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
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
therof remayning or superfluously redouÌ„ding So maist thou suppose the Mysteries heere to be consumed by the substance of the body Gaudentius tract 2. de Exod. Ipse Naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium Corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino Sanguinem suum He who is the Creatour and Lord of all Natures who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth and againe who of the bread maketh his proper Body for he is able and he promised to do it and who made wine of water and of wine his owne Bloud And after againe O altitudo diuitiarum c. O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and knowledge of God! Doe not thinke that terrestriall which is made heauenly by him which passeth into it and made it his owne Body and Bloud And finally Non infringamus os illud c. Let vs not breake that most solide and firme bone This is my Body This is my Bloud Now what remayneth in the sense of any one which he cannot conceaue by this exposition let it be consumed and burnt away with the ardour heate of faith Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium Videmus quod accepit Saluator c. We do see what our Sauiour tooke into his hands as the Euangelist noteth that he did rise from Supper that he did take these things and when he had giuen thankes he said This is mine and This and This. And we do see that it is not equall nor like to the proportion or Image in flesh to the inuisible Deity to the lineaments of MeÌ„bers for this is of a round forme and insensible according to Power And he would through grace say Hoc meum est Hoc Hoc And yet euery one belieueth his speach for who belieueth not to be his very true Body doth fall from grace and saluation Now when he heere saith that it is to be belieued though it be repugnant to sense this must needs be vnderstood of the Body it selfe and not of the signification therof since the sense rather helpeth then hindreth why we should belieue the SacrameÌ„t And when he saith that we ought to belieue that it is ipsum verum Corpus the true Body hereby are excluded all Tropes and Figures S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo c. Wherfore we now truly belieue euen by the word of God that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God c. That these things which are seene to wit bread and wine are changed into that Body of oar Lord is to be attributed to the vertue of Benediction S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 4. Tu fortè dicis Panis meus c. Perhaps thou sayest My bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the words of Consecration but after Consecration is finished of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Though our Aduersaries doe answer this place by reiecting this booke as not written by S. Ambrose yet is it cited vnder his name by Lanfrancus Guitmundus and others who liued aboue fiue hundred yeares since In like sort in his booke de mysterijs init c. 9. he thus writeth Fortè dicas Aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quòd Christi Corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non esse hoc quod Natura formauit sed quod Benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m Naturae quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur Virgam tenebat Moyses proiecit eam facta est serpens c. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Nam Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur c. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae vt ignem de Caelo deponâ—râ—t non valebit Christi Sermo vt species mutet Elementorum De totius mundi operibus legisti Quia ipse dixit facta sunt ipse mandauit creat a sunt Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Perhaps thou mayst say I see another thing how prouest thou to me that I take the body of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to proue What then or how great examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature formed but what benediction hath consecrated And that there is greater force of Benediction then of Nature for euen Nature it selfe is changed by Benediction Moyses houlding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent c. Now if Mans Benediction or blessing be of such force as that it can chang Nature what do we say of that diuine CoÌ„secration where the very words of our Lord our Sauiour doe worke for this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speach of Christ And if the speach of Elias was of such power as to draw fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ be of force to chang the formes of the Elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they are made he commanded and they are created Therefore the words of Christ which of nothing could make that which was not can they not chang those things which are into that which afore they were not for it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures to things then to chang Natures So cleare and euident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true and reall chang in the Sacrament of the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutauit in Vinum c. