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
contradiction in the thing it selfe to the Earth and remote from the same moued and not moued remaining vpon the Altar and receaued by the Communicant and all at one and the same time And yet if the same Body supposing it were patible be in one place wounded it would also be found e Remaine wounded For those things which are receaued in the Body it selfe be they eyther Actions or Qualities are not multiplied And the reason hereof is because the Body is but one and not many or diuers And being but one it can but haue vnum esse Substantiale though diuers esse Localia as the School-men do speake who therupon teach that all those relations and actions which are terminated ad Loca to the diuersity of places are multiplied because they follow and depend vpon esse Locale but such Actions or Qualities as are receaued within the body placed are not multiplied because they follow esse Substantiale wounded in another for Nature keeps her certaine bounds euen in transgressing her bounds Thus answerably hereto we teach that it may be in a place where afore it was not and yet neither through any Locall f Locall Motion The Body of Christ is in a place where before it was not and this neither by any Locall Motion or new Generation of it but by a true Conuersion of the Bread into the Body not much vnlike vnto the new being of the Soule in the Matter or Substance which is added to Mans Body by nutrition where we see the Soule to be in that part not by any Locall Motion nor Generation of the Soule but only by informing that part newly adioyned to the Body which afore it did not informe motion for it neuer leaueth Heauen nor by any Generation for afore it was It is not g Not continued The Body of our Sauiour as it is in the hands of the Priest cannot be said to be continued with the same Body as it is in Heauen nor yet to be deuided from the same seeing those things only which are many and diuers whether they be Tota or Partes are capable of continuation or diuision Now Christs Body as it is in Heauen and in the Priests hands is not two seuerall entire things neither seuerall parts therof but only one whole and entire Body And though there be a great distance of place and interposition of many other Bodies betweene Christs Body in Heauen and vpon the Altar this only proueth that those places to wit Heauen and the Earth are discontinued and deuided one from the other and that Christs Body is deuided from it selfe in respect of such diuersitie of place but not in respect of it proper substance continued with the same Body being in another place nor yet discontinued or deuided from the same and yet neither is the Body multiplied or doubled nor the places confounded Briefly it is heere vpon Earth yet it leaueth not h Heauen According to that in Actes c. 3. Oportet illum Coelum suscipere vsque ad tempus restitutionis omnium And yet our Aduersaries do idly cauill in charging vs that we force Christ to leaue Heauen by this doctrine of Transubstantiation And when we reply that we teach that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen but is both in Heauen and vpon the Altar then they ignorantly obiect that for a Body to be in Heauen and vpon the Altar at one time is a meere contradiction and consequently impossible But this is grosse Ignorance for for to be in Heauen and not in Heauen or vpon the earth and not vpon the earth at one and the same time is a flat contradiction and consequently cannot be performed by God But to be in Heauen and vpon the earth at one time is no more a Contradiction then the soule to be at once both in the Head and the foote Heauen and euen then it enioyeth a perfect i Neernesse to it selfe Because as it is said aboue it is one and the same Body as it is in Heauen and vpon the Altar and consequently in substance and quantity cannot be deuided or separated from it selfe notwithstanding any distance of place neernesse to it self in so great a distance Thus through it being in such distance diuersity of places it seemeth to k To transcend If to be in a place were of the essence of a Body as we haue proued afore that it was not then the being of a body in diuers distant places may seeme to increase the quantity of the said body Furthermore the Body of Christ being vnder the formes of many consecrated hoasts doth no more increase in quantity then the soule being first in a child and after dilating it selfe through the Body being growne greater can be said to be greater then afore it was transcend and through it being contained vnder a small hoast to lessen it owne naturall and true Quantity and yet is the Quantity l One and the same Quantitie cannot be separated from a true naturall body and therfore seeing Christs Body as it is in Heauen and vpon the Altar is but one so must it quantity be one and the same euer one and the same Furthermore we see that this sacred body by force of Consecration inioyeth the Being in diuers places which it obtaineth not by vertue of Hyposticall and inseparable vnion with the Diuinity which is in all places For though by this vnion the Diuinity and Humanity is made but one Person and this Person being an m An indiuiduall Substance This indiuision of Substance is not so meant that where one part of the Person is there should be another for this is most false but the Person is so called because it is one subsistng thing not deuided in it selfe in respect of it subsistence yet deuided from all other things Indiuiduall Substance the Humanity where it is doth euer n Accompany the Diuinity For where the Humanity is there is the Diuinity as is aboue proued yet followeth it not that where the Diuinity is there is the Humanity also accompany the Diuinity which is in all places yet we teach not that the Humanity is in all places Neither may it be inferred hereupon that the Word is somewhere Man somewhere o Somewhere not Man Though the Word may be somewhere where the Humanity is not notwithstanding there the Word is Man because the Word existing there doth support the Humanity as proper to it selfe though existing in another place not Man Thus we reiect that phantasie of Luthers Vbiquity as ouerthrowing many Mysteries p Ouerthrowing many Mysteries For it is impossible that Christs Body being in all places should be truely conceaued in the wombe of our Blessed Lady or that it was borne and dyed or did arise againe or ascended vp to Heauen for if his Body be in all places then it was in the Virgins wombe after his birth so also it was in the graue both before his death after his
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
resurrection as also in Heauen before his Ascensiō Againe these Mysteries could not be truly performed except the Body of Christ did truly really mooue from one place to another But Christs Body being in euery place cānot be said to moue from place to place for true Locall Motion of a Body cānot be conceaued without obteyning of a new place which afore it had not so many points of Christian Religion and of all true Philosophy Luthers Vbiquity impugneth of our Faith and retayning ouer much leauen of Eutyches his Heresie so easily will a Lutheran transplanted grow vp a perfect Eutychian And thus much of Luthers errour herein in this progressiue digression Now heere we are to note that the difficulties in this Passage sway much the iudgements of our sensible and materiall Christians for so I may well style them since they measure their faith by the Lesbian Square of their Sense And therefore in regard thereof I haue thought good in two or three subsequent Chapters seposed only to this end to exemplify the said difficulty of multiplicity of places in other points acknowledged and confessed by our Aduersaries Wherefore I could wish that when they doe looke vpon the Mysteries of Christian Religion they would shut the Eye of Sense and Naturall Reason since so they might no doubt by seeing the lesse be able to see the more and be like herein to that great Apostle who by loosing his Eyes obtained Light q Eutiches Heresy The Heresy of Eutiches besides other points was that the Flesh of Christ was not of the same nature with ours And that the VVord was not changed into true flesh but rather into an apparent only and seeming flesh So as the VVord rather counterfaited it selfe to be Man to be borne to haue died c. then that there was any such true performance of these things He further taught that because the Diuinity was in the Sunne the starres c. that therefore this apparent Body of the VVord was there also And hitherto doth Luthers Vbiquitie tend for how can Christs Body be a true and naturall Body if it be in all places THE THIRD PASSAGE CHAP. V. NOVV to ascend to the last Mount of difficulties in this miraculous Transelementation We are to obserue that though the Body of Christ be heere indued with Life yet it is not a Not obiectiuely sensible That is that the externall sense of another cannot apprehend it to haue life Now the Catholikes doe generally teach that in regard of the peculiar manner of the existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Adiectiues which include a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist though they may be said of it as it is in heauen The reason hereof being in that the Body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine without any reference respect or order ad Corpora circumstantia And therefore though his Body as it is in the Sacrament be a naturall and corporall substance indued with life sense and colour yet it is not there tangible sensible or visible c. because to be actually tangible sensible or visible implieth a reference ad Corpora circumstantia in whose senses and eyes the Body is so to appeare obiectiuely sensible though it be a true corporall Substance it is not tangible and though it be coloured it is not visible In b In like sort we teach Christs Body in the Eucharist hath eyes and eares because it is there a true and perfect body which it could not be except it were organized with those parts And yet those organs of Sense do not exercise in the Eucharist as they are in the Eucharist these facultyes as the Eye to see the eare to heare The reason hereof is that which was touched afore to wit that not only Adiectiues which haue relation ad Corpora circumstantia but also Verbes which imply a presence of his Body in the Eucharist with reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist in regard of his spirituall and peculiar manner of existing there though they do predicate of it as it is in heauen Now to see to heare c beares a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia to wit to the externall obiect of the Eye and to the sound caused by some body c. Notwithstanding Christ in the Eucharist may be said to see to heare c. and this for a double reason First because it is there the said body which it is in heauen but his body in Heauen seeth heareth c. therefore his Body in the Sacrament doth see and heare though not quatenus est in Sacramento A second Reason may be in that as his body is in the Sacrament so it is accompanied with the Diuinity in the fruition whereof the Humanity seeth and heareth all things And in these two respectes the ancient Fathers according to that saying of S. Basil Verba Inuocationis c. quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit c. 27. lib. de Sp. sancto as also the Priest in those words Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis did and doth daily pray vnto Christ as he is in the Eucharist as being most confident that he doth there heare him like sort we teach that it heere performing the operations of Sense and enioying the organs of Sense doth yet performe them without the help of those said organs We heere also find Quantity without c VVithout Diuision The Body of Christ as it is considered in it selfe hath a true quantity and consequently it is diuisible but yet in regard that it existeth in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit and not of a naturall body as being exempted from all extension of place for it is whole in euery part therefore it may in this sense be said that it is not diuisible Diuision Magnitude without d Magnitude without place Most of the difficulties in this Chapter are solued by knowing what is of the essence of Magnitude or Quantity and what not therefore I will insist the longer in setting downe the iudgements of the best learned herein The Philosophers then doe assigne three things to concurre to Magnitude of which the one euer causeth the other The First of these three is that euery Magnitude should haue an extension in it selfe and haue Partem extra Partem that is that one Part should not be confounded in it selfe with another Part and consequently an intrinsecall site and disposition of parts And this is of the very essence of euery Magnitude and cannot be separated from the same Thus we say that a Body is an extension in Longitude Latitude and Profunditie Superficies an extension in Longitude and Latitude A Line an extension in Longitude only So as extension euer presupposeth different parts of the body and consequently a Body cannot want extension The second thing agreeing
to euery Magnitude is to haue a commensuration or coextension with place that is an extrinsecall disposition and order of Parts according to Place And this second ariseth from the first and consequently as being later in nature then the first may by Gods Power be separated from the same yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Sphere which being a true Body hath true Magnitude and Partem extra Partem and yet it hath not any Coextension or Commensuration with place for it is in no Place In like sort if God before the Creation of the world had created a Man or a stone c. this Man or stone would haue had Partem extra Partem and yet without any coextension or commensuration with Place The third and last property of Magnitude is to extrude and driue away all other Magnitudes from that place which is made equall and commensurable to it selfe that is not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it Now as the second was later and proceded from the first so this third resulteth out of the second and is later then the same in nature So answerably hereto we see that the reason why one Magnitude doth not suffer another to be in the same place is because it doth possesse all the place it selfe But now seeing that the later depends on the firster and not the firster of the later therfore we do hould that Diuinâ potentiâ it may be effected that a Body may possesse and occupy a place and yet not expell another from the same And this is that which we call penetration of bodies so much â—mpugned by our Protestant Philosophers Now according to this doctrine which is deliuered by all our best Philosophers we hould that Christs Body in the Sacrament hath the true and whole Magnitude of his body But this Magnitude hath there only the first condition which is essentiall to euery Magnitude to wit to be extended in it selfe and by reason of that intrinsecall extension to haue Partem extra Partem but it hath not the second condition much lesse the third for it is not coextended with any place since though it haue true Quantity yet it is not coÌ„mensurable with any place but existeth whole in respect of all externall place in euery part And thus what is assigned in this Passage to our Sauiours Body in the Sacrament which seemes to be common to euery naturall body it is to be vnderstood according to the first condition of Magnitude of the extension of the body in it selfe and intrinsecall disposition of it parts without any reference to Place But what is heer denyed to the said body as it existeth in the Sacrament which is incident to euery other naturall body that is meant of it according to the second or third condition only in respect of externall extension of parts and outward commensuration with place which heere it wanteth And this may suffice for this Point where by the true application of it most if not all of the doubts of this Passage may be answered and therfore they will only need a short application hereof for their full Illustration Place a Body without e VVithout Circumscription viz. Externall Commenfuration of Place Circumscription Parts really f Really distinguished viz. Distinguished in respect of an intrinsecall disposition of parts in it selfe though confounded in regard of Place it being whole in this respect as also in respect of the outward sensible formes in euery Part. distinguished yet confounded and being g Remote They are separated and remote one from another in regard of the inward distinctions of Parts yet they touch one another because they want all Circumscription of place remote one from another yet touching one another So as we heere find Contiguity in h Contiguitie in distance viz. In the different respect of the inward site or disposition of parts and the outward coextension of place distance Confusion as I may say in distinction and a ioyning togeather in separation My meaning is that Christs Body though hauing Quantity yet doth heere exist as if it were without i VVithout Quantity Because it wanteth the second and third condition of Magnitude aboue mentioned which are incident to euery Body as it is naturally in place Quantity for the parts therof are receaued in the same place and yet doe not penetrate themselues In like sort his Body hath heere the true quantity and distinction of parts which it hath in Heauen and yet it is without being greater or lesser wholy contayned within the least part of a consecrated Hoast Thus we see that though a k Though a Spirit A Spirit cannot be extended in place because it hath not any extension of Parts at all therfore it is indiuisible for seeing to be extended in place is a formall effect proceeding from it formall cause of Extension in it selfe if therfore a Spirit should be extended in place we should admit the formall Effect without the formall Cause which cannot be since the formall Effect is later in nature then the Cause and cannot be without the Cause though the formall Cause may be without the Effect as we say heere that the inward Extension of Christs Body doth want by Gods power all extension of place Spirit euen by Gods Omnipotency caÌ„not be extended in place yet that a Body may want all such extension And thus answerably heereto we teach that this sacred Body is whole in euery part and yet hath a true distinction of Parts And so though the externall formes be broken or disparted in themselues yet the Body lying vnder them remaines in the least parcell therof entire and vndeuided as we see that when a looking-glasse is broken a mans whole face will appeare in euery parcell thereof Briefely we hould that in this stupendious Mysterie that Christs Body remaining a Body not a Spirit yet doth exist as a l Exist as a Spirit viz. As not hauing any Coextension with place no more then a Spirit Spirit and not as a Body so as we may well terme it in a sober construction a Body m Spiritualized Not that the Body by this meanes is become a Spirit for that is false Nor that still remaining a Body is withall a Spirit for that is impossible Nor that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist only Spiritually as the word Spiritually in our Aduersaries construction is opposed against the words Truly or Really But it may be said to be spiritualized because as it is often said it existeth in the Eucharist like a Spirit to wit without any extension of place but being in respect of all such extension whole in euery part spiritualized These loe alledged and at large in the marginall References solued are the chiefest Mysteries and difficulties which are produced in the doctrine of the Real Presence And heere I am to aduertise the Reader of two things the one that the most if not
Christian Mysteries for their resemblance is great the one coÌ„sisting in the vnity of Nature with reference to diuersitie of Persons the other in the Vnity of the Person with respect to diuersitie of Natures THE SAME ANSVVERED BY the like difficultie drawne from Eternity CHAP. VII A SECOND Example shal be drawne from that which in it Concrete is the peculiar incommunicable Attribute of God I meane Eternity for if we find Mysteries far passing Mans vnderstanding in the Proprieties of God how much short are we from sounding the bottomlesse gulfe of his Power who is the sourse of the said Proprieties But heere we are first to know what Eternity is The Philosophers a The Philosophers define Aristot in Metaphysic passim define it to be Instans Duration is non flâ—ens An Instant of Duration or continuance which is euer present and neuer passeth away Thus Eternity besides that it hath no beginning according to Philosophy consisteth of that which is shorter then the shortest time and therin Indiuisible and yet the continuance thereof extendeth it beyond the length of all Tyme and therin Interminable Now the mayne difficulty heerin is this and such which in the like touch of the doubt is greater then the former confessed difficulty of multiplicity of place to wit That this Instant of Duration being but one instant yet is and coexisteth in seuerall Tymes both past and to come yet neyther is this Instant deuided or distracted in it selfe nor these seuerall times confounded He that seriously penetrateth this difficulty how can he make doubt but that by Diuine Power one Body may be in seuerall places without either diuision of the Body or confusion of the places And this the rather a circumstance much increasing the Mystery heere alledged in that diuers places wherein we suppose a Body may be do still remaine at one time though far distant one from another whereas these precedent and future times in both which one and the same Instant of Duration or Eternity is are euer in a flowing and departing Motion and consequently cannot by any possibility whatsoeuer remayne and exist togeather for we see that the Tyme past euer giues place to the Tyme to come And thus much of this abstruse difficulty of Eternity the doctrine wherof who denieth denieth withall Gods euerlasting Being of which I was the more willing to intreat because it is that whereto after our Pilgrimage ended in this world we all trust most ioyfully to arriue And therefore by allusion we may truly say that as Eternity in it owne nature consisteth of a continued Instant so of this short Instant of Mans Life dependeth all Eternity of future Ioy or Calamity Furthermore not only we but all Creatures whatsoeuer shall finally haue their Periode and Dissolution in Eternity yea Tyme it selfe wherein all things are now swallowed vp shall hereafter be absorpt in the abyssmall depth thereof Thus what gaue an end to euery thing shall in an endlesse Eternity receaue it end A THIRD ANSVVERE drawne from the Vbiquity of God CHAP. VIII PHILOSOPHY teacheth vs that the highest Heauen is in Quantity finite because the reuolution of that huge Body is periodicall and terminable as being perfected within a prefixed time The consequence wherof is euicted by force of a contrariety from a receaued Axiome among the learned to wit What Body accomplisheth not it course in a designed and limitable time the same if any such were is of an infinite and immensurable Quantity Now vpon this Basis or ground by resemblance we may stay our selues in the search of his Power who is the Creatour of all the Heauens for since his Omnipotency is not confined within the compasse of any tyme for himselfe was before a Before all Time Seeing that Tyme according to it definition in Philosophy is but the course or Motion of the highest Heauen secundum prius posterius according to the firster or later part of the said motion and that seeing all the Heauens were once created of God therfore it must needs follow that God was before all times all tyme nor of things for he gaue the first b The first Being to all things viz. through the creation of them according to that of the Scripture In Deo sumus moâ—â—mur Act. 17. being to all things nor of Place for he is both by c By presence in all places According to that Hierem. 23. Caelum terram ego impleo And that God is actually and truly present in all places is proued First because as it is aboue said it should otherwise follow that he 〈…〉 circumscribed or defined in some certaine place and consequently he should not be infinite Secondly God is vnited with euery thing he created since the consistence and the preseruation of ech thing depends on God but this vnion between God and his creatures is not by the meanes of any Quality in God for in God there is no Quality therfore the vnion is with the Essence of God Presence and Might in all places It therfore may be assumed as an inexpugnable verity that his said Power is infinite boundlesse and illimitable and consequently that our weake vnderstanding is not able to lay any true leuell therto But since I haue heere named Gods Vbiquity I will insist a little in one incomprehensible Mysterie found therin it being such as that it incomparably surpasseth that of one Body being in seuerall places For how can our vnderstanding comprehend that Gâ—d being one d One simple and indiuisible thing The like Example may be taken from the Soule of man which being indiuisible in it selfe and most simple is in euery part of the body and whole in euery part since otherwise if it should be extended to the extension of the Body it should be materiall and depend only of the Body and consequently it should not be immortall Neither auaileth it to answere heerto that the Soule possesseth the whole Body as one Place And that a signe hereof is in that if any one member be separated by any change from the Body the soule ceaseth to be in that member in that that said part beginneth to be a different Body excisting by it selfe and not depending on the former This satisfieth nothing for although the soule cannot naturally be preserued in a member cut from the rest of the body yet there can be no reason assigned but that God is able to preserue the soule in a part of the Body cut from the rest simple and indiuisible thing should be at once in all places and things whatsoeuer A doubt so inexplicable that it forced S. Augustine to say therof Miratur hoc mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit They cannot salue this Point in answering that God doth replenish all places as one place For though we acknowledge that all places are to him as one yet who will not graunt but that he is able to create another world farre remote
from this and so should be present in the fame world and consequently in seuerall and farre distant places Nor can they further reply that it is lesse possible for a true naturall Body to be in seuer all places at once then for God who is only a spirituall substance This aduantageth them nothing since the mayne reason why it should seeme that a Body cannot be in diuers places is not taken so much à mole corporis quà ◠ab vnitate not from the heauy weight of the Body but from the vnity therof which vnity as it is no lesse but much more e Much more perfect The Vnity of God is much more perfect then the Vnity of any thing whatsoeuer for seeing that the Philosophers do define Vnum to be that which is Indiuisumà se sed diuisumà quocuÌ„que alio that this definition is more agreeable to God then to any creatures Therfore it followeth that his Vnity is more perfect then the Vnity of any other thing And hence it is that among the other Attributes of God giuen him by the Philosophers as Primus Infinitus Optimus Omnipotens c. he is stiled by them also to be Vnus Now as he is Vnus in respect of all Incomposition so is he Vnus in regard that he is but One and not Many Which point appeareth demonsttatiuely from hence for seeing that God is infinite for otherwise he can haue no true Diuinity we cannot conceaue how there can be many Gods and consequently many Infinities without preiudice or impeachment of one Infinitie in respect of another perfect in God then in a Body so it should seeme to be no lesse deuided or distracted in it selfe in God then in a Body through his being in diuersitie of places Thus we see how this difficulty of being in diuers places so often vrged and reinforced by our Aduersaries is auoyded euen by the iudgement of all except of those if any such be who will not confesse that they can find him who is in euery place nor see him who is in euery thing they see And thus much of these few Instances the nature and deliberate consideration whereof may seeme iustly to extenuate the obiected difficulties in the blessed Sacrament And howsoeuer the learned Deuines haue laboured much in the explicating of these points yet it is obserued that hitherto they could neuer be brought to allow any one Mans Illustration of them A Document to teach vs that the wit of Man is too weake an Interpreter of Gods Power and withall to admonish vs for the more humbling of those high witts and conceipts who haue eyes to see difficulties but not iudgements to vnfold them that in things once made questionable in regard of the probable impugning of either part and the vncertainty of what side the truth is it not being matter of Faith much Learning is but much artificiall and paynfull Ignorance To these former might be adioyned many other Philosophicall f Philosophicall Speculations Besides such difficulties in Philosophy as are heerafter set downe in their particuler References which may seeme to transcend Mans capacity there are many other As for example The least mote in the Sunne or other smallest thing that the Eye can hardly discerne to haue in it selfe truly and really infinite parts which thing the nature of quantitas continua conuinceth which is defined to be semper diuisibilis in indiuisibilia which if otherwise it should be then might a â—ody euen by naturall reason in the end become to be nothing or annihilated which can only be effected by Gods power In like sort Mans vnderstanding cannot conceaue how a true solide and firme body should be carried with that rapidity or swiftnesse as the Heauens are carried in their courses for the highest Heauen going his whole course in 24. houres by the iudgment of Mathematicians Philosophers is really moued at least twenty thousand miles in the twinkling of an Eye which thing what vnderstanding can conceaue when the swiftest thing that is in this world whether it be the flying of a Swallow or a bullet shot out of a Gun if it should continue it motion for the space of an whole houre would not go at the most past fifty or threescore miles within the same time Speculations which cannot be confined and as I may say circumscribed within the compasse of Mans wit as that the least Quantity should be diuisible into infinite parts That the highest Heauens being a true Body should be carried with such a rapidity and swiftnes of motion as we see it is That a g That a Vapour A Vapour is essentially water for we see it being resolued turneth againe into the same water â—amdem numero which afore it was It is therfore altered only accidentally to wit in these three qualities in Heate in Tenuity or thinnesse and in Lâ—uity so that a Vapour is the same water which afore it was but more hoat more thinne or attenuated and more light Vapour how familiar and obuious soeuer this obseruation seemeth being only but water rarified should possesse a greater place then when it was elementall water and seeing that before it was attenuated there were as many puncta or partes of it as when it is become a Vapour euery Punctum or part therof hauing afore it due circumscription Now then it doth seeme as much repugnant to a determinate and limitable substance to exact a greater circumscription of Space then afore it had still remaining without any addition eadem substantia numero as for a substance to require a lesser or none at all as we affirme of the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament And finally to omit many others that the h The Loadstone or a peice of Iron after it is but touched therwith I will not heere insist so much in the difficulty how a Loadstone doth draw Iron to it to wit whether it be through a Sympathy of Nature betweene these two bodies or through the proper forme of the Loadstone or if through the proper forme thereof which is the more generall Opinion whether immediately of it selfe or by the inteâ—uention of some Instrument or if by the mediation of some Instrument which is also the more neceaded coniecture whether this Instrument is a sending forth of certaine corporeall Aâ—omi or spirits of the Loadstone or only a transfusion of an incorporeall quality or vertue thereof and finally if it be a transfusion of an immateriall vertue which is in like sort more commonly said to be whether this vertue commeth out of the Loadstone and so is really carried to the Iron or only propagated by the medium thereto so as the vertue still remayning in the stone doth only beget or multiply the like vertue through the ayre till it come to the Iron no otherwise then when the heate of the fire by being multiplied in the aire doth affect with heat bodyes in good distance from the fire which later sentence is also more
Sacrament but bread and wine it is not e It is not better That these Figures are not inferior if not superior to the Eucharist if nothing be there but Bread and Wine either for substance or signification it is most cleare And first touching the Paschall Lambe If we consider a Lambe and Bread as things naturall the Lamb as being a Creature endued with sense is more noble And if we consider them as Sacraments that is as externall signes the Lamb also excelleth Bread for the Flesh of Christ is better represented by the flesh of the Lamb then by Bread Againe the death of Christ is more liuely figured by the killing of the Lambe then by breaking of Bread Finally the InnoceÌ„cy other Proprieties of Christ are better signified by a Lamb without any spot for such the Law commaunded to be sacrificed then by Bread In like sort the effect of the SacrameÌ„t is better obtained by the eating of the Lamb then by eating of bread for if the effect therof be a spirituall nutrition we know that flesh nourisheth better then bread and if it be only a stirring vp of a Mans faith then doth the killing of the Lambe performe it better in that it more liuely setteth forth the death of Christ Concerning the Bloud of the Testament the same former Reasons which did proue the Lambe to be more noble then Bread do also serue to proue that bloud is better both for substance signification then the Eucharist if nothing be there but Wine for Bloud is a more noble substance then Wine the Bloud of Christ is better represented by bloud then by wine Touching the Manna It is in like sort most cleare that supposing the Eucharist to containe in it only bread it is inferiour to the MaÌ„na And first considering their natures and essences the Manna it most excellent as being made by the hands of the Angells descending from heauen and hauing in it all kind of tastes or so tasting as euery one eating therof would desire And according to these points we find it called Panis Angelorum Psal 77. and Panis de Caelo Ioan. 6. wheras bread is made by the hands of a Baker comming out of an Ouen and hauing only but the tast of bread In like sort if Manna and bread be considered as externall Symboles and signes Manna representeth or signifieth Christ better then bread in that it came from heauen was indued with all kinds of tastes and was receaued of euery one in a like measure Thus we see that the Figures in the old Law do euery way excel the Eucharist they being but Types of the same if so nothing be therin but bread Now it is euident euen in reason that Figures ought to be inferiour to those things wherof they are Figures which point also appeareth out of the Apostle Colos 2. who there compareth the Figures of the old Testament to the shaddowes and the fulfilling of the said figures to the body Now wheras our Aduersaries do answere to our Argument in saying that our Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist do excell the Sacraments of the old Law euen with reference had only to the externall signes because say they our Sacraments are more firme as neuer againe to be altered and because they shew and figure out a thing already done and not heerafter only to be done and because they are more simple and belong to a greater multitude of people and lastly in that they are more cleere then the other not so much in regard of externall representation as for the euidency and cleernesse of the words there spoken This is the answere of our Aduersaries and particulerly of Peter Martyr in sua defens de Eucharist part 3. pag. 692. But this taketh not away the force of our Argument for all these Prerogatiues of our Sacraments ascribed by him are extrinsecall and accidentary to Sacraments as they are Symboles and Signes seeing that they altogeather depend of the bare will of him who did first institute ordaine them therfore they bring small or no dignity of signes as they are signs but the comparison is to be made in the signification it selfe in seeking the internall dignity and worth of signes for those signes are better which better do signify but signes do signify better or worse in regard only of their externall signification Adde hereto that when our Sauiour did first institute the Eucharist his death was to come and consequently it did then figure a thing to come Lastly adde that the Scripture and the Fathers do not teach that our Sacraments do not excell the old Sacraments because they better signify but because they were but as figures and the Eucharist the thing figured so as the comparison made both in Scriptures and by the Fathers is the comparison of the things absolutely in themselues without any reference had of the signification of them better if not inferior to those Legall Figures either in regard of their naturall substances or their signification implied by them Yea let vs tell them that they debase ouermuch the Iewish Sacraments as teaching that they did but adumbrate shaddowes and represent Representations since they account them no better then Types of Types and Figures of Figures yet cannot this at all sway the iudgements of our Aduersaries which is carried away violently with the streame of preiudice and partiality Let vs bring forth the Ancient f Ancient Rabbins Among the Rabbins which haue prophesied hereof we find that Rabbi Symeon lib. Reuelat. SecretoruÌ„ thus saith The Sacrifice which after the Messias his comming Priests shall make c. they shall make iâ— of bread and wine c. and that Sacrifice which shall be so celebrated vpon euery Altar shall be turned into the body of the Missias Rabbi Cabana ad cap. 46. Genes writeth That the Sacrifices which shal be offered of wine shall not only be changed into the substance of the Bloud of the Messias but also into the substance of his Body The Sacrifice which shall be of Bread notwithstanding it be white as milke it shall be conuerted into the Body of the Messias Rabbi Barachias in Ecclesiast affirmeth That at the comming of the Messias food shall come from heauen like a little eaâ—e Finally Rabbi Hadarsan in Psal 1â—6 to omit the testimonyes of others writeth Tast and see how good is God for the bread which he giueth to all is his Flesh and whilest it is tasted it is conuerted into his Flesh So cleare these Iewes were in this point that Galatinus who vrgeth these their sayings writeth of them That they may be thought not so much to haue foreâ—ould things to come as to haue reported Euangelist-like things already done Rabbins most of them if not all liuing before our Sauiours Incarnation who in a Propheticall spirit directed no doubt by him with whom their is no distinction of Tymes though himselfe first distinguished Tymes tell vs that in the after dayes the Messias himselfe
that the first Censure terminating in their owne Faith proceedeth out of Preiudice and Selfe-loue the other out of a cleere and impartiall Iudgment And heere now I will close vp this Chapter with a discouery of one notorious sleight of the Sacramentaries which shall serue as a Chorus to this second Tract It is this That now at the length they are content to diuulge that the Article of the Reall Presence is but a Point adiaphorous or indifferent and therfore may be maintayned on all sides without endangering the Foundation of Christian Religion But what Doe they thus teach in fauour towards vs therby to lessen our supposed errour heerin No verily This show of kindnesse we admit not for l Timeo Danaos Virg. Aneid 4. Timeo Danaos dona ferentes The true Reason then heerof is this They seeing that Gods sacred word at least in the litterall and genuine sense therof the vn-interrupted Practise of the Church the conuincing testimonyes of the Fathers and finally theyr owne Brethren though comparting with them in other Articles of theyr owne Religion do all ioyntly corroborate and strengthen the Catholike doctrne in this High Mystery And on the other side vnwilling to recall for Pryde cannot brooke a iust yielding or submission to an Aduersary what they haue heertofore so pertinaciously defended they haue therfore thought it good Policy to suggest to the world and Indifferency of this Point that by so doing they may intimate to all that though they erre therin as hauing so many great Euidences against them yet their Errour not touching any Cardinall supreme article of Faith is the lesse dangerous and therfore the more sufferable and pardonable Now answerably to this my Asseueration we find euen Doctor n D. Keynolds in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference Reynolds no vulgar Idoll in our English Temple to assigne o To assigne diuers others Answerably hereto we find Iacobus Acontius l. 3. stratagem Sat. pag. 135. thus writing It is euident concerning aswell those who hould the Reall Presence of Christs Body in the Bread as those others which deny it that although of necessity the one part doe erre yet both are in way of Saluation if in other things they be obedient to God So also the indifferent iudgement of Iohn Frith Acts. and Mon. 503. who there saith hereof The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament byndeth no man of necessity to Saluation or Damnation whether he belieue it or no. diuers others to the Marginall Reference to affirme that the Reall Presence is but as it were the grudging of a former Ague if otherwise the party hould the Christian faith Thus we see how our Aduersaries comportment in this Controuersy is full of fraud morefull of Malice Their incorrigible humour of contradicting the Catholike Church for their Sacramentall Position is grounded meerely vpon Opposition displayes their Malice their false extenuating for their owne aduantage the greatnesse of this Mysterie their Fraud THAT THERE ARE MANY CONGRVENTIALL Reasons shewing the Conueniency why Christ might be induced to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist As also shewing the Conueniency of Transubstantiation CHAP. XII IT is an accustomed approued Method both of Philosophers and Deuines after they haue fortified their Assertions the subiect of their Discourse with the most forcible Testimonyes which are to be alledged in that behalfe then to attend the said Proofs with certaine Congruentiall Inducements perswading the conueniency and fitnes of such their doctrine Thus the Philosopher for instance sake after he hath much discoursed of the number the vastnesse and the beauty of the Heauens Gods Hieroglyphick Characters wherin are written his Power and Glory and descending to demonstrate the roundnesse of those Bodyes as also the answerable roundnesse of the Earth from the vnchangeable Motions Phainomena and Appearances of the Heauens he sheweth the sutablenesse of this forme of them both and how it sorteth to the benefite of all Creatures and the Irregularities and exorbitant Effects rising from any other supposed forme giuen to them In like sort the Diuine conuincing against the Arian that Christ is both God and Man from the holy Scriptures and the authority of the Church doth warrant his doctrine with certaine perswasiue motyues drawne from the consideration of Gods Iustice and the Atrocity of Sinne including that it was conuenient that since Sinne did first deuide God from Man he who by redeeming the world should reunite them should be both God and Man And thus the firster kind forceth our Iudgment the other as sorting with Reason and Prudence and in some sense presuming the former serues only as sweet meates to our stomakes pleasingly to close vp our iudgment The same order will I heere obserue For hauing I trust already sufficiently proued the Truth of the Reall Presence in the Eucharist frō all the former Authorities drawne from the Word both of God and Man I will set downe certaine Congruences and Prudentiall Reasons wherwith our Sauiour might well seeme to haue bene induced to leaue his Sacred Body to his Church that by the authority and disposall therof it might be truly and really exhibited to all Christians whatsoeuer And heere by reason of the great number of them I will chiefly insist in some few for I am desirous to contract this Treatise within as small a Compasse as conueniently I can in regard whereof I will not much more enlarge my selfe vpon those Effects and Operations of this most heauenly food which heretofore I haue touched by way of alledging the Fathers Authorities which shew that the Eucharist is a Pledge of our Saluation that by it we are not only by Faith but euen corporally vnited with Christ That in regard of this vnion the Eucharist is a Seale to vs of our Resurrection finally that through it we are made Partakers of the diuine Nature All which admirable Effects and vertues may probably be imagined among other Motiues to haue beene most preuayling with our Lord for the first institution of this holy Mysterie for Man cannot conceaue how Christ could inuent more forcible meanes to produce such spirituall operations then by instituting this Sacrament In respect also of the same desired expedition I will not long rest in displaying and amplifying the dignity and worth of such Inducements as I intend heere to vrge but will passe them ouer with a cursory Penne breifly intimating them to the studious Reader Well then one Inducement of the Institution of this Sacrament may be that seeing Mortall sinne which is the Harbinger of eternall damnation cannot be auoyded altogeather but by the Grace of God what better meanes could his diuine Maiesty inuent for the watering our Soules with his Grace then the ordayning of this Sacrament for since we are hereby truly and really vnited with Christ the Fountaine of Grace how can we be altogeather estranged and deuided from such Influences as proceed from Christ yea we are to belieue
Secondly by reason that in regard of the presence of the Accidences the worth and merit of our faith is increased Thirdly they being absent it would be a horrour to Mans nature to eate Mans flesh Fourthly if they were absent then this Proposition Hoc est Corpus meum could not be true since then the whole should be so changed into the whole as that nothing should remayne common to both the Termini of this Conuersion Reasons drawne in like sort from Conueniency for they are strange Mathematicians since of all the seuerall Aspects which may be borne to the Sunne of Gods Church for in sole posuit Tabernaculum suum they approue and allow only a meere Diametricall Opposition thus grauely esteeming themselues to be so much the neerer to the Truth by how much they are further of from the p The pillar and foundation According to that Columna Firmamentum Veritatis Tim. c. 3. Pillar and Foundation of Truth THE CONCLVSION HEERE now Good Reader for to thee only I will turne my pen since my humble thoughts dare not presume to direct any further speeches vnto his Maiesty thou hast this meane and impolished discourse in regard of the Subiect whereof all Pens yea the tongues of Angells are to be reputed most vnworthy from hence thou mayst according to my Method be instructed of two things First of the Possibility of this great Mystery Secondly of the Authorities both humane and diuine prouing that what herein by Gods Power may be performed the same was through his Diuine Godnesse and pleasure in the Institution of the Eucharist actually effected And concerning the first Point we are to conceaue that as in the firster part hereof it is demonstrated that God is Omnipotent so doth our Christian Faith teach vs that he is a he is iust Psalm 11. iust Through his Omnipotency he is able to performe what he promiseth Through his Iustice he promiseth nothing but what he will performe Both these drawing equally togeather in him for he hath b For he hath promised Answerably to that of S. Iohn 6. Pauis quem ego daho caro mea est pro mundi vita promised by the infallible Oracle of his written word that he would giue his sacred Body and Bloud to eate and drinke may warrant vs of the Truth of this high Mysterie In the second Part to conuince that Christ at his last Supper performed what afore was prooued that he was able to accomplish thou hast set downe all the chiefest Authorities drawne from Gods sacred word the answerable Prophesies of the Ancient Iewes herein the beginning and progression of the Sacramentarian Heresy particulerly displaied the wrested testimonies of Scriptures alledged to the contrary fully and satisfyingly answered the stupendious Miracles wrought in proofe hereof recorded and lastly to omit other short insertions the Fathers Iudgments in the same as also in the particuler manner of Transubstantiation most aboundantly manifested both by their owne expresse sayings and by the plaine acknowledgement of our Sacramentaries It now remaineth that vpon the mature deliberation of the former Premisses thou consider seeing with the c VVith the Psalmist Psalm 24. Psalmist Thou hast not receaued thy soule in vayne to which side thou intendest to subiect thy iudgement herein That is whether thou wilt imbrace the Sacramentaries opinion notwithstanding it is impugned by all forcible Proofes whatsoeuer or that thou wilt be content with all humble resignation of thy owne spirit to impath thy selfe in the way of reuerend Antiquity and to follow their iudgements who in Faith and doctrine followed the Apostles I meane the Iudgments of those Primitiue Fathers Men remarkeable for Learning since their owne Labours left as MonumeÌ„ts to Posterity are sufficient witnesses therof Men of most eminent vertue since God hath vouchsafed to seale their sanctity of life with the irrefragable testimonies of diuers d Great Miracles Examples hereof see recorded in diuers Authors and Historiographers great Miracles Finally men of a pure and vncorrupted Faith since they then liued when the Church of Christ was for her time but in her Infancy but for her perfection in her youth and full growth and therfore euen by the confession of our Sectaries could not with a ioynt consent teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles And thus the maine drift of these precedent Passages for this is the Issue of the matter chiefly intended by me and heere it resteth resolues to this one poynt to wit whether a Man desirous of his owne saluatioÌ„ should in this high and most reuerend Mysterie vpon the true or false beliefe wherof depends his soules interminable weale or woe run one and the same lyne of faith with Augustine Hierome Chrysostome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basil Ambrose Hilary Athanasius Cyprian Irenaeus Ignatius and the like or with Zuinglius Caluin and Beza But now since we are Christians and are to belieue in Christ not in outward sense Let vs turne our pen from all disputable Points of the matter and acknowledging the certainty admire Gods incoÌ„prehensible Goodnes therin for as the Heauens spend their Motions by distributing their Heat Light other vertues to the earth so the Creatour of the Heauens hath vouchsafed the Influence of his Grace by bestowing himselfe in this most dreadfull Mysterie vpon Man the Earths chiefest creature Thus by receauing his sacred Body and Bloud we containe him within our selues whom the Heauens caÌ„not containe and inclose him in our breasts who in himselfe incloseth all this ALL. In like sort at this celestiall Table we feed on him who giues himselfe aswell to thousands as to one and yet euery one receaues as much therof as those thousaÌ„ds who equally imparteth himself to good bad and yet they both partake therof with most vnequall Effect To be short who e Commanding euery one According to those words Iohn 6. Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij Hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis coÌ„maunding euery one to eare of his flesh and drinke of his bloud is much offended with diuers men communicating therof and yet commaundeth nothing wherwith he is offended for it is the Vnpreparation not the Participation which displeaseth him which Point cannot seeme strange to vs Christians for we read that the f The Incircumcised Exod. c. 12. Vncircumcised could not eate the Phase Which Phase or Paschall Lambe since g Typically it represented Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra â—teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de ave celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus typically it represented the Eucharist could not be eaten but with gyrded loynes and shooes on their feet which figure out in our Lords Supper our holy desires with vnleauened bread wherby is shaddowed our azimous and pure intentions finally with the mixture of certaine bitter hearbes signifying sharp compunction for our former Impieties so necessary it is for our soule to be cloathed with her wedding garment when she presumeth to come to so great a banquet And now to draw to an end of that which in it selfe is endlesse since Gods Power and Goodnesse are in the Institution of this Sacrament paralell one to the other that Mans vnderstanding caÌ„not penetrate into the depth of eyther of them for betweene things finite and infinite there is proportion only in disproportion let vs admire his Power as being able to effect so great a worke Let vs admire his Goodnes as being willing to worke it far Mans benefit and in a deep and silent CoÌ„templation of both for words are defectiue herein let vs conclude with that Graue and Reuerend h Reuerend Father Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minime scrutandae c. â— Father Ignis immortalis sunt Mysteria Christi noli temerè ea perscrutari ne in ipsorum perscrutatione comburaris a He is iust Psalm 11. b For he hath promised Answerably to that of S. Iohn 6. Pauis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita c VVith the Psalmist Psalm 24. d Great Miracles Examples hereof see recorded in diuers Authors and Historiographers e Commanding euery one According to those words Iohn 6. Nisi manducaueritis carnem silij Hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis f The Incircumcised Exod. c. 12. g Typically it represented Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra â—teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de â—ue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus h Reuerend Father Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5. FINIS
Bodies haue heate and other such qualities per productionem non per inhaerentiam that is they cause the same qualities in other Bodies and so may be said to haue them but these qualities do not inhere in the said heauenly Bodies for these primae qualitates are originally peculiar and naturall to the Elements only and to other Bodies compounded of them by participation But the Heauens are not compound of the Elements hauing either heate or life But now if we turne our Pen more particulerly to the most Blessed Reuerēd Sacrament of the Eucharist where the Word being made Flesh by his Word made Bread Flesh we shal be able to discouer whole seas of wonders and be forced to acknowledge that Mans vnderstanding is not of force to sound them or that it best apprehendeth them in not apprehending them still bearing an obsequious and inuolued beliefe of what Gods Church teacheth therin no otherwise then the Memory often serues to remember that some things it did not remember Now seeing it is my intended Method to spend this first Part in explicating and vnfoulding our Aduersaries greatest and strongest difficulties which they vse as so many Arietes or Engines to ruinate and batter downe the walles of the ancient Catholike doctrine therin All which though they shal be fully reconciled explaned so as our vnderstanding shal be conuinced of the possibility therof and consequently that Christ was able to exhibite his Body truly and really vnder the formes of Bread and wine yet neuerthelesse the externall betraying Sense the alluring Eue entising our Vnderstanding the proper seate of Faith to giue assent to it owne danger will still be whispering in our eares the contrary doctrine Therfore I haue thought good to premonish the Reader in the entrance hereof that in this Mystery he is to relinquish all entercourse with Sense to stand in hostility with the same yea euen forcing and constrayning his Vnderstanding to receaue no intelligence from thence and euer to remember that he who first made the Eye still retaines a commaund ouer the Eye Thus violence only in enioying of him who forbiddeth all violence is warrantable for not only touching life but faith also f Regnum Caelorum Matth. c. 11. Regnum Caelerum vim patitur and heere rapine is true purchase so in all other things for vsing of force we are punished heere for not vsing we are punished OF THE OMNIPOTENCY OF GOD. AND VVhat he is able to performe CHAP. II. THE small streames wherewith the floud of the Sacramentarian Heresie is fed and maintained spring chiefly from the extenuating of Gods omnipotency intimating therby that the abstruse Mysteries which are confessedly acknowledged by the Catholikes to be in the Reall Presence are greater then can be performed by that power which through it infinitnesse is euer vnknowne though through it continuall manifestatiō still eminent In this manner doth that a French Apostata viz. Caluin who saith l. 4. Instit c. 72. Cur inquiunt vi◠Catholici non faciat Deus vt caro eadem plura diuersaque loca occupet vt nullo loco contineatur vt forma specie careat Insane quid à Dei potentia postulas vt carnem faciat simul esse non esse carnem first French Apostata that late b Late Patriarch viz. Beza lib. de Coena Domini contra Westphalum Patriarch of Geneua dispute of this matter In like sort that c False Martyr Peter Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum obiect 10. 11. 12. c. false Martyr who with the Apostle of his owne name denied his Maister but neuer with him lamented his denyall laboured to shorten Gods arme and omnipotency heerin so ready are these great Rabbins to interleague compart with the very Heathens in depressing of his might whose Greatnesse is without d VVithout Quantity The hauing of Accidences euer implyes composition therfore God being most simple can haue no Accidences Quantity whose Goodnesse without Quality and whose Eternity without Tyme But before we vndertake to shew the possibility of all such points as are found in this Mystery of the Eucharist it will much conduce I suppose to our intended proiect if we lay downe the graue iudgments of the learned concerning what things be factible or may be done by God and what things may seeme to transcend his might who in might transcendeth all things fince so the impartiall Reader may the better obserue whether the acknowledged doubts in the Eucharist imply in themselues any absolute impossibility or no. First then it is generally agreed vpon by the Learned that God is able to do euery thing which Mans vnderstanding is able to conceaue The reason hereof being that fince the Obiect of our mind is Ens and Verum in generall and that which may be conceaued or vnderstood may really truly exist Therfore it followeth that God can effect all that which Man is able to conceaue in his Mind Secondly the Learned especially those which are Christians affirme that not only those things which Man is able to apprehēd in his mind but also many other things incomprehensible in Mans vnderstanding God can effect For seeing say they that totum Ens of it selfe is intelligible and to be conceaued and that which is non Ens cannot be conceaued neuerthelesse our Vnderstanding through it weaknesse and imbecillity except it be cleared with the Light of Grace is often deceaued in cōceauing of things supposeth many things cannot exist or be and consequently not to be apprehended by our Vnderstanding or in themselues to be factible which may indeed exist and so become the obiect of our Mind Thus our Vnderstanding may apprehend that some things there are which it cannot apprehend neuerthelesse the more the vnderstanding doth lift it selfe vp towards God the more it is illuminated and the better refined for the penetrating of any difficultie no otherwise then a vapour the higher it is eleuated vp by the Sunne the more cleare and purified it becomes This doctrine of theirs as it is warrantable in the Authority of Gods sacred word so is it iustifiable in diuers exemplified Articles of our Faith which the Heathen Philosophers esteemed as things impossible and by deniall therof ascribed vnto God only a kind of impotent Omnipotency Thirdly they teach that God hath in all things so much an Actiue Power by how much they haue in themselues a Passiue Power And in this sense perhaps the Heathen Philosophers acknowledged Gods Omnipotency But their Errour was in that they thought that the Actiue Power of God could not extend beyond the Passiue Power of things thus we see it verified in these learned men e That the world 1. Cor. c. 1. That the world through wisdome knew not God wheras all Christian Philosophers do teach the cōtrary and therfore they belieue that God could did create the world of Nothing Now to make a thing of Nothing is not to depend
though veyled ouer with those formes And thus is S. Basil to be vnderstood in sua Liturgia who calles the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figure or Representation of the Body of Christ And in this sense all the Sacraments of the new Law may be called Figures or Representations because they are externall signes representing and withall working an inward Grace represented A Change whereby that sacred Body at the first Institution of the Eucharist being yet mortall and passible was then receaued as n Immortal For as it was at the first deliuered to the Apostles it was in that spirituall manner vnder the externall formes as now at is after his death immortall and impassible A Change where the externall formes of the things changed doe by themselues after a sort o After a sort subiect The Accidences of Bread and Wine are said to be in themselues because they are not in a liquo suppofito or subiect and yet they do not truly subsist by any positiue act but are in Corpor◠Christi as they are preserued there though not by way of inherencie Now where our Aduersaries do vsually obiect that it is of the essence of an Accident to inhere in the Subiect and therfore the Accidences of Bread Wine must either inhere in the body of Christ which all Catholikes deny or else in the bread and wine and consequently no Transubstantiation I answere hereto that all chiefe Philosophers deny it to be of the essence of an Accident for Aristotle himselfe lib. ◠de Anima text 9. saith Aliud est magnitude aliud magnitudinis esse Now if the existence of an Accident be distinguished from it essence much more is the inherency thereof which is but the manner of it existency Besides if Inherency were of the essence of an Accident Aristotle would neuer haue demaunded 4. Physic text 58. whether that space were supposed to be vacuum where there should be only sound and colour intimating thereby that though by naturall Reason an Accident cannot exist without a subiect yet that inherency is not of the essence of colour or sound since otherwise his demaund should be absurd and idle for who should suppose Colour or Sound would necessarily presuppose a subiect and therfore a Body subsist and yet are not substances they inhere not and yet are Accidents they are in themselues in respect of negation and not of position in another by way of preseruation not of inherency A Change whereby the Testament made being Christs p Christs Bloud As the Bloud of Christ is taken for that Bloud which was in the Chalice vnder the externall species