and Influence ouer a Mans Penne forcing her Enemyes at vnawares euen in impugning her to defend her for so our Sectaryes doe mightily strenghten this our Catholike Faith when in refuting of it they acknowledge the Fathers to be our chiefest Patrons and extorting at their hands the like benefit which Premethâ—us Thessalus recorded by Plutarch had receaued from his capitall Aduersarie who in fight intending to kill him launced only with his sword a most dangerous mole or wenne and so thereby without any further hurt restored him to his more perfect health But as heere I haue deliuered the Protestants Assertion to wit that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did with a full consent maintaine the Reall Presence so I take it not impertinent heere to set downe briefly another Position to wit That the Primitue Church did neuer ioyntly erre in Faith and Religion Which Proposition is most true both in reason it selfe and by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries In Reason for seing that Christ fouÌ„ded his Church with such solicitude as he did and being founded did water it for it encrease and continuance with the shedding of his own most precious Bloud and the Bloud of infinite Martyrs during those Primitiue tymes can it stand with his diuine and benigne Prouidence presently after his AsceÌ„sion or at the most vpon the death of his Apostles to abandon his former care had therof Or shall we imagine him so vnkind and vnmercifull who through a mercifull kindnesse was content corporally to dye to preuent our eternall death as instantly then to repudiate his most deare and chast Spouse by suffering an vtter disparition and vanishing away of the true Faith By the acknowledgment of the Protestants the former Assertion is also most true as shall euidently appeare out of their owne words from the Reference b From the Reference appropriated Answerably hereto we find that Iewell in his defence of the Apology thus saith The Primitiue Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath euermore beene accounted the purest of all others without exception Kemnitius saith in his Exam. Conc. TrideÌ„t part 1. pag. 74. VVe doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall Men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof And in the same part he also saith VVe are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture by the testimony of the Ancient Church Doctor Sarauia in defens tract de diuersis Ministrorum gradibus pag. 8. writeth Spiritus Sanctus qui in Ecclesia praesidet verus est Scripturarum Interpres ab eo igitur est petenda vera interpretatio cum iâ— sibi non possit esse contrarius qui primitiuae Ecclesiae praesedit per Episcopos eam guberuauit ipsos iam abijcere consentaneum veritati non est In like sort the Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. acknowledgeth that The Ancient Church is the true and best Mistresse of Posterity and going before leadeth vs the way Finally Doctor Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza thus writeth in his Suruey of the pretended Holy Discipline For M. Caluin and M. Beza I doe thinke of them as their writings doe deserue but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers I must confesse All which prayses and commendations giuen by so many of our Aduersaries to the Primitiue Church and the Fathers of those Ages are vnworthily wrongfully and vntruly applyed if so the Church of that Tyme or the Fathers therof should haue generally erred in matter of faith appropriated to this place Now these two Propositions to end this Chapter withall I will combyne and incorporate togeather in this one Argument wherby our Aduersaries may more clearly discerne the ineuitable and dangerous resultancy issuing from such their confessed yet true Assertions Thus then Whatsoeuer the Primitiue Church did iointly teach in matter of Fayth the same is by the confession of the Protestants most true But the Primitiue Church did ioyntly teach by the confession of the Protestants the Doctrine of the Reall Presence Therfore the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true The PropositioÌ„ is acknowledged by our Sectaries in the Marginall Reference The Assumption is abouÌ„dantly confessed by them throughout this whole Chapter for it caÌ„not be denyed but that doctrine which was taught by all the chiefest learned Fathers of the Primitiue Church was the generally taught and receaued Doctrine and Faith of those Ages and Tymes therfore the Conclusion is most truly and necessarily inferred And thus my nyce Protestant Reader if so his stomake can endure the the tast of an Argument hath heere a Compound to wit that the Doctrine of the Reall Presence is by the confession of the Protestants most true made of the mixture or the two former Simples l By D. Humfrey In Iesuitismi part 2. raâ— 5. OF CERTAINE CONSIDERATIONS Drawne from Luther the Lutherans and other Protestants teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist CHAP. XI HAVING in the former Chapter proued euen froÌ„ the Testimonies of our Aduersaries so receauing from them therby a benefit but not a courtesie that the ancient Fathers though most remote froÌ„ vs in circuÌ„stance of Place and Tyme were neuerthelesse conspiring with vs in faith beliefe of the Eucharist and therfore altogeather opposite to the professed doctrine of the Sacramentaries Thus the Fathers God is not as our