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turne water into Wyne which is neere to Bloud and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wyne into bloud Wherefore with all assurednesse let vs take the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of Bread is giuen to thee his Body and vnder the forme of Wine is giuen his Bloud The same Father in the same Booke also saith thus Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem nudum vinum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet neâ— ex gustu rem iudices c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Et vinum quod
à notis conspicitur taâ—â—tsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamâ—â— vinum sed Sanguin in Christi esse which latter words are afore related Doe not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Bloud of Christ according to the word of our Sauiour himselfe For though sense may suggest this to thee yet let thy faith so confirme this as that thou iudge not the matter from thy tast And againe after Hoc sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certaine that this Bread which we see is not Bread though our Tast do tell vs that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behould though it seemeth wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Bloud of Christ. And can any Catholike at this time speake more plainly then are the sayings of this Father One who is most ancient learned and of whose booke from whence these testimonies are produced there was neuer any doubt made S. Cyprian serm de Coena Dom. Panis iste queÌ„ Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit Essentia This Bread the which our Lord gaue to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word it is made Flesh And as in the Person of Christ the Humanity did appeare and the Diuinity did lye hid so in the visible Sacrament the diuine Essence hath ineffably infused it selfe But what Omnipotency is required to giue a signification to any substance Or if the Change be only by adding a new signification how can the Bread be said to be changed non effigie sed natura Lastly the Diuinity was truly and really latent in Christs Humanity therfore the Body and Bloud must be truly and really latent vnder the formes of Bread and Wine which to be Cyprians meaning appeareth euen by the word Ineffabiliter there added by him but what difficulty or mysterie is it that Bread should signify Christ Tertullian l. 2. ad Vxorem where speaking of Christian Women that are married to Gentiles and shewing that such marriages are hurtfull to the receauing of the Blessed Sacrament thus saith Non sâ—iet Maritus c. The Husband shall not know what thou doest tast before all other meates and if he did he belieueth not the Bread to be him whom it is said to be Which wordes do euidently imply a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haereses cap. 34. disputing against such Heretikes as denyed Christ to be the Sonne of the Creatour thus disputeth Quomodo autem constabit ijs c. How shall it be made euident to such men that Bread wherupon thankes are giuen to be the Body of Christ and the Cup the Bloud of him if they will not acknowledge him to be the Sonne of the Maker of the World That is the Word of him by the which Word the Wood doth fructifie the Springs do flow who first giueth a kind of grasse then an Eare of corne lastly the Eare full of wheate Heere we are to obserue that Irenaeuâ— proueth Christ to be the Creatour from this that Bread by force of Consecration is made the Body of Christ therfore he belieued that Bread was really and truly changed into the Body of Christ and not only in signification for it is not an imposition of a new signification but a true and reall chang which necessarily requireth Gods Omnipotency OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONTEYNING The Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Great Mysteries CHAP. IIII. A THIRD point which indeed is the CeÌ„ter wherin the Lines of diuers such passages doe meet manifesting the Fathers beliefe heerein may be the Obseruation of their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other things Thus they compare it with the Paschal Lambe with the Manna with Panis Propositions teaching that it doth transcend all these as much as a Diuine and inconsumptible substance excells a terrene and corruptible the Body the shaddow and the Truth the Figure But if Christs Body be heere only by representation then is the Eucharist a thing corruptible a shadow and a meere Figure and then may our Sauiour worthily vse towards them the expostulation in Esay Cui a Cui