of wine so it is a Sacrament and consequently a Will or Testament But as his Bloud is taken for that Bloud which was shed vpon the Crosse so is his Testament sealed and established in the same Bloud And therfore according to this double acception of Christs Bloud we find that S. Luke did speake in these words Hic Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo where by the word Calix is meant Bloud and consequently the Testament Bloud was yet sealed in his Bloud A Change where the q Externall Formes We hold that when the Externall Species are corrupted the same substantiall Forme succeeds which would naturally haue succeeded if the Bread and Wine had not bene changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And yet we teach not that this commeth by any Generation for in euery Generation there is eadem materia numero vnder both the Termini or Formes which heere is not for the same Materia prima which was in the Body of Christ is not in the new introduced forme Now then though it doth not proceed from any preexistent Matter yet it cannot be said to be Created for Creation properly hath no reference or relation as proceeding meerly of Nothing to any former thing whatsoeuer but heere this new forme hath a necessary relation and dependency of the corruption of the former species of bread and wine for if the said formes were not and after became not corrupted this new substantiall forme would not succeed Lastly we teach that this new substance is substituted or brought in by God euen in that very Instant when the Formes of Bread and Wine cease to be And this neuerthelesse is not accomplished by any second and new Miracle for euen as when the matter of a Mans Bodie being sufficiently disposed God doth immediately create and infuse the soule and yet this is not called a Miracle because the order of things already set downe by God doth require it In like sort when the alteration of the species of Bread Wine is proceeded so far that then are made present requisite dispositions as the course of things requires to introduce some forme then doth God in that very instant minister the matter and so the substantiall forme is introduced Now heere we are to note that when any part of these formes are corrupted the Body of Christ either in whole or in part is not extinct therby but only ceaseth to be vnder those corrupted formes still continuing whole vnder the rest not corrupted and if all the formes be corrupted then it ceaseth to be there at all not much otherwise then when a Mans Leg is cut off the soule which was in the Leg dyeth not for if it dyed then he who wanted a leg should want a part of his soule but only ceaseth to informe that part informing all the rest and if all parts of the Body were disioynted asunder then the Soule not dying ceaseth only to informe any of the said parts externall Formes being corrupted a new substantiall Forme is introduced and yet heere is no Generation it is not produced out of any preexistent Matter and yet no Creation it is exhibited immediately and only by God and yet without any new Miracle To conclude A Change see heere repose in Motiō wrought without Change since the Body of our Sauiour suffered no alteration therby for it r Relinquished Nothing For Christs Body in the Sacrament enioyeth all those essentiall perfections of a true Body which afore it had in Heauen only it receaueth a new relation to the species of Bread and Wine as it is in the Sacrament which it hath not as it is in Heauen and consequently it is inuested thereby with some other circumstances accompanying that it existence vnder it species as to be freed from all extension of place as also to be freed from that relation of place which it hath as it is in Heauen relinquished nothing which afore it had but acquired some things which afore it had not Thus though what he heere is he was not yet what he was he heere is Now out of this Passage it appeareth how the Catholikes dissent herein both from the Lutherans from the Sacramentaries From the Lutherans for though they acknowledge the true presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet they teach that no reall Change
approoued In refelling of these I will not insist for seeing they are meerely speculatiue and by the vrging of seuerall reasons in defence of euery opinion as being most remote from sense may all be made coniecturally probable Therefore I will chiefly rest in the other point that is in maintayning that no true nor certaine reason can be giuen why the Loadstone it selfe hanging in the aire by a thred or being put in a vessell of water doth at all tymes tend with one and the same point thereof in the same place towards one and the same point of the North for it being placed after either of these two wayes is free from all letts of it naturall motion or that a needle touched therewith will in like sort direct the one end still towards the North. Many reasons hereof I find alledged but all are insufficient and conuinced as false euen by the Eye and experience it selfe The first Reason is giuen by those which doe assigne the cause hereof to be some Northern part of the Heauen to which the Loadstone or Needle euer tendeth though in setting downe which this part should be they dissent Some doe maintaine that the Northern Pole of the world in the Point whereunto the stone is directed as Petrus Peregrinus in tract de Magnete But this sentence is thus ouerthrowne First because then there should be no variation of the Needle but that in all places it should directly tend towards the North Pole which is found by experience that it doth not Now heereby the variation of the Needle is vnderstood when the Needle tendeth either Eastwardly or Westwardly from the Pole which in seuerall Countries is found more or lesse to do Secondly if the Pole it selfe were the Point then the Northern end of the Needle should eleuate it selfe towards the Pole with vs heere in England much more in other more Boreall Clymates because to all such places the Pole is eleuated many degrees but we see iust contrary hereto that euen in all these CouÌ„tries the Northern part of the Needle doth depresse it selfe downwards to the earth bending to some poynt many degrees vnder the Horizon and consequently bearing it selfe more low then the Southerne part thereof And this depression of that part is commonly called the Declination of the Pole of the Loadstone or Needle Others doe teach the Pole starre to be the point as Franciscus Lopez lib. 1. hist Occidental â—nd c. â— and Cardinus de subtilitate l. 7. This also is false First by the former reason of the afore alledged declination of the Needle seeing that euen with vs the Pole starre is euer many degrees aboue our Horizon Secondly because the Pole starre is euer in motion and reuolution about the Pole of the world and maketh it diurnall circle ech way distant more then two degrees from the Pole therefore if this Starre were the cause hereof then should the Needle follow the motion of that starre and so euery houre of the day be in changing it course in any one place which we find that it doth not at all Thirdly because we find that the Needle in some Countries doth vary it motion aboue thirty degrees from the Pole of the world whereas the furthest distance of the Pole starre from the Pole it selfe as is said aboue is not three degrees Fourthly because it would follow that in those Southerne parts where the Pole starre doth not rise the Loadstone should not turne towards the North by reason that this influence and vertue of the Pole starre could not penetrate through the earth and yet in those Australl Countries the Needle retaineth it former quality for euen in Freto Magellaniâ—o it is obserued to tend directly towards the Pole of the world There are also some who assigne the cause hereofto other starres and constellations neere vnto the Pole and not to the Pole starre as Petrus Gregorius art intrab l. 36. c. 7. and Collegium Conimbricense ad 7. Physic 2. but this their error is refuted by all these former ArgumeÌ„ts which prooue that the Pole starre is no cause thereof Finally some others will haue some point aboue but extra Caelum to be the reason heerof for they say it cannot be referred to any point of Heauen it selfe seeing that euery part therof the Pole excepted is mouable and yet the needle in any one place or Countrey neuer changeth it certaine site and resting Of this opinion is Cortes part 3. art nauig c. 5. But this is refelled besides by some of the former alledged Arguments euen from Philosophy it selfe for seeing there is no Body or Subiect extra Caelum there can no vertue or influence proceed from thence since other wise there should be Accident originally fine Subiecto which cannot be Againe that supposed point should be either moueable or not moueable if moueable then should not the Needle in the same place alwaies looke tend one way if immoueable then should the Needle in all places respect one and the same point but both these are false And thus much of the first generall opinion which ascribeth the difficulty hereof to some part of the Heauens or point beyond the Heauens The Second maine opinion is of those who allot the vertue of the Loadstone to a Mountaine of Loadstone or a great Myne therof vnder the North Pole Of this opinion are Olaus lib. 12. c. 1. Francostor de Sympath Antipath Seuert lib. 1. in sâ—hol definition â—â— to which place say these men that by reason of the attractiue forâ—â— of this great Mountaine the Loadstone or a needle touched therwith tends vnto This opinioÌ„ is also refelled First because it would follow from Hence that a Loadstone or Needle swimming freely and without hinderance in the water should be mouing with change of place euermore forward towards the North and should not lye still vpon the water only bearing one end towardes the North but this it doth not Secondly in that it is found by experience that in a Port of the â—â—and Elba in Italy not distant more then a mile from a great Rocke of Loadstone the Needle touched with a Loadstone doth not turne towards that Rocke but towards the North if then that great Rock in Elba hath not the vertue to draw the needle to it being so neere how can it be thought probable that the other Rock vnder the Pole can send it vertue so far to Needles touched with the Loadstone in Countreys remote and distant from it Thirdly because as Scaliger well noteth Exercit. 132. the attractiue force and vertue of that mountaine of Loadstone vnder the Pole should be intercepted and broken by reason of the swelling roundnesse of the earth afore it could could come to other places farre distant from this mountaine and it is most improbable to say that this vertue doth penetrate through the earth to Countreys far distant Or if it did then it would follow that in Countreys more or lesse Southren the Northren end
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
this Answere it should not be lawfull for a sinner to looke vpoÌ„ the picture of Christ nor to heare the word of God since both these do represent and offer Christ vnto vs. Hence then we may conclude that it was not the Apostles meaning that therfore they did sinne who did receaue the Eucharist vn worthily because it doth represent Christ manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans Corpus Domini And againe he there faith that such an one reus erit Corporis Sanguinis Domini In all which words the often and reuerent ingemination of flesh of bloud of the Body of Christ of the most dreadfull comminations and threats to the vnworthy receauers therof may seeme well to Paraphrase and comment our Sauiours owne words and to free them froÌ„ all ambiguous acceptation Yet do they most pertinaciously persist in their former Allegoricall Constructions abastarding therby the natiue and genuine sense therof Let vs not only fortify our doctrine with the warrant of Gods word but also repell all weake assaults forces gathered out of certaine wrested Texts of the said Word for the impugning of this our faith for thus do our Aduersaries bandie Scripture against Scripture as if the Pennes of the Euangelists and the Apostles had at vnawares made some blots or blurres of contradictions or mistakings Now to this their drift many Passages are vrged by them As first diuers q Diuers examples Many examples of this kind are alledged by the Sacramentaries as Agnus est Pascha id est Transitus Exod. 1â— Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. c. 10. Baptisâ—â—â—s est lauacrum regenerationis Tit. 3. Septem boues sunt septem anni Gen. 14. Ego sum ostium Ioan. 20. and diuers other such like To these I answere First that most of these places are sâ—lfly expounded And first as touching that Petra erat Christus These words according to the exposition of Ambrose Chrysostome and others vpon this place are not to be vnderstood of the materiall Rock which signified Christ for that followed not the Iewes but of the spirituall and inuisible Rock which prouided all necessary thingâ— for the Iewes which Rock was properly and truly Christ as God Now though the Trope be that Christ is there called the Rock yeâ— by the addition of the word Spiritualis the Trope is explaned and therfore this Proposition Spiritualis petra erat Christus is taken properly and not figuratiuely To that other Baptisâ—â—â— est lauacrum regenerationis I say that Baptisme doth not signify only here the Lauacre of Regeneration but it truly washeth the soule of Man from sinne if the effect therof be noâ— hindered by our indisposition To that Agnus est Pascha we reply that Agnus Paschalâ—s the Paschall Lambe is not heere Tropically called the Pascha because it signified Transitum but it was called the Pascha properly no otherwise then as the Festiuall Day was called Pascha from the word deriued à Transitu Domini because the Lamb was then sacrificed and that Day was made Festiuall in remeÌ„brance of that Transitus or Passâ—ouer To that Septem boues sunt septem anni we say it is a Parâ—ble and in such Parables Similitudes and Vâ—â—ions the verbe Est is â—â—ken for Significat and yet without any Trope the reason heerof being because as is aboue touched thâ— whole essence of all such things iâ— plâ—ced in signification And therfore the sense of these words is noâ— that the seauen Oxen did signifie the seauen yeares but that the Oxen appeared in vision to signify those yeares Secondly we answere that in all examples â—lledged by our Aduersaries there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope Figure but of the words of the Institution there followeth no explication Thirdly in most of the examples alledged by our Aduersaries for there are diuers others produced by them euer prâ—dicatâ—â— dispatatum de disparato that is that which is of a most different nature is said of another thing of a like different nature â—â— in those Boues sunt Anni Christus est Ostium c. for seeing that in these and such like the Propositions cannot be by any meanes properly and literally true we are forced to expound the same by Tropes and Figures But in these words Hoc est Corpus meum there is no such kind of strange and vnnaturall predication at least in the appearance of the words themselues Lastly if we should admit that in the examples produced Est is taken for Significat yet seing this verbe is more often taken in it owne naturall signification then otherwise it followeth that it should be so taken in the words of the Institution rather then without sufficient reason to the contrary to be expounded figuratiuely Examples to countermaund the naturall construction of the words of the Institution wherin by the word Est is vnderstood Significat In like sort they obiect where it is said That the Eucharist is to be taken in r In Remembrance of Christ Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe this in Remembrance of mee From hence it followeth not that because we are commaunded to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ that therefore Christs Body is not there really present For the meaning of these words is set downe by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. saying Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat you shall shew the death of our Lord vâ—till he shall come Therefore we are coÌ„manded to take the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lords death and Passion which is not present but absent or rather it is not but was Remembrance of Christ That Christ shall not leaue s Not leaue Heauen Act. 3. Oportet illum Caelum suscipere vsque ad tempus restitutionis omnium VVhom meaning Christ Heauen must receaue vntill the tyme of the restitution of all things It followeth not from hence that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen Ergo his Body is not in the Eucharist for we teach that Christ ought not to leaue Heauen or to descend with a Locall Motion when he is in the Eucharist for heere no question iâ— made of the Article of Ascension but rather of Christs Omnipotency to wit whether Christ by his Diuine Power may place himselfe in seuerall places at one Tyme of which Point it is sufficiently treated aboue in the first Part of this Treatise Heauen till the consummation of the world That Christ to shew himselfe to haue a true Body consisting of flesh and bones c. would haue it touched t Haue it touched Pâ—lpate videte quia Spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere Handle and feele for a Spirit hath not slesh and bones as you see mee to haue Luc. 24. To argue thus It is felt and seene Ergo It is a body is a good consequence and this is the force of our Sauiours words But it is no good sequele to argue thus negatiuely as our
Ages With these then and no others at this tyme will I hold intelligence whose Iudgements and sentences as so many pointed weapons shall euery way endanger our Sacramentary since the admitting of their Authorities proclaymes his certaine Ouerthrow the reiecting his most dishonorable retyring and giuing backe Now in the handling of this point for the more perspicuitie and clearnesse I will reduce such testimonies of the Fathers as I intend to alledge to certaine principall Heads The first wherof shall be taken from the different appellations of this great Mysterie giuen by the Protestants and by the Fathers where we are to remember that since Mans immanent Thought which is an inward progression of the Mind is best become Transient or externally manifested by the Mediation of wordes Therfore Nature Gods obsequious Agent hath imparted to him the vse of Speach which Speach ought among men to be a true sincere Interpreter of the Soules mentall Language for we find those to haue bene greatly reprehended Qui c Qui linguis Rom. 3. linguis suis dolosâ— agebant Hence is it that as long as Man conformes himselfe to Gods intended vse herein his conceipt iudgment opinion had of any thing is best discouered by his words deliuered vpon the same Now then let vs see how the Fathers in words entitle this Sacrament First we find that they call it the Body and Bloud of Christ againe they further proceed and call it The precious Body of Christ Mans Price The pledge of Mans health The most dreadfull Mysteries and the like But what Is this the Dialect of our Aduersaries Or are they accustomed to speake in this manner of language No. For when they speake of the Eucharist their naturall and mother tongue is to tearme it only the Symboles and signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ d Quantum distat Psalm 103. Quantum â—â—stat ortus ab occasu If then our Aduersaries can in no case brooke to speake hereof as the Fathers did how can it probably be presumed that they belieued therin as the Fathers did Since words are the true Counterpane of the Mind written with the pen of it owne Tongue But now to come to these Testimonies wherin the Eucharist is thus termed and to beginne with the latter part of the fifth Age that so ascending vp by degrees to higher tymes we may consequently ascend in force weight of Argument drawn from such their Authorities And heere because many testimonies wil occur far more pregnant cleare for vs Catholikes then the ProtestaÌ„t Reader not conuersant in the Fathers works will perhaps expect and therupon might coniecture some sleight imposture to be vsed in the Englishing of them I haue therfore thought good to set downe in euery passage head of their authorities six testimonies ech of them at large in Latin of seuerall Fathers for to obserue this Method all were needlesse as tending only to fill vp paper The places that in this sort I make choice of are such as seeme more conuincing euident then the rest so that if the Reader do see that the more forcible authorities are free from all suspected corruption in the translating of them he may the more probably assure himselfe that the rest are in no sort wrested from their true and naturall meaning for who in this sort corrupteth is presumed to vse his art in those passages as make most for his aduaÌ„tage Thus shal the Reader discerne the Catholiks integritie candor confidence in this weighty Controuersie First then occurreth S. Leo who thus writeth Serm. 6. de Ieiunio septimi mensis Sie sacrae mensae communicare debetis vt nihil prorsus de veritate Corporis Christi Sanguinis ambigatis Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur So you ought to communicate of the holy Table as that you doubt not at all of the Body Bloud of Christ For this is taken by the mouth which is belieued by faith and in vaine they do answere Amen who dispute against that which is taken S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who was President of the Generall Councell of Ephesus against Nestorius the Heretike epist ad Nestorium saith Sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones c. Thus do we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and precious Bloud of Christ who is the Redeemer of vs all we take it not as common flesh God forbid nor as the flesh of a man sanctified but the proper flesh of the Word himself Which testimony was approued by the Generall Ephesine CouÌ„cell S. Augustine expounding those words of the Psalme 21. Manducauerunt adorauerant omnes diuites plebis in epist 1â—0 c. 17. ad Honoratum thus writeth Et ipsi adducti sunt c. And they are brought to the Table of Christ and they take of his body and bloud they worship only but they are not fed therewith because they doe not imitate for they eating him who is poore do not brooke that themselues should be poore Heere for further explication we may adde that proud and wicked men doe take from the Table of our Lord the body and bloud of Christ and that they doe adore it from the which it followeth that according to S. Augustines Iudgement by the body of our Lord is not vnderstood the signe of the body to wit Bread because Bread it not adored neither is vnderstood the body of Christ as it is in heauen and not vpon the Altar because S. Augustine saith it is taken from the Table of our Lord and by they wicked The same S. Augustine also in lib. 2. contra Aduersarium Legis Prophetarum c. 9. thus writeth MediatoreÌ„ Dei hominuÌ„ hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde atque ore suscipimus quamuis horribiliùs videatur humanam carnem manducare quà m perimere humanum Sanguinem potarâ— quà m fundere We take with a faithfull heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man to wit Iesus Christ being Man who giues his flesh to vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunken though it may seeme a more horrible matter to eate Mans flesh then to destroy Mans flesh and to drinke bloud then to shed bloud Where he saith that Christs flesh is not taken only with the heart but with the mouth Againe it is not more horrible to eate Mans flesh and drinke Mans bloud only in figure representation then to kill a Man or shed his bloud He also lib. 9. Confess c. 13. speaking of his Mother saith Adcuius pretij nostri c. To the Sacrament of our pryce meaning the Eucharist thy handmayd did bind her soule with the band of faith Againe Tomo nono tract 11. in Ioan. explicating that Iesus non se credebat ijs saith
id est animam c. He that laid downe a greater thing for thee to wit his soule why should he disdayne to deliuer to thee his Body Therfore let vs Priestes as well as others heare how admirable a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I beseech you and let vs tremble therat for he hath deliuered his Flesh to vs he hath laid downe himselfe to be sacrificed And the same Father l. 3. de Sacerdotio O miraculum ô Dei benignitate c. O the Miracle ô the goodnesse of God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father euen in the very same instant of tyme is handled with the hands of all and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him Gaudentius tract 2. in Exod. saith Quod annuntiatum est credas c. Thou maist belieue that which is shewed thee for that which thou takest is the body of that Heauenly Bread and the bloud of that sacred Vine for when he deliuered conseerated Bread and Wine to his Disciples he said Hoc est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus Let vs belieue him whom heretofore we haue belieued for Truth knoweth not to lye S. Ephrem lib. De Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5. thus writeth Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia Si ista curiosè rimaris iam non fidelis sed curiosus vocaberis Esto fidelis atque innocens participa immaculato corpori Domini tui fide plenissima certus quòd agnum ipsum integrum comedis Why doest thou search things which are inscrutable If thou doest weigh these things curiously then thou shalt be called not faithfull but curious Be thou Faithfull and Innocent participate thou of the immaculate Body of thy Lord being assured through a most strong faith that thou doest eate the very whole Lambe it selfe And the same Father after in the said booke Hoc sanè excedit omnem admirationem c. This verily exceedeth all Wonder all Thought and all Speach which the only Begotten Sonne of God Christ our Sauiour hath performed to vs. He hath giuen to vs fire and the spirit to eate and drinke to wit his Body and Bloud Heere the Myracle exceeding Mans capacity the difficulty of belieuing it and the inscrutablenesse therof do proue that the Eucharist in his Iudgment was not only materiall bread signifying the body of Christ S. Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 2. de Paschate thus writeth Absque confusione dubio come de corpus sanguinem bibe si saltem vitae desiderio teneris neque sermonibus qui de carne habentur fidem deneges neque ob passionem offendaris Constans esto firmus stabilis in nulla re propter Aduersariorum sermones fluctues Eate his body and drinke his bloud without any confusion or doubt if at least thou haue any desire of health neither deny thy faith herein for any speaches which may proceed of flesh neither be thou scandalized by reason of his Passion Be thou constant firme and stable neither fluctuate nor doubt thou by reason of any speaches of the Aduersaries where we are to note that he persuadeth his Reader to this so great a Mystery though the Aduersaries to wit the Gentile Philosophers doe scoffe thereat meaning in that the Christians belieued that they did eate the Flesh of Christ which cohortation of Nazianzene were needlesse if only we doe eate the flesh of Christ in signe and Figure S. Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. thus writeth Considerandum est quomodo fieri queat vt cùm vnum illud corpus assiduè per totum orbem terrarum tot fidelium millibus impertiatur totum cuiusque perpartem euadat in seipso totum permaneat It is to be considered how it can be effected that that very one same Body can dayly throughout the whole world be distributed to so many thousands of the faithfull it notwithstanding remayning whole in it selfe and whole or entyre in euery part But this were idely demanded if the Body of Christ were eaten only in signe since there is no difficulty in apprehending the eating of it in signe and figure S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 5. saith Deinde ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis quòd corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem numquid debemus de eius fide tâ—stâ—ficatione dubitare Et infra Dicit tibi Sacerdos Corpus Christi tu dicis Amen Hoc est verum Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus Furthermore euen our Lord himselfe doth testify vnto vs that we take his Body and Bloud What ought we to doubt of his credit and testimony And afterwards The Priest sayth to thee The Body of Christ thou sayst Amen This is true therefore let thy affection hold that which thy tongue confesseth The first Councell of Nyce as it appeareth in the Acts of the said Councell thus saith Item etiam hic in diuina Mensa c. Furthermore in this diuine Table let vs not only with humility consider the Bread the Cup but lifting vp our mind in faith let vs vnderstand that in that sacred Table there is placed that Lambe of God who taketh away the sinns of the world that he is vnbloudily sacrificed by Priests and we truly taking his precious Body Bloud do belieue the taking therof to be a signe of our Resurrection and therfore we take not in a great quantitie but in a small that therby we may know it to be taken not for society but for sanctification In these words the CouÌ„cell perswades vs that we should not rest in the formes of Bread Wine as if nothing were there else but that we are to consider that there is the true Body and Bloud of Christ though to our Eye it seemeth otherwise Now that this is the meaning of the CouÌ„cell appeareth First because it there teacheth that we do take Preciosum Corpus eius verè his precious Body truly where the word Verè doth beare an opposition to that which is in Figure Secondly in that the Councell saith that the Lambe of God is sacrificed by Priests vpon the holy Table which wordes cannot extend to Christ as he is in heauen only Thirdly in that the Councell saith that we are to apprehend by faith that the Lambe of God is placed vpon that holy Table therfore the Councell did teach that Christ himselfe was vpon the Altar and not only in Heauen as our Aduersaries do hould So forcible and strong is this graue Testimony of so Ancient and Reuerend a Councell in defence of our Catholike doctrine heerin OF THEIR TESTIMONIES EXPRESSING The effect of the Eucharist and the veneration exhibited to the same CHAP. VI. THE fifth Mount of the Fathers Authorities in this Controuersie is gathered or heaped togeather out of such their Sentences coÌ„teyning the Effect Vertue and Energy of the Eucharist as also their care reuerence and veneration exhibited to the same Concerning the first point they teach that it is the
