect such forme of speaches as most frequently occurre in their bookes A third Point which we hould in this high Mysterie is touching the effect therof of which much hath bene already deliuered only heere it will be necessary to recapitulate some of the former matter Heere we teach that though the end therof be principally to feed our Soules yet doth it giue a spirituall nourishmēt to our bodyes since our Bodyes therby are nourished to immortality taking euen frō the touch of Christs Flesh a certaine disposition to a glorious resurrection and immortall life sorting to that of Iohn c. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem c. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day Now though the Fathers in their Writings do conspire with the Scripture and vs heerin yet will our Aduersaries peruert such their Testmonies who finding that they say that the Eucharist doth nourish our bodyes somtimes without any further explication of the māner do therupō inforce that since Christs Body doth not nourish our bodies therfore only bread and wine and not his Body is in the Sacrament so materially and grossely do our Aduersaries mistake the Fathers iudgments heerin Examples of this we haue in many of the Fathers as Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haeres Nyssenus Orat. catechet c. 36 37. besides diuers others heertofore alleaged So as these very places ascribing according to their true exposition a greater vertue to the Eucharist then our Aduersaries will acknowledge may fully instruct vs as before is shewed at large that the Fathers belieued the very Body Bloud of Christ to be in the Eucharist A fourth Point also toucheth the efficacy of the Eucharist for we teach that the fruite and benefit therof consisteth not in delighting our Bodyes as corporall meates do but in nourishing and strengthening of our Soules and therfore in respect of the effect and fruite therof to eate the flesh of Christ is to belieue in him to remaine in him by Charity This we deduce out of the words of our Sauiour himselfe who speaking of this Mysterie Iohn 6. thus saith Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing And againe subioyneth to the former words Verba quae ego c. The words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life The meaning of which latter sentence being coincident with the former instructeth vs that a carnall vnderstanding of the Eucharist as if it should be eaten as other meates are for so the Capharnaites framed to themselues auayleth nothing but that we ought to cōceaue that things diuine and spirituall are heere deliuered to vs which we are not to entertaine in a humane sense but by faith and apprehension inspired by God yet so by faith as that we belieue Christs sacred Body and Bloud to be heere truly and really taken Hence now it is that the Fathers resting vpon the former words of Christ and therfore chiefly ayming at the auaylable receauing of the Eucharist do write sometimes that we are to eate the Body of Christ by Faith and not with teeth not excluding therby a corporall receauing of Christ as the Sacramentaries do suggest but teaching that the benefit and operation of the Eucharist is chiefely to nourish and fortify our Soules with spirituall and Theologicall vertues In this sense is S. Cyprian to be vnderstood in seuerall passages of his Sermon de Coena Domini who there thus concludeth Quod esca est carni hoc animae est fides In the same construction also is Athanasius tract vpon the wordes Quicumque dixerit verbum in filium hominis to be taken who there calleth the flesh of Christ Alimoniam spiritualem a spirituall nourishment in that it is giuen for meate of the Spirit and not of the Body The same Interpretation is to be made of S. Augustine tract 25. in Ioan. Quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti And tract 26. Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem viuum though the one if not both of these places by the iudgements of some not without great probability is to be vnderstood not of the Eucharist but of the spirituall eating of Christ through faith and beliefe of his Incarnation Now out of this former ground resultes an obseruation not to be neglected to wit that seeing the effect of the Eucharist is that the soule may remaine in Christ by faith and charity and that such as doe not truly belieue in Christ doe not with the intended fruit thereof eate the Sacrament therefore the Fathers leuelling only at the benefit which the Receauers reape thereby doe write somtimes that the Misbelieuers and Men of bad life do not eate in the Sacrament the body and bloud of Christ which sayings our Aduersaries doe most calumniously wrest inferring from thence that the Fathers doctrine was that such misbelieuers and other wicked persons do not take at all the Body Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and that therefore his Body and Bloud is not in the Eucharist which is most farre from their meaning who in such places as I haue said haue reference only to the profitable eating of Christs Body whereof the wicked are not partakers In this sense is to be vnderstood Origen in 15. Matth. S. Hierome in comment in c. 66. Isaiae in c. 22. Ieremiae and finally S. Augustin tract 59. where he saith that the rest of the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum but Iudas only Panem Domini because he receaued no fruite by his eating See him also in sermone de Verbis Apostoli where he writeth that the wicked doe not take the body of our Lord who as chiefly insisting in a fruitfull eating thereof there saith I llud manducare refici est I llud bibere quid est nisi credere And thus much concerning the true state of this question of the Eucharist which being heere sincerely set downe may serue to salue diuers such places of the Fathers as seeme to fortify and strengthen the Sacramentarian Heresy Some other few Passages there are of which our Aduersaries take hould which receaue their Answeres out of the circumstances of such places so as an obseruant Reader carefully there noting the scope of the Father as also the words precedent subsequent may easily find out and therefore as not being reduced to any one generall head of explication I remit them for greater breuity to the studious search of the iudicious Reader But before I finish this Chapter I will subnect therto some few short animaduersions which a discreet Reader may take as a Correctiue wherwith to tast the
Sauiour more feelingly expresse a perseuerance of his Loue towards Man then by leauing at his departure his sacred Body with his Spouse wherewith the deuout Soule might at all conueniēt times be fedde and nourished The immensenes of which Loue our vnderstanding cannot comprehend and therefore we may heere well vse that forcible word i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14. Marke 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ the which the Euangelists vpon other occasions often apply to him that is that he was touched euen in his bowells of Loue and kindnesse when he first resolued and thought vpon for Loue is most inuentiue to institute this dreadfull Mysterie For if we consider the thing heere giuen or the giuer himselfe both being heere coincident and both being God and Man or the end whereunto it was bestowed to wit the spirituall nourishing of our Soules or the small deseruing of Man receauing it who dayly crucifieth him with his sinnes it will assure vs that such wonderfull Munificence issued from a Sea of most vehement Loue and Affection Furthermore his zeale to vs herein appeareth in that he is content by his entring into vs a strang affection which bringeth forth such strang effects that we doe enter into him and thus we are without any disordered confusion of things in that meate the which is in vs himselfe witnessing no lesse in those words Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me k In me manet Iohn 6. manet Ego in eo Therefore to conclude this point it remayneth since flames euer beget flames that seeing the burning Loue of Christ did first procure this Coniunction with vs in the Eucharist the said Coniunction ought reciprocally to engender in vs a gratefull Loue towards Christ for so great a benefit Ego l Ego dilecto meo Cantic 6. Dilecto meo Dilectus meus mihi still acknowledging it full worth and still remaining desirous by often participation of so high a Mystery without any fastidious or cloyed conceipt therof to renew all spirituall operations flowing from the same Qui m Qui edunt me Eccles 24. edunt me adhuc esurient qui bibunt me adbuc sitient There are many other Inducements according to the iudgments of the Learned Fathers and Doctours which might inuite our Sauiour to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist for they teach that it is a perpetuall Sacrifice euer to continue in the Church That it is a condigne and worthy Sacrifice for Christ to offer vp to his Father That it is a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing for the Saints in Heauen That it is not only for the Liuing but for the Dead also a Propitiatory Sacrifice That it is a Commemoration of Christs Passion That it is a confirmation of his Testament That it is an Abstract or Abridgment of diuers of Gods chiefest Myracles That in a sort it Deifieth the Soule That therby we haue God present vnder a sēsible obiect to heare our Prayers which poynt mightily increaseth our deuotion and reuerence Finally that it is a Viaticum for the soules ready to depart out of this world All which seuerall Reasons besides diuers others if we should insist in vnfoulding the value and worth of them of which this place is not capable might well seeme to be most important and vrging occasions of the institution of this Sacrament since such spirituall ends intendements operations effects supposing that Christ would establish in his Church some setled course tending to the same could not by any other more conuenient and proportionable meanes be accomplished then by the ordayning of this most dreadfull Mysterie so agreeable is our Catholike doctrine heerin to all Prudence Reason and Morall Perswasion And thus we see how the Institution of this Sacrament and the many seeming inducements therof do in a different respect reciprocally presuppose the one the other And hence therfore more euidently appeareth the froward obstinacy of our Aduersaries who eyther not knowing or not weighing these and other such Arguments of credibility alledged in defence of the Reall Presence are not ashamed to vrge grounding themselues vpon our Method heerin by way of a Contrariety the vnprofitablenesse therof as also certaine Inconueniences and Indignityes to Christ proceeding in their opinion from this our Catholike Doctrine affirming thē to be such as that they minister strong probabilityes that Christ would neuer leaue his Body and Bloud to be giuen truly and really in the celebration of the Eucharist But