comparastis me Esa 46. comparastis me Others also in regard of the sublimity therof compare it with the Creation as I touched before where not to insist in other points we find that by force of the Creation all Creatures are conteyned in the Creatour for in ipso viuimus c. and by force of this Sacrament the Creatour is conteyned after a peculiar manner vnder the formes of some of his meanest Creatures Some likewise do teach besides other such comparisons that Christ in the Sacrament is to the eye of the soule as when Angells by assuming bodyes appeared to Men though these being spirituall seemed corporall and Christ being Corporall appeareth heere only as spirituall Finally diuers of them seeme to equall it with the Mysterie of the Incarnation and one Father resembleth the difficulty herein to that where Christ being as well God as Man was borne of a Woman and a Virgin Now if the chiefest obscuritie in the Eucharist doth rest in Types Representations and Resemblances how cold disproportionable dissorting yea absurd and false are the comparisons heere made with those former stupendious Mysteries of Christianity and particulerly of the Incarnation Where to omit all other passages therof aboue our capacity we find the Vine to bud out of the Branch the Ocean to flow from a shallow Riuer and the Sunne to borrow it light from a small Starre First then occurreth S. Leo serm 7. de Passione Dom. who thus saith Vt ergo Vinbrae c. That therfore the Shaddowes might giue place to the Body and Images or ResemblaÌ„ces to the presence of the Truth the ancient obseruation is taken away by a new Sacrament the Hoast is changed into an Hoast bloud excludeth bloud and the Legall Solemnity whiles it is changed is fulfilled and accomplished S. Augustine l. 3. Trinit c. 10. Illas etiam Nubes c. What man knoweth how those Clouds and Fires were made which the Angells assumed and tooke on to signify what they were to deliuer or speake yea though our Lord or the Holy Ghost appeared in these formes Euen as Infants knew not that which is placed vpon the Altar and consumed after the celebration of Piety is finished how it is made and by what meanes it is vsed in Religion And if they neuer learned either by their owne experience or of others and should neuer see the formes of those things but in the celebration of Sacraments when it is offered giuen and said to them by most graue authority
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
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
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
and rely in any sort of the Passiue Power of the Subiect since in this kind of producing there was no preexistent subiect at all much lesse any Passiue power thereof Fourthly they further proceed and affirme that God can doe all things which can by any meanes exist agreeably to that of our Sauiour Omnia f Omnia tibi Marc. 14. tibi possibilia sunt Now all that may exist which in it owne nature implyeth a Being only and not a Not-being And from hence proceedeth that common Axiome of Deuines That euery thing is possible to God to be done which implieth not a contradiction Now what implyeth a contradiction is impossible to be done And the reason heerof is in that what implyeth a contradiction supposeth a Being and a Not-being of a thing and all this at one time and therfore if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose Being should consist in a Not-being Now only that which hath no Being cannot be effected by God since euery thing that is ought in some sort to be like to him of whome it is Besides to make that which is not and hath no Being is not to make but rather a Not-making to the which not any Power but an Impotency belongeth which Impotency can in no sort be assigned to his Diuine Maiesty who only is weak in not being able to be weake Thus is his mighty Arme shortened in deficiency but extended in strength since to him it is more easy to do then not to do And thus we teach that he is not able to make Nothing who yet of Nothing made all things And therfore answerably hereto because God is not capable of any defect we say God cānot dye because Death is formally non Ens besides that true Diuinity is impatible By the same reason we affirme that God cannot sinne since the power required to Sinne is only a want of Power though powerfully raigning in Man So free is he from all such weaknesse since he sheweth himselfe most Omnipotent in being herein not Omnipotent And thus much of these foure points which are as it were foure graduall steps wherby Mans Vnderstanding may climbe vp to see how far Gods Power may extend it selfe or so many high Turrets from whence our soule ouerlooking the low and beaten paths of Nature may with an inward reflexe view the boundlesse and vast heights of Gods infinite Might and Puissance The vse wherof is that the Reader may make application of this doctrine to the difficulties of the Blessed Sacrament and so see if any of them according to the former rules may imply any Impossibility or noe For though we graunt that many things therin do transcend the created course of Nature yet neuerthelesse God who is Natures Nature is able at his pleasure to disioint the setled frame therof and therfore heere appeareth the great Indignity which these Idolaters of Nature I mean the Sectaries of this Tyme who impugne the doctrine of the Eucharist namely because it is repugnant to naturall Reason do offer vnto God in seeking to confine his force within the narrow lymits of Nature as if the precincts therof were the Herculean Pillar beyond which his Omnipotency which is only bounded within a boundlesse compasse cannot passe So apt these Men are to breath out blasphemies against him through whome they breath to speake in dishonour of him in whome they speake THE FIRST PASSAGE OF THE MYSTERIES AND other difficulties of the Eucharist CHAP. III. BVT now at the last to come to those great difficulties which present themselues in the Blessed Sacrament I will touch them in these three Passages following which shal be accompanied with their Marginal References conteyning the explication and vnfolding of them Which Obscurities euen for the more aduantage to our Sectaryes I haue set downe in seeming Contradictions that being thus deliuered in the fullest shew of Impossibilityes if they can be solued then no doubt but being more neerly not so litteraly weighed they may the more easely be reconcyled But now since in an erring and mistaking Eye they may appeare meere Repugnances I haue thought good therefore once more this second tyme to forwarne our Aduersaryes for their former sleights with other Mens labours do presage their like dealing heerin if full preuention and caution be not made afore that they do not diuulge to their followers lesse capable of such nice speculations the bare difficultyes alone as here they lye concealing their Explications drawne from Philosophy and Diuinity and so traducing vs though most falsly as mantayners of most euident and irreconciliable contradictoryes but that they would vouchsafe withall to take notice of their Marginall illustrations and so either to relate them both together or to passe them ouer togeather since this deportment is best sorting to the candor integrity of an ingenuous and well-meaning Aduersary And first if we looke into the stupendious and miraculous Conuersion made therein we shall discouer these points following We shall find it to be a a A Change This Conuersion is not wrought by any assumption of Bread to the Person of the VVord Nor by any locall and simple vnion of the Bread with the Body Nor by any partiall change of the Bread into the Body but is an entire and whole conuersion of the Substance of Bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ Change of one thing into another and yet contrary to all other conuersions whatsoeuer nothing of that thus altered b Remayning In all naturall Conuersions the Materia prima of the thing conuerted remaineth vnder both the Termini of the Conuersion and by the Conuersion this Materia prima is inuested only with a new essentiall forme so when water is turned into ayre the Materia prima of water remaineth and is not altered but only taketh the forme of ayre But heere the Materia prima of Bread and wyne doth not remaine and therefore the Councell of Trent teacheth that the Conuersion is made of the whole substance of Bread and wyne meaning thereby both of the matter and forme thereof remaining nor any other thing c Produced of new In naturall Conuersions that into which any thing is changed is produced of new for the Terminus ad quem not afore existing but only by vertue of the change must be of necessity produced of new and this Conuersion is called by Philosophers Conuersio productiua But heere in the Eucharist the Body of Christ preexisting afore the Conuersion though not vnder the species or forme of Bread doth cause that the Conuersion heere maketh not that the Body of Christ should simply begin to be but only that it should begin of new to be vnder the forme of Bread produced of new and therefore we may truly say the Bread was but is not is Nothing and yet d Not annihilated Because as it is aboue said the Materia prima of bread remaineth not the Bread is nothing and yet
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
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
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