not adoring Now heere it cannot be replyed that the meaning of this Father is that the faithfull doe eate the Body of Christ existing only in Heauē with the mouth of faith because the Faithfull do only adore it This is false for euen according to the iudgment of S. Augustine the wicked do adore the Body of Christ and eate his Body from the Altar For epist 120. ad Honoratum c. 27. where speaking of the wicked he saith Adducti sunt ad Mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine cius sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur quia non imitantur Finally S. Augustine l. 50. Homil. 26. warneth most earnestly that Men should be carefull that no part of the Hoast should fall vpon the ground Chrysostome homil 3. in epist ad Ephes Et tu ad saluturem hanc hostiam c. And thou art ready to come to this healthfull hoast which euen the Angells do behold with feare And Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs Agnus Dei immolatur c. The Lamb of God is offered vp in Sacrifice The Seraphims are present couering their faces with wings But how phantastical and imaginary a conceipt were it to thinke that these places can be applyed to Bread and Wine signifying only the Body and Bloud of Christ Againe Homil. 60. ad Populum Antiochenum he saith Cogita quali sis insignitus honore c. Bethinke thy selfe with what honour thou art heere graced what Table thou enioyest We feed of that and are vnited therewith the which the Angells beholding are afraid and dare not looke vpon the same in regard of the illustrious splendor thereof And in the like sort Homil. 61. Huic supernae potestates c. The higher powers doe asist and waite hercupon because they behold the vertue of the things there placed more then we doe and doe admire the inaccesible splendour and lightnesse thereof And that these places of this Father are to be taken literally appeareth out of another place of his wrytings to wit l. 6. de Sacerdotio in these words Ego verò commemorantem quemdam audiui c. I did ouer heare one reporting who tould that a certayne old and venerable Man to whom many Mysteryes had afore bene reuealed was vouchsafed by God to be made worthy of a Vision and that during this tyme viz. of celebrating the sacrifice of the Altar he did see whole multitudes of Angells to descend suddenly downe as much as the sight of Man could endure being clothed with shyning vestements and standing round about the Altar and bowing downe their heads in such sort as if one should behould shoulders bearing thēselues in the presence of their King Thus farre S. Chrysostome The truth of which narration I do not so much vrge since I presume our Aduersaries will esteme it as fabulous but I vrge that S. Chrysostome thought it to be true since otherwise he would neuer haue recorded it and consequently that he belieued that Angells were truly and really present at the Altar during the tyme of the celebration of the Eucharist In like sort Homil. 41. in priorem ad Corinth Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus aut accedimus pro istis Agnum illum iacentem peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes We do not in vayne celebrate the memory of the dead at the Diuine Mysteries neither doe we in vayne approach beseeching that Lambe there lying for them taking away the sinnes of the World which wordes imply manifestly that the Eucharist was in his tyme inuoked The same Father Homil. 60. ad Pop. Antiochenum Non sufficit c. He could not be contented to become Man to be beaten in the meane while with wands but he doth bring vs into one masse as I may say with himselfe Neither fide solùm sed reipsa by faith only but in very deed he hath made vs his Body In which place we find the very distinction inuented by our Aduersaries to be excluded by S. Chrysostome In like manner Homil. 61. ad Popul Antiochenum he affirmeth that Christs Flesh by meanes of this Sacrament is mingled with ours not only by Charity but reipsa in very deed See him also Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth where he saith that we are so vnited to the Body of Christ by the Eucharist as his Body was vnited to the word by the Incarnation to wit truly and really and not figuratiuely but all these sayings of Chrysostome were very idle if we receaued Christ only in a signe and by representation S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae Sororis eius thus writeth Ad altare cum fide procumbit cum qui superillud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans She viz. Gorgonia did prostrate herselfe before the Altar with faith praying to him with great clamour who is worshipped vpon the said Altar But Gorgoma prayed not to Bread or Wine Which action of hers as she acknowledging therby the true presence of Christs Body and Bloud vpon the Altar is much reprehended by Peter Martyr l. contra Gardinerum obiect 38. saying that she was not well instructed in Christian Religion so far different was his iudgment from the iudgment of S. Gregory heerin but of this place more heerafter S. Gregory Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. among other things thus writeth Quemadmodum parum fermenti c. Euen as a little Leauen doth make the whole masse like to it selfe so that body which is made immortall by God entring into our Body doth transferre and change it into it selfe And after Fidelium corporibus c. That Body is ioyned with the bodyes of the faithfull that by that coniunction with the Immortall Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality S. Ambrose l. 1. in Lucam expounding those words Apparuit ill◠Angelus thus writeth Non dubites assistere Angelum quando Christus assistit Christus immolatur Do not doubt but that an Angell is there present when Christ is there present when Christ is sacrificed The same Father l. 3. de Spiritu sancto c. 12. expounding those wordes of the Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum cius thus writeth Itaque per scabellum terra c. Therfore by the Footstoole the Earth is vnderstood by the earth the Flesh of Christ which we now do adore in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before Where he saith that the Flesh of Christ being vnited with the Word is adored by vs in the Mysteries that is in the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem thus writeth Sic Christophori erimus id est Christum ferentes c. So shall we be Christophori that is Men bearing Christ when we shall receaue his Body and Bloud into our Members and as S. Peter saith We shall be made Partakers of the diuine Nature S. Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate Sienim verè verbum c. For if the Word be
the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases speaking of the Eucharist as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles So i Augustine Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol Augustine And Norunt qui mysterijs imbuti sunt So k Origen Homil. 13 in Exodum 9. in Leuiticum Origen They taught that in extremity of sicknes it was to be taken of euery Christian pro Viatico as appeareth out of the first Councell of l Councell of Nyce Canon 12. Nyce m Eusebius l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius and n Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdot Chrysostome Finally hither may be referred what the Fathers of the Primitiue Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples Vestments Chalices and other religious Vessels all vsed in the celebration of the Eucharist All which things as o Hierome Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith propter consortium corporis sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur And p Optatus l. 6. contya Parmenianum Optatus writeth that they being contaminata Sacrilegos faciunt And hence it riseth that it was obiected to the Arians by Athanasius that fregerunt mysticum Calicem which offence was acknowledged to be most heynous by the Councell of Alexandria as q Athanasius Apologia 2. Athanasius writeth To the same end to wit as tending to the facred function of consecrating the Eucharist may be referred what the Fathers haue written of the Dignity of Priesthood Of which point entreates r Nazianzen Apolog. 1. Oratione ad Iulianum Nazianzen s Chrysostome Lib. de Sacerdot Chrysostome and others as also of their vowed t Vowed Chastity Of which point do occur most frequent Authorityes in the wrytings of the Fathers Chastity principally directed for that purpose Now who shall weigh all these seuerall Obseruations accompanyed with the former heads set downe at large and all litterally and plainly expressed in the Fathers Writings and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typicall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all most sutable agreeable to the worth of his true and reall being there how can he be otherwise perswaded then that those Doctours did iointly agree with vs in this high Article of faith Wherfore the determination of this matter to wit whether the Fathers were SacrameÌ„taries or Catholikes heerin I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned for this were to wrong their Iudgments in making a Point so euident the Obiect of their graue Resolutions as I referre it euen to the fyue Senses of the ignorant and illiterate OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Euasions to the Authorities of the Fathers CHAP. VIII ALTHOVGH in setting downe the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters I haue illustrated most of theÌ„ with such short Animaduersions as best vnfould the true Sense of the said Authorities consequently preuent all such sleighty elusions as are vsed by our Aduersaries for the auoyding of the same Neuerthelesse I haue thought good heere to amasse togeather all their diuers kinds of Answeres being seuerally applyed in generall to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads for coÌ„monly to all Testimonies of one Nature they do appropriate one the same Answere Thus shall the discreet Reader haue at once a Synopsis or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble euasions being full of tergiuersation and distrust Now then one Kind of their Answers if so I may terme it is to giue no answere at all for when they are pressed with such perspicuous and euident places of the Fathers as are in no sort to be obscured with any myst of words for the Sunne is sometimes so radiant as that it cannot be ouerclouded then in their Replyes to Catholike Bookes therin they are content not taking notice therof like men of good natures to suffer all such sentences quietly to passe by them in Gods name the Kings Thus we find most cleere passages of the Fathers set downe in Catholike Bookes yet neuer answered by Caluin Peter Martyr or others who haue vndertaken a refutation of the said Bookes but altogeather passed ouer as if no such places had bene obiected Such carefull Pylotes they are as willing to auoyd the most dangerous Rocks Which course of theirs I caÌ„not condemne as impoliticke since it is lesse disaduantagious silently to giue way to all such Assertions then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same for we see that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance Of the many Authorities of the Fathers wherunto the Protestants to wit Caluin Peter Martyr c. giue no Answere at all I haue thought good to note these few viz. The Passion of S. Andrew Origen homil 13. in Exod. in â— 25. hom 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet c. 36. 37. EphreÌ„ lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo Chrysostome Hâ—mil 83. in Matth. 51. in Matth. Homil. 21. in Acta Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs lib. 6. de Sacerdotio Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione diuinae Liturgiae besides many other Testimonies of these and other Fathers The first forme then of their Positiue Answers may be assigned to those Authorityes wherin the Fathers doe absolutely call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ as where they teach that we doe eate his Body and drinke his Bloud or that the Body and Bloud which we receauâ— in the Eucharist is our pryce the Pledge of our Saluation or the like To the Testimonyes of this Nature our Aduersaries do shape a double Answere For either they vnderstand those places of the True Body and Bloud of Christ as it is in Heauen and receaued by vs by faith or else of the signes thereof which we truly and really doe take in the Eucharist But if we doe obserue intensly and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages it will be euident that neither part of this Answere is in any sort satisfactory For first that the Fathers meaning is not that we take his Body as it is in Heauen by faith is proued in that you shall for the most part euer find that in such places they teach that we receaue it from the Altar or at the Priests hands and consequently not as it is in Heauen or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body and Bloud or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words as doe force the Place to be interpreted of his Body and Bloud as it is vnder the externall formes and not as it is in Heauen And as touching the second Branch of their former Euasion to wit that the said Testimonyes are not to be interpreted of the Bread and Wyne signifying and figuring his Body Bloud in which they say Christs Body is symbolically taken is no lesse manifest the reason whereof being this
Because the words of those Testimonyes doe almost euer intimate some effect or efficacy of the Eucharist which to Bread and Wyne is incompetent as that it nourisheth our Soules or that it is the Price or Pledge of our Saluation or hope of our Resurrection or that it suffered for our Sinnes or some other such spirituall worke energy or operation whereof the bare Symboles of the Eucharist are not capable Thus may the obseruant Reader cleerely discerne the feeblenes of this their Answere and conclude with himselfe that such Testimonyes of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christs Body as it is in Heauen since the Words precedent or consequent restraine it to the Altar Nor of Bread and Wyne Symbolically and Sacramentally representing the Body and Bloud of Christ since Bread and Wyne cannot produce the spirituall Effects there specified so cleare it is that our Sectary in approaching to answere the said Sentences doth ineuitably runne vpon some one circumstantiall pyke or other of the said Authorityes wherewith he is most dangerously wounded That this my Reply may be more cleerely conceaued I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serue as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature The like couse of exemplifying I will obserue in all other kynds of their Answers and though such places were afore alledged yet here they are produced vpon a different occasion S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desiderauit vnde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis Only she desired that remēbrance of her might be made at thy Altar from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed or giuen by the which the hand-writing which was contrary to vs is defaced Out of this place we proue as we shewed aboue that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine is vnderstood the Body and Bloud of Christ Now heere it cānot be answered that the Body of Christ is meant as it is in Heauen because he saith that this Victima is dispensed or distributed from the Altar which thing agreeth not with his Body as it is in Heauen Neither can it be said as some seeme to interprete it of the Bread and Wine Typically signifying the Body and Bloud of Christ in that the Bread Wine was not the Sacrifice which was offered for vs vpon the Crosse And thus much of this first kind of our Aduersaries Answere Another forme of euading the pressures weights of the Fathers Authorityes is this That if in the alleaged Authority there can be found but any one word which is to be accepted not litterally but figuratiuely metaphorically or in some other forced construction then our Allegoricall Sectarie inferres therupon that the whole Sentence though most strōgly fortifying the Catholike doctrine heerin is to be taken figuratiuely not literally vrging that seeing both the points are cōtayned in one and the same Sentence or Period and that the one by our confession is not to be vnderstood literally why should the other obiected by vs be taken literally The Transparency of which Answere is easily seene through And first we are to know and obserue that euery thing which is not deliuered in plaine and literall words proceedeth not alwayes from an intention of Rhetoricke or Amplification in the Writer but often euen out of Necessity since somtimes we are forced therunto as not hauing that natiue habit of speach words wherwith otherwise we would apparrell the true conceipts of our Mind which scarsitie of apt wordes may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers yet hence it followeth not that all the rest adioyned therto must partake of the same want Againe whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words or out of a delicacy and choicenesse of a Mans pen yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent since by this reason we may inferre that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleaged as literally to proue or disproue any thing and why because some adioyning parcell therof is set downe in a Figuratiue kind of speach And thus we cannot alleadge contrary to all ancient Expositours that Text in the Apocalyps These are they which haue washed their Robes haue made them white in the Bloud of the Lambe cap. 7. to proue that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saued by the Bloud of Christ because forsooth in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors to wit the long Robes wherby are signified the Bodyes of the Saints and the word Lambe meaning therby Christ and therfore it should follow vpō the said ground that the word Bloud must also be here a Metaphor not signifying bloud indeed and so excluding the Bloud of Christ frō our saluation but some other thing shaddowed therby Yea which is more if this kind of Answere were solide we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalmes literally to be expounded of Christ or his Church in which Authorityes we Christians mainly insist against the Iewes since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes Schemes and other Figuratiue speaches And yet we see that it is most incongruous to maintaine that any whole Psalme is to be interpreted Allegorically because we find certaine Figures in some Passages thereof Thus it is euident how defectiue this Answere is which consisteth in resoluing the Fathers sentences into Figuratiue Senses But our Aduersaries boldnesse stayeth not heere in deprauing after this sort Mans word but extendeth it selfe to corrupt in like manner by ouer much origenizing and mystically interpreting it Gods sacred word This second Forme of Answere I will illustrate with this Testimony following S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs thus writeth Num vides Panem num Vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne nec cogites Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread doest thou see Wyne doe these things goe into the common passage as other meates Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as Waxe being put in the fire is assimilated or made like to it no part of the substance remayning or redounding So heere imagine that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body Of this place I haue entreated aboue But heere now we are to take notice that our Aduersaries labour to delude the force therof by answering that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi are not to be vnderstood literally for so they should be false in that the externall Formes of Bread and Wyne which are conteyned in the word Mysteria are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ for we see that the Accidences of