this their Lightnesse and want of solide Iudgment consisting in dishonouring Christ vnder the texture of honouring him so did the Iewes conuitiate him in words of Reuerence shal be discouered n Hereafter in the Marginall Reference The chiefe Reasons which our Aduersaries doe alledge both from the vnprofitablenesse of the Catholike doctrine as also from the indignity which seemes to be offered to Christs Body are these following And first touching the seeming indignity and dishonour redounding to the sacred body of Christ by the doctrine of the Reall Presence They obiect that from our doctrine it followeth that the Body of Christ might fall might be burnt might become rotten and mouldy for so we see the externall symboles sometimes to appeare might be eaten by mice should passe into the belly and so to the common passage c. To all this we Answere First that these supposed Indignities doe not touch the Body of Christ but only affect the species and formes of the Eucharist which are ioyned with the Body As for example when the consecrated hoast falleth from the Altar vpon the Earth yet cannot the Body of Christ be truly said to fall for that is said properly and truly to fall which doth exist and is mooued corporally which cannot be properly said of Christs Body in the Eucharist And therefore when a Man falleth on the ground we vse not to say that his Soule falleth though accidentally it changeth it place therewith Answerably therefore we teach that the Body of Christ existing after a spirituall manner and indiuisibly in the Eucharist changeth it place but properly falleth not when the Hoast falleth Secondly we answere that seeing our Christian faith teacheth vs that Christ was included for a long time in the wombe of a woman that he was swadled and lapped in Cloaths that then he might fall vpon the earth and might also haue beene eaten with beasts or burnt if so by miracle he were not preserued from such mischances if then he was truly and in his owne person subiect to all these difficulties without any dishonor what dishonour is it to him if he did vndergoe in another forme the former supposed indecencyes vrged by our Aduersaries Thirdly The former Indignities do no more truly and properly touch the Body of Christ then the Diuinity because it is present in all places can be said to be burnt it being in the fire or to be rotten it being in bodyes that are rotten
Secondly by reason that in regard of the presence of the Accidences the worth and merit of our faith is increased Thirdly they being absent it would be a horrour to Mans nature to eate Mans flesh Fourthly if they were absent then this Proposition Hoc est Corpus meum could not be true since then the whole should be so changed into the whole as that nothing should remayne common to both the Termini of this Conuersion Reasons drawne in like sort from Conueniency for they are strange Mathematicians since of all the seuerall Aspects which may be borne to the Sunne of Gods Church for in sole posuit Tabernaculum suum they approue and allow only a meere Diametricall Opposition thus grauely esteeming themselues to be so much the neerer to the Truth by how much they are further of from the p The pillar and foundation According to that Columna Firmamentum Veritatis Tim. c. 3. Pillar and Foundation of Truth THE CONCLVSION HEERE now Good Reader for to thee only I will turne my pen since my humble thoughts dare not presume to direct any further speeches vnto his Maiesty thou hast this meane and impolished discourse in regard of the Subiect whereof all Pens yea the tongues of Angells are to be reputed most vnworthy from hence thou mayst according to my Method be instructed of two things First of the Possibility of this great Mystery Secondly of the Authorities both humane and diuine prouing that what herein by Gods Power may be performed the same was through his Diuine Godnesse and pleasure in the Institution of the Eucharist actually effected And concerning the first Point we are to conceaue that as in the firster part hereof it is demonstrated that God is Omnipotent so doth our Christian Faith teach vs that he is a he is iust Psalm 11. iust Through his Omnipotency he is able to performe what he promiseth Through his Iustice he promiseth nothing but what he will performe Both these drawing equally togeather in him for he hath b For he hath promised Answerably to that of S. Iohn 6. Pauis quem ego daho caro mea est pro mundi vita promised by the infallible Oracle of his written word that he would giue his sacred Body and Bloud to eate and drinke may warrant vs of the Truth of this high Mysterie In the second Part to conuince that Christ at his last Supper performed what afore was prooued that he was able to accomplish thou hast set downe all the chiefest Authorities drawne from Gods sacred word the answerable Prophesies of the Ancient Iewes herein the beginning and progression of the Sacramentarian Heresy particulerly displaied the wrested testimonies of Scriptures alledged to the contrary fully and satisfyingly answered the stupendious Miracles wrought in proofe hereof recorded and lastly to omit other short insertions the Fathers Iudgments in the same as also in the particuler manner of Transubstantiation most aboundantly manifested both by their owne expresse sayings and by the plaine acknowledgement of our Sacramentaries It now remaineth that vpon the mature deliberation of the former Premisses thou consider seeing with the c