Pledge of our Resurrection and Saluation that by it to vse the Apostles phrase we are made diuinae a Diuinae c. 2. Pet. 1. consortes Naturae that Christ is therby inwardly and corporally vnited with vs. Which corporall vnion being most precious serues as a meanes to procure our coniunction caused thereby with him in all vertues flowing from him as from our Sauiour and Redeemer And therefore we are not only armed by force hereof against the assaults of all future temptations but also Grace is deriued to vs to haue a true loathing and contrition of our former Impieties withall to receaue a full remission of the same for we hold that this Holy Mysterie is not only a Commemoration but also an application of Christs death to vs and we willingly acknowledge that touching the expiation of our Sinnes the fire of the Fathers wrath is only quenched in the Bloud of the Sonnes Passion All which Celestiall Operations as streaming from the Blessed Eucharist he may more easily belieue who will consider that Christ is the proper Sphere wherein the soule reposeth her selfe His grace being the spirituall Ayre that she anhales and drawes in the which she no sooner ceaseth to Breath then she ceaseth to lyue for it is written She who b She who liueth 1. Tim. 5. liueth in sinne dyeth while she liueth Now as for the second Point we gather out of their Writings first that they were most sollicitous carefull that no part of the Consecrated Hoast should fall vpon the ground and if casually it did then was that place scraped and the small parcells thereof put in the fire Secondly that they did adore the Sacrament which Action how can it be giuen by them without manifest danger of Idolatry if nothing but Bread and Wyne be there Thirdly that they taught that the Eucharist was to be inuoked according to that of S. Basil Verba Inuocationis dum ostenditur Panis Eucharistiae c. quis Sanctorum nobis in Scripto reliquit Finally that euen Angells capitibus inclinatis did attend vpon the Altar whilest the most dreadfull Sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud was offered vp in the formes of Bread and Wyne Hostia in manibus sayth one c One Father Chrysost homil 21. in Act Apostol Father adsunt Angeli adsunt Archangeli adest filius Dei cum tanto horrore astant omnes Which Harmony and Concent of doctrine in the monuments of so many of the Fathers if it seeme harsh and distunable to our nice Sectaryes we meruayle not since they haue vowed that their eares shall receaue no other intelligence herein then from their Neighbours their Eyes But we Catholikes who cannot brooke to haue the humanity of Christ which we assure our selues to be in the Eucharist diuorced from the Diuinity doe easily belieue that in this most holy Oblation his Godhead is there wayted on with millions of Angells No lesse happy then are those most blessed Spirits for enioyning the honor of such an Attendance then are those men in whom he vouchsafeth for the time to Inne that in him themselues may hope for euer after to dwell First then S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. thus writeth Sicut scintilla ignis c. Euen as a sparke of fyre lyghting vpon hay or straw doth presently inflame it all euen so the word of God ioyned to our corruptible nature by meanes of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise immortall glorious And l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. Non negamus recta nos fide c. We do not deny that we are ioyned with Christ spiritually in true faith and sincere charity but we altogeather deny that we are not in no sort conioyned with him according to the flesh and we affirme it to be altogeather contrary to the diuine Scriptures And a little after he thus enlargeth himselfe An fortassis putat c. What is it to be thought that we know not the vertue of the mysticall Benediction The which being in vs doth it not make through the communication of the Flesh of Christ Christ himselfe corporally to dwell in vs Where we see that he teacheth that we receaue Christ not only by Faith as our Aduersaries do teach but also corporally so making an Antithesis or opposition between these two manners of receauing him S. Augustine l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaking of his Mother Monica thus writeth Tantummodo memoriam sui c. Only she desired that she might be remembred at thy Altar where she knew that Holy Sacrifice to be dispensed by the which that Hand-writing which was contrary to vs is cancelled But here this Victima or Sacrifice cannot be any thing but the Flesh of Christ for the Bread was not sacrificed for vs and where he saith that this sacrifice is dispensed or ministred at or from the Altar he sheweth that he meaneth not Christ as he is taken by faith only but bodily by mouth And Epist 118. c. 3. he teacheth great Reuerence to be giuen to the Eucharist saying that such as do frequent the Sacrament daily out of deuotion or forbeare it sometime for deuotion also may be compared to Zachaeus or the Centurion wherof the one said Lord I am not worthy that thou spouldest enter into my house the other receaued him into his house Which comparison had bene most disproportionable if we take nothing but Bread as the signe of Christs Body And in Psal 98. expounding those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius saith That the Footstoole of our Lords feete is the Earth according to that of Esay 66. Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum Now S. Augustine expounding how the Earth may be adored without sinne thus writeth Fluctuans conuerto me ad ChristuÌ„ quia ipsum quaro hiâ— inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra adoretur Scabellum pedum eius Suscepit enim de terra terram quia Caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauâ—t ipsam carnem manducandam nobis dedit ad salutem Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi priùs adorauerit I nuentum est quemadmodum adoretur tale Scabellum pedum Domini vt non solùm non peccemus adoraÌ„do sedpeccemus non adorando I doubting herein do turne my selfe to Christ because I seeke him heere and do find how without aâ—y impiety the Earth may be adored the footstoole of his feet may be adored for he did take earth from earth because flesh commeth of the earth and he tooke flesh of the flesh of Mary And because he did heere walke in that flesh and gaue that flesh to be eaten by vs for our health now no man doth eate that flesh except he adore it before Heere then it is found how such a Footstoole of the feete of our Lord may be adored so as that heere not only we do not sinne in adoring but we sinne in
truly made Flesh we truly take the Word made Flesh in our Lords meate how can he not be thought to remaine naturally in vs. And in the same place he also saith De naturali in nobis Christi veritate c. Of the naturall verity of Christ in vs whatsoeuer we speake we speake foolishly and wickedly except we learne of him for it is he that said Caro mea verè est esca Origen Homil. 13. in Exod. expounding the 21. Chapter of that Booke saith Volo vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis nostis qui diuinis mysterijs inesse consucuistis qucmodo cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione seruatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur reos enim vos creditis certè creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat I will admonish you by the examples of your Religion Yow know well who haue bene accustomed to be present at the diuine Mysteries how when you take the body of Christ you obserue with all warinesse and veneration that no part of the consecrated Gift do fall downe for you belieue them to be guilty and you belieue truly if any parcell thereof doe fall downe through negligence Tertullian lib. de Corona Militis speaking of diuers Christian Rites Calicis aut Panis etiam nostri c. We doe suffer with griefe that any part of our Cup or bread should fall vpon the Earth S. Irenaeus l. 8. contra Haeres c. 34. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt c. How doe they say againe that the Flesh commeth into corruption and receaueth not lyfe which is nourished of the body and bloud of our Lord Where he maketh the receauing of the Eucharist to be a Pledge of our Resurrection and Immortality S. Pius the first Bishop of Rome of that name did set downe certaine seuere punishmēts for such by whose negligence any part of the Body or Bloud of our Lord did fall vpon the ground yea or vpon the Altar commanding the place to be licked with the tongue to be scraped But if the Eucharist were not the true Body of Christ but only by representation there were no reason why there should be greater diligence giuen to preuent that no part thereof doe fall vpon the ground then there was that the water of Baptisme the Images of Christ or the Holy Bible should not fall vpon the ground His Decree touching the former point appeareth out of Gratian de Consecrat distinct 2. Can. Si per negligentiam c. S. Dionysius Areopagita lib. de Hierarchia Ecclesiast c. 3. part 3. thus speaketh to the Blessed Eucharist O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacramentū obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi perspicuè nobis fac appareas nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple O most Diuine and most holy Sacament vouchsafe to remooue from thee the veyles or couerings of those signifying signes appeare to vs perspicuously and fill our spirituall Eyes with a singular and cleare resplendency of thy Light Heere it cannot be said that he did so inuoke the bread because such Inuocation were most ridiculous Neither can it be said that Dionysius did make an Apostrophe or Chang of speach from the Symboles of the Eucharist to Christ signified therby inuoking Christ before the Symboles for heere Dyonisius doth not inuoke Christ as he is in Heauen but inuokes the Sacrament it selfe and demandeth of it such things as are to be obtayned of God alone Add hereto that the ground of this Answere doth warrant the Catholikes praying before Images for if a man may pray to Christ before the Symboles of his Body by the same reason may he pray to him before his Image The said Father also in the former booke thus further writeth Pontifex quòd Hostiam salutarem c. The Priest when he sacrificeth the healthfull Hoast which is aboue him