Sauiour more feelingly expresse a perseuerance of his Loue towards Man then by leauing at his departure his sacred Body with his Spouse wherewith the deuout Soule might at all conueniēt times be fedde and nourished The immensenes of which Loue our vnderstanding cannot comprehend and therefore we may heere well vse that forcible word i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14. Marke 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ the which the Euangelists vpon other occasions often apply to him that is that he was touched euen in his bowells of Loue and kindnesse when he first resolued and thought vpon for Loue is most inuentiue to institute this dreadfull Mysterie For if we consider the thing heere giuen or the giuer himselfe both being heere coincident and both being God and Man or the end whereunto it was bestowed to wit the spirituall nourishing of our Soules or the small deseruing of Man receauing it who dayly crucifieth him with his sinnes it will assure vs that such wonderfull Munificence issued from a Sea of most vehement Loue and Affection Furthermore his zeale to vs herein appeareth in that he is content by his entring into vs a strang affection which bringeth forth such strang effects that we doe enter into him and thus we are without any disordered confusion of things in that meate the which is in vs himselfe witnessing no lesse in those words Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me k In me manet Iohn 6. manet Ego in eo Therefore to conclude this point it remayneth since flames euer beget flames that seeing the burning Loue of Christ did first procure this Coniunction with vs in the Eucharist the said Coniunction ought reciprocally to engender in vs a gratefull Loue towards Christ for so great a benefit Ego l Ego dilecto meo Cantic 6. Dilecto meo Dilectus meus mihi still acknowledging it full worth and still remaining desirous by often participation of so high a Mystery without any fastidious or cloyed conceipt therof to renew all spirituall operations flowing from the same Qui m Qui edunt me Eccles 24. edunt me adhuc esurient qui bibunt me adbuc sitient There are many other Inducements according to the iudgments of the Learned Fathers and Doctours which might inuite our Sauiour to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist for they teach that it is a perpetuall Sacrifice euer to continue in the Church That it is a condigne and worthy Sacrifice for Christ to offer vp to his Father That it is a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing for the Saints in Heauen That it is not only for the Liuing but for the Dead also a Propitiatory Sacrifice That it is a Commemoration of Christs Passion That it is a confirmation of his Testament That it is an Abstract or Abridgment of diuers of Gods chiefest Myracles That in a sort it Deifieth the Soule That therby we haue God present vnder a sēsible obiect to heare our Prayers which poynt mightily increaseth our deuotion and reuerence Finally that it is a Viaticum for the soules ready to depart out of this world All which seuerall Reasons besides diuers others if we should insist in vnfoulding the value and worth of them of which this place is not capable might well seeme to be most important and vrging occasions of the institution of this Sacrament since such spirituall ends intendements operations effects supposing that Christ would establish in his Church some setled course tending to the same could not by any other more conuenient and proportionable meanes be accomplished then by the ordayning of this most dreadfull Mysterie so agreeable is our Catholike doctrine heerin to all Prudence Reason and Morall Perswasion And thus we see how the Institution of this Sacrament and the many seeming inducements therof do in a different respect reciprocally presuppose the one the other And hence therfore more euidently appeareth the froward obstinacy of our Aduersaries who eyther not knowing or not weighing these and other such Arguments of credibility alledged in defence of the Reall Presence are not ashamed to vrge grounding themselues vpon our Method heerin by way of a Contrariety the vnprofitablenesse therof as also certaine Inconueniences and Indignityes to Christ proceeding in their opinion from this our Catholike Doctrine affirming thē to be such as that they minister strong probabilityes that Christ would neuer leaue his Body and Bloud to be giuen truly and really in the celebration of the Eucharist But this their Lightnesse and want of solide Iudgment consisting in dishonouring Christ vnder the texture of honouring him so did the Iewes conuitiate him in words of Reuerence shal be discouered n Hereafter in the Marginall Reference The chiefe Reasons which our Aduersaries doe alledge both from the vnprofitablenesse of the Catholike doctrine as also from the indignity which seemes to be offered to Christs Body are these following And first touching the seeming indignity and dishonour redounding to the sacred body of Christ by the doctrine of the Reall Presence They obiect that from our doctrine it followeth that the Body of Christ might fall might be burnt might become rotten and mouldy for so we see the externall symboles sometimes to appeare might be eaten by mice should passe into the belly and so to the common passage c. To all this we Answere First that these supposed Indignities doe not touch the Body of Christ but only affect the species and formes of the Eucharist which are ioyned with the Body As for example when the consecrated hoast falleth from the Altar vpon the Earth yet cannot the Body of Christ be truly said to fall for that is said properly and truly to fall which doth exist and is mooued corporally which cannot be properly said of Christs Body in the Eucharist And therefore when a Man falleth on the ground we vse not to say that his Soule falleth though accidentally it changeth it place therewith Answerably therefore we teach that the Body of Christ existing after a spirituall manner and indiuisibly in the Eucharist changeth it place but properly falleth not when the Hoast falleth Secondly we answere that seeing our Christian faith teacheth vs that Christ was included for a long time in the wombe of a woman that he was swadled and lapped in Cloaths that then he might fall vpon the earth and might also haue beene eaten with beasts or burnt if so by miracle he were not preserued from such mischances if then he was truly and in his owne person subiect to all these difficulties without any dishonor what dishonour is it to him if he did vndergoe in another forme the former supposed indecencyes vrged by our Aduersaries Thirdly The former Indignities do no more truly and properly touch the Body of Christ then the Diuinity because it is present in all places can be said to be burnt it being in the fire or to be rotten it being in bodyes that are rotten
c. Lastly this kind of our Aduersaries arguing is borrowed from the old Hereticks denying other poynts of Christian Religion Thus we find that the Arians impugned the Diuinity of Christ as appeareth from Hilarius l. 12. de Trinitate from reasons drawne concerning the honour and dignity of the Father In like sort the Marcionistes denying the Incarnation did obiect as we read in Tertullian lib. de carne Christi that it was an Indignity to God to be inclosed in the wombe of a woman to lye in a Manger c. Finally the Iewes chiefely rest in obiecting against vs Christians that we belieue in a Man as Iustinus witnesseth in Dialogo cum Tryphone which was crucified among theeues By all which examples we are instructed how litle auayleable those Arguments are which our Aduersaries doe draw from the Indignities supposing that they were true which seeme to proceed from our Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist Now touching the vnprofitablenesse of the Catholike doctrine in this point our Aduersaries do obiect that the reall being of Christs Body in the Eucharist is needlesse in that seeing the end and fruite of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soule and this nourishment consisting in Faith and Charity may as auaileably be performed by apprehending Christ by faith as he is only in Heauen it followeth that no profit ariseth from the Catholike doctrine herein which is not by other meanes aswell effected To this I answere First that it is false to affirme that the same fruite is reaped by apprehending Christ in heauen as by receauing him really into our Bodyes Since experience doth witnesse that by this receauing him in the Eucharist our Faith Charity Deuotion and Reuerence are more increased Besides our Reall Coniunction with Christ affoardeth many benefits to the Soule which Christ giueth not without this Coniunction no otherwise then he cured all such as touched the hemme of his garment whom he would not notwithstanding that he could if they had not touched it Secondly it is a false Illation to conclude It was not conuenient that Christ should be really in the Eucharist because the fruite reaped therby may be obtayned by other meanes for that is profitable which doth conferre any good though the same good may be obtayned by other wayes for no man will deny but that Christ could haue cured the sicke and infirme if they belieued in him though they had not touched his garments or his hands yet it followeth not that the touch therof was vnprofitable to them In like sort one drop of Christs Bloud or any laborious worke vndertaken by him for our good had bene sufficient for our Redemption yet it followeth not that all his paines wounds effusion of his Bloud and death it selfe were vnprofitably and bootlessely performed yea God could haue redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christ shall we therfore say that the Incarnation of Christ was needlesse inconuenient and vnprofitable Finally our Aduersaries obiect that the doctrine of the Reall Presence is hurtfull in that it followeth that the Body of Christ is giuen to the wicked with prophaning therof To which may be answered besides that which is aboue said touching the Indignity offered to Christ by this Doctrine that no inconuenience or domage aryseth to Christs body being distributed to the wicked but the great Charity of God is shewed therein for we see that the Sunne-beames do light vpon most foule places and putrifyed bodyes they being in no sort corrupted or defiled therby why should then the Body of our Sauiour being after a spirituall and supernaturall manner in the Eucharist receaue any detryment hurt or losse by it entring into the bodyes of the wicked heeâ—after in the Marginall Reference and their supposed wrongs against Christs sacred Body solued The which are not rested vpon by them for any tender regard had of our Sauiours dignity and glory but because they are resolued in all points to be mainly crosse and contrary to this our Catholike and ancient Faith not only touching the Presence but also the manner therof which is warranted from o From reasons drawne Seeing that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth euer presuppose the Reall Presence therfore the Reasons heere alledged are preuayling chiefly against the Lutherans and all such Protestants as do acknowledge a true and reall being of Christs Body in the Eucharist Therfore supposing that Christ would truly exhibite his body to vs these Congruentiall Motyues following may perswade vs that he would not there haue it ioyned with bread but to be absolutely alone by it selfe First in that if the substance of bread should remaine with the body of Christ in the Eucharist Then two different Substances should haue one and the same respect and relation to the same Accidences and should be demonstreted by the same Accidences as by certaine externall signes And which is more the first and principall relation of the Accidences should be to the Bread and only a secondary relation to the Body of Christ the reason heerof being in that the substaÌ„ce of the bread and not the Body of Christ is informed with those Accidences But this would be most inconuenient since from hence it would follow that the Actions performed by the Priest or the CoÌ„municant should first agree to the bread secondarily only to the Body of Christ And thus if one do aske what is eleuated what is eaten or what the Accidences do there signify or one should then answere a peece of Wheaten Bread and the Body of Christ which poynt could not stand with the dignity and reuerence of Christs Body Secondly it would appeare much opposite to the dignity of Christs Body that one and the same meate should be nourishment both to our Soules and Bodyes and it consequently would breed in vs a lesse reuerence to the Body of Christ there present Thirdly supposing the Bread to be in the Eucharist then could not the Eucharist be taken fasting and hence it followeth that none could seuerall tymes communicate the same day And yet according to S. Augustine epist 118. c. 6. euen by the Decree of the Apostles the Body of Christ ought to be taken only of such as are fasting As also it appeareth from S. Gregory homil 8. in Euang. that vpon Christmas day the Priest did celebrate three tymes during the tyme of the Primitiue Church Fourthly and perhaps principally it is fitting that the bread should not be in the Eucharist with the Body of Christ in regard of the danger growing therby to wit for feare that the more ignotant simple should adore the bread since such do not distinguish but absolutely adore that which lyeth vnder the Accidences Now that it was conuenient that the Accidences of bread and wine should remayne and not be changed appeareth by other like Reasons of CoÌ„gruency First because if they were absent then there would be no sensible signe in the Eucharist and consequently it would cease to be a Sacrament