VVith the Psalmist Psalm 24. Psalmist Thou hast not receaued thy soule in vayne to which side thou intendest to subiect thy iudgement herein That is whether thou wilt imbrace the Sacramentaries opinion notwithstanding it is impugned by all forcible Proofes whatsoeuer or that thou wilt be content with all humble resignation of thy owne spirit to impath thy selfe in the way of reuerend Antiquity and to follow their iudgements who in Faith and doctrine followed the Apostles I meane the Iudgments of those Primitiue Fathers Men remarkeable for Learning since their owne Labours left as MonumeÌ„ts to Posterity are sufficient witnesses therof Men of most eminent vertue since God hath vouchsafed to seale their sanctity of life with the irrefragable testimonies of diuers d Great Miracles Examples hereof see recorded in diuers Authors and Historiographers great Miracles Finally men of a pure and vncorrupted Faith since they then liued when the Church of Christ was for her time but in her Infancy but for her perfection in her youth and full growth and therfore euen by the confession of our Sectaries could not with a ioynt consent teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles And thus the maine drift of these precedent Passages for this is the Issue of the matter chiefly intended by me and heere it resteth resolues to this one poynt to wit whether a Man desirous of his owne saluatioÌ„ should in this high and most reuerend Mysterie vpon the true or false beliefe wherof depends his soules interminable weale or woe run one and the same lyne of faith with Augustine Hierome Chrysostome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basil Ambrose Hilary Athanasius Cyprian Irenaeus Ignatius and the like or with Zuinglius Caluin and Beza But now since we are Christians and are to belieue in Christ not in outward sense Let vs turne our pen from all disputable Points of the matter and acknowledging the certainty admire Gods incoÌ„prehensible Goodnes therin for as the Heauens spend their Motions by distributing their Heat Light other vertues to the earth so the Creatour of the Heauens hath vouchsafed the Influence of his Grace by bestowing himselfe in this most dreadfull Mysterie vpon Man the Earths chiefest creature Thus by receauing his sacred Body and Bloud we containe him within our selues whom the Heauens caÌ„not containe and inclose him in our breasts who in himselfe incloseth all this ALL. In like sort at this celestiall Table we feed on him who giues himselfe aswell to thousands as to one and yet euery one receaues as much therof as those thousaÌ„ds who equally imparteth himself to good bad and yet they both partake therof with most vnequall Effect To be short who e Commanding euery one According to those words Iohn 6. Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij Hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis coÌ„maunding euery one to eare of his flesh and drinke of his bloud is much offended with diuers men communicating therof and yet commaundeth nothing wherwith he is offended for it is the Vnpreparation not the Participation which displeaseth him which Point cannot seeme strange to vs Christians for we read that the f The Incircumcised Exod. c. 12. Vncircumcised could not eate the Phase Which Phase or Paschall Lambe since g Typically it represented Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra â—teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de ave celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus typically it represented the Eucharist could not be eaten but with gyrded loynes and shooes on their feet which figure out in our Lords Supper our holy desires with vnleauened bread wherby is shaddowed our azimous and pure intentions finally with the mixture of certaine bitter hearbes signifying sharp compunction for our former Impieties so necessary it is for our soule to be cloathed with her wedding garment when she presumeth to come to so great a banquet And now to draw to an end of that which in it selfe is endlesse since Gods Power and Goodnesse are in the Institution of this Sacrament paralell one to the other that Mans vnderstanding caÌ„not penetrate into the depth of eyther of them for betweene things finite and infinite there is proportion only in disproportion let vs admire his Power as being able to effect so great a worke Let vs admire his Goodnes as being willing to worke it far Mans benefit and in a deep and silent CoÌ„templation of both for words are defectiue herein let vs conclude with that Graue and Reuerend h Reuerend Father Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minime scrutandae c. â— Father Ignis immortalis sunt Mysteria Christi noli temerè ea perscrutari ne in ipsorum perscrutatione comburaris a He is iust Psalm 11. b For he hath promised Answerably to that of S. Iohn 6. Pauis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita c VVith the Psalmist Psalm 24. d Great Miracles Examples hereof see recorded in diuers Authors and Historiographers e Commanding euery one According to those words Iohn 6. Nisi manducaueritis carnem silij Hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis f The Incircumcised Exod. c. 12. g Typically it represented Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra â—teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de â—ue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus h Reuerend Father Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5. FINIS