doth excuse himselfe speaking to it Tu dixisti Hoc facite c. Thou hast said Doe you this c. But the Bread is not aboue vs neither is there more reason that we should excuse our selues for handling the Bread then for handling the Water of Baptisme or other sacred things belonging to our Christian Faith Such was the reuerence of this most ancient Father for he liued in the time of the Apostles to wardes the blessed Sacrament And though our Aduersaries do impudently maintayne that this booke was not written by the said Dyonisius yet others of them do acknowledge at least that it is the worke of a most ancient Father yea Peter Martyr prizeth this booke as he is not affraid to wrest a place of the said worke for the defence of his Heresie herein Now that the Author of this worke is most ancient it appeareth from this one consideration to wit that the Author therof is cited for an ancient and reuerend Father by S. Gregorie Homil. 34. in Euangel but if S. Gregory who liued aboue a thousand yeares since did account this Author for an Ancient and Venerable Father then what estimation of him ought we to haue OF THEIR TESTIMONIES SHEVVING That the Celebration of the Eucharist contayneth a proper and true Sacrifice CHAP. VII THE last Branch of Authorities shall be deduced from the common Doctrine of the Fathers which teacheth that when our Sauiour had in place of the disobedient and degenerating Iewes adopted vs Gentiles that euen out of a more then Seraphical burning charitie towards vs he was content before his death to bequeath to his Church the true Sacrifice of himselfe there to be daily offered vp vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The which was according to the a The Psalmist Psal 109. in these words Iurauit Dominus non poenitebit eum Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Psalmist so long afore shaddowed by that of Melchisedech wherof one b One Father viz. Chrysostome homil 35. in Genes Father with reference therunto saith Videns Typum cogita oro veritatem and of which by reason of it perpetuall continuance to be in the Church the once Glory and Pride of Africke thus writeth c Perpes est hoc Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Perpes est hoc Sacrificium semper permanens Holocaustum Now heere it will not seeme needfull to alledge the Authorities of the Fathers though most frequent and punctuall therein expounding the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as a Type of the Eucharist therefore for greater breuity I will content my selfe in laying downe the Sentences and Iudgement of the said Doctours wherein they plainly acknowledge that the Eucharist doth conteine in it selfe a Sacrifice not in a forced and Metaphoricall but in a true and natiue acception of the Word And yet for the more cleere conuincing of our Aduersaries herein I will for beare all Inferentiall Deductions drawne by long circuitions and ambages
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
Most learned Protestants the Fathers do teach the Reall Presence CHAP. X. WEE a VVe read 1. Samuel 5. 6. read that as through Gods permissioÌ„ the Arke was for the tyme with houlden by the Philistians so through the sweetnesse of his Prouidence which euer worketh good out of euill as he once did Light b Light out of Darknesse 2. Cor. 4. out of Darknesse it was in the end safely restored to Israel The like may we say of the writings of those primitiue Fathers which next to the Sacred Scriptures may be termed the Arke or Tabernacle wherin do lye entreasured the riches of the Euangelicall Law Of this Arke our Aduersaries would seeme in the beginning to haue impatronized themselues I meane in their owne vaunts and in the Eye of the vnlearned not of the Iudicious but not being able to make good their supposed title therto and frustrated of their expected gaine therby they are at the last pleased to relinquish all such vsurped interest and freely to surrender it to the true Israelites of the Catholike Church This shal be heere made euident to omit what hath bene already deliuered euen hy the vncoacted and voluntary confessions of the Sacramentaries who absolutely disclayming in this great Controuersie from the Fathers as being chiefe Patrons of our Catholike Faith heerin do betrample their Writings and Testimonies with an vnaccustomed contempt and scorne charging both them and the tymes wherin they liued with great superstition concerning the same Thus we see how our fastidious and delicate Sectarie weary still of plodding on the common path and tract of faith though beaten with a continuall practise of Gods Church and a Generall Warrant of the Fathers since the Apostles delighteth himselfe according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with certaine Deuiations and By-wayes of Innouation Nouelty since this saith he begetteth a manu-mission freedome of his vnderstauding vnworthily heertofore enthralled to the iudgments of the Papists Church and Fathers But to proceed I will produce as I said in this point the Sacramentaries owne words so shall the Enemy wound the Enemy and Truth receaue a strenthening from her impugners wherin they most fully acknowledge in behalfe of vs Catholikes that the Fathers did ioyntly teach our now professed faith of the Eucharist Which kind of proofe both by their owne c Their owne Assertions For Doctour VVhitaker de Eccles controuers 2. quaest 5. cap. 14. saith Firmum fit necesse Argumentum illud quod sumitur ex Aduer sariorum confessione c. Assertions as also euen in reason it selfe is auayleable since as a Testimony of a friend against a friend so of an Aduersarie for an Aduersary is most conuincing Now that the Fathers in this weighty Controuersy are on our side shall appeare foure seuerall wayes by the plaine confession of our Aduersaries in the vnfolding whereof by certaine steppes degrees I will in part retaine my former prescribed Method First then this shall appeare in that the Fathers taught the reseruation of the Eucharist Secondly the Adoration of the same Thirdly that it was a true and perfect Sacrifice offered to God for the expiation of our sinnes all which three points doe potentially and necessarily include our Catholike doctrine Fourthly and Lastly that euen in direct and plaine words they taught the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation All which shall be proued euen from the Sacramentaries owne pennes And First touching Reseruation which most consequently implyes the Reall Presence since if the Eucharist be nothing else but Bread and Wyne to what end is it to be reserued especially considering the Doctrine of our Sacramentaries who d VVho teach So writeth M. VVillet in Synopsi Papismi p. 460. besides it is the common doctrine of all the Protestants M. VVillet words are It is no Sacrament except it be receaued teach that this Sacrament consisteth only in action to wit during the tyme of celebrating distributing and eating it which being expired they say that the Bread and Wyne then ceaseth to be any longer the Sacrament of the Eucharist Now the Fathers in this point of Reseruation are charged by diuers And first Kemnitius that insolent Iudge of his owne Iudges acknowledgeth this point saying e Saying VVitnesses Examen part 2. pa. 102. Witnesses of this custome of priuate Reseruation of the Eucharist are Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Hierome Basil c. He also in the same place saith That certaine of the Fathers greatly commended the Reseruation of the Sacrament And finally there concludeth saying that it was Antiqua consuetudo latè patens diu propagata Caluin f Caluin saith Instit 4 c. 17. §. 39. saith That the Reseruation of the Sacrament is veteris Ecclesiae exemplum An Example of the ancient Church The Centurists g The Centurists Cent. 4. col 427. do reprehend the Ancient Fathers for the Doctrine of Reseruation and withall they h They shew Cent. 4. col 878. shew that it was the Viaticum of such as were sicke which point euidently argueth the doctrine of Reseruation That it was a Viaticum for the sicke is further confessed by Monsieur * Monfieur Casaubon Who in his Epistle to Cardinall Peron writeth that Patres Concilij Niceni â—ota Antiquitas c. The Fathers of the Nycene Councell all Antiquity did minister the Eucharist to the sicke and in that respect did call it their Viaticum Casaubon Cartwright in his second Reply i Second Reply part 1. p. 77. thus censureth S. Iustin for this point Iustins saying of Deacons carrying the bread of the Holy Supper of the Lord is contrary to the Institution Doctor Fulke k D. Fulke confesseth Against Heskins Sanders c. pag. 77. confesseth no lesse freely in these words That the Sacrament was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not so great a Controuersy as whether it ought to be reserued To conclude this point is so cleare as that Cyril ad Calosyrium condemneth the Anthropomorphites as Hereticks for denying the Reseruation of the Eucharist And therefore he is deepely reprehended for so doing by Peter l By Peter Martyr lib. aduersus Gardinerum de Eucharist col 838. printed at Basil Martyr who saith thereof thus Ea consuetudo etsi saperet nonnihil superstitionis c. Though that custume of Reseruation may seeme somwhat to tast of superstition yet did Cyril and others subscribe therto And Martyr there further thereof Statim enim ab Apostolorum temporibus c. Presently after the tymes of the Apostles men did degenerate from that ancient simplicity of the Diuine worship So euident a thing we see it is that the Fathers euen by the confessions of our Aduersaries did teach the reseruation of the Eucharist Which thing being granted and consisting chiefly in practise which might well descend from Age to Age whether is it not more probable that the Fathers aboue censured some of them liuing but fifty or threescore
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