Aduersaries God euen our * Euen our Enemyes Deuteron 32. Enemies being Iudges It will not in this place seeme I hope inconuenient if I present to the Readers iudgment two obseruations the deliberate consideratioÌ„s wherof though but Morall inducements are able to obtund and blunt the most forcible reasons vrged to the contrary The first of these shal be taken from Luther whose malice towards the Pope for indeed he breathed nothing but Malice Pride and Lust was so implacable as that he endeauoured by all meanes possible to annoy and endomage the Sea of Rome and therupon as the World knoweth he did burst out from the Catholike Church by denying the most poynts denyed at this day by the Protestants Hence now I would demaund how chanced that he changed not his opinion in the Article of the Reall Presence aswell as in the rest since the detriment comming to the Pope by this meanes must haue beene very markeable and far extending for it would haue brought in an Innouation of the externall daily worship of God throughout all Christendome Truly we can assigne no other reason but that the euidency of the Euangelists and the Apostles Texts for a Himselfe confesseth to wit in his epistle ad Argentinos himselfe of this point confesseth no lesse was so vnauoydable as that he could pretend no colour of dissenting from the Church of Rome heerin And so being heere conuinced with the perspicuity of Christs owne words was constrayned to acknowledge him to be in the
a signe is signification therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est iâ— vnderstood the essence of the same signe Now then seing in those said former examples and propositions one signe doth predicate of another for words are nothing else but signes it followeth that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat and yet without any Trope therin Touching the word CORPVS in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure then in the former Verbe Est Now that this word Corpus cannot signifie figuraâ— Corporis as our Aduersaries pretend is most euident And first this is proued out of the words following to wit Quod pro vobis dâ—tur in Greeke being for the word datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also out of these other following touching the Cup Qui pro vobis effunditur in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these two Greeke Participles being put in the Nominatiue case ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which â—â— called Corpus and Sanguis and not with any words put in other cases as Corporis and Sanguinis Therfore either the true Body Bloud is in the Eucharist or his Body by way of representation and signification only to wit the Bread and Wine were giuen for vs and shed for vs which is absurd to affirme Secondly the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate Bread there is nothing left of which these wordâ— â—igâ—â—â— Corporis should predicate except they will say that the tâ—ue and naturall Body of Christ is a signe and figure of it selfe Lastly the Body of Christ wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body to wit the Church or for his true and naturall Body but for a signe and figure of his body we neuer find it to be taken Therfore the Construction of the Sacramentaries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced without any example or president of that kind throughout the whole Scripture But the more euideÌ„tly to proue that the words of the Institution caÌ„not be taken figuratiuely I do further present besides what hath bene already alledged to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations First that this Pronowne Hoc designing some particuler thing prâ—uents all Figuratiue constructions And therfore we find that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe the Pronowne Hoc is wanting as in these Ego sum Ostium Ego sum Vitâ— c. Secondly In all Metaphoricall speaches that are vsed by way of Explication it is not accustomed that one thing do predicate or be affirmed of another thing except the Praedicatum be some such thing in the which the propriety according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended is more knowne and euident then it is in the other thing of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed And this is the reason that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another for the most part in genere or in specie at least But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution For heere according to our Aduersaries the Body and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread and Wine and yet the vertue of nourishing which they heere assigne to be the ground of the supposed figuratiue speach is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ then in the Bread and Wine which before his pronouncing of the words Christ did hould in his hands Thirdly It is to be obserued that in the words of the Institution the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate or are affirmed of Bread and Wine but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing but with confusion and vncertainty to wit of the Pronowne Hoc And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature doth predicate of another thing of a different nature as Christus erat petra c. Fourthly we are heere to note the words following to wit quod pro vobis datur qui pro vobis effunditur c. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne Thus one may say Caesar was a Lion by reason of his courage fortitude which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the nature of the Metaphor But now if the addition of words following doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed then doth such an Addition manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation as in these words That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse who was borne of a Virgin where we find that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor do intimate a Propriety and literall acception of the former words concerning Christ In like sort we say that those words Quod pro vobis tradetur Qui pro vobis fundetur c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you c. and VVhich shall be shed for you c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing which they should haue done if the Propositions to which they are adioyned had bene Metaphoricall but they do signify that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption which point hath no necessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus c. A text in respect of a i A Sacrament instituted heerin Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plaine words least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law and of Baptisme Sacrament instituted herein of a Testament k A Testament left therby That the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe a Testament appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plaine and litterall words then a VVill or Testament that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention as touching the Will of the Testator And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper and familiar words The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men left therby and of a Precept l A Precept or Law That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist appeareth out of those words Accipite Edite hoc facite But the words of Lawes and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous and cleere since
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
sunt sub vmbra culminis mei We are your Subiects and therefore stand obliged to acknovvledge the strictest Band of Allegiance due either by the Lavv of Nature by the Lavv of God or by the example of any Christian Subiects tovvards their Princes euer since our Redemption till the fall of that most vnhappy and Apostating Monke Let not then the perpetrated crymes of some fevv so diuert the beames of your Gracious Clemency from vs all as that the PunishmeÌ„t due only vnto them like the Effect of another Originall Sinne should propagate and extend it selfe vpon the vvhole Body and Posterity of Catholikes but rather reiecting all the subtile Machinations vvyse follyes of our Politick Aduersaryes vvhich vve trust that finally God vvill frustrate haue a frequent remembrance of that saying Superexalt at Misericor dia iudiciuÌ„ Iustitiae tuae in vvhich vvords your Highnes may thinke that the Apostle Iames preacheth to King Iames. BVT NOW as fearing to become ouer tedious for vvhich reason as also out of an humble ReuereÌ„ce I do forbeare hereafter in this Treatise to direct further speaches to your Highnes I heere vvill cease casting my selfe at your Maiestyes feet as lovv as Humility and Loyalty can prostrate themselues and praying to the Almighty to preserue you in a Blessed Gouerment ouer vs many many yeares and after the Period of this life to graunt your Highnes the Honour and Happines in being another Dauid by enioyning tvvo Ierusalems Your Maiesties most Loyall humble Subiect R. N. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GOOD Christian Reader Heere I present thee with a small Treatise of a large Subiect it being one of the chiefest Questions of Christian Religion coÌ„trouerted at this day betweene the Catholike and the Caluinist It is written with intention to confirme thy Iudgment in so weighty a Point being already rectified to reforme it being erroneous and therfore I expect a retaliation charitably to entertaine my charitable meaning If this little worke the yong Samuel proceeding from the long barren wombe of my Braine may become profitable to any one I haue my desire As for the censures which will passe therof I presage they will be as various as Mens iudgments are various but heerin I am indifferent for how meane soeuer it is as it is and of all the Elements I least pryze the Ayre Yet heere by the way I must aduertise my ignoraÌ„t Protestant Reader for to the more Learned this is needlesse who euer dislikes what is not so courteous as to come within the reach of his narrow head-peece that I do looke that he should charge these poore Leaues especially the first Part heerof with mayne Contrarieties and Contradictions Yet if his Pryde would vouchsafe to remember or rather to learne that all true Contradictions do euer consist in one and the same reference of Circumstances and that such seeming heere are reconciled by different Respects explicated in the marginal Annotations he might well rest satisfied Wherfore I do heere premonish all such but particulerly them who eyther by Pen or Tongue are become publike Patrones of the Sacramentarian Nouelty not maliciously to insist alone in the said naked appearing Repugnances concealing their Illustrations tragically by this means amplifying the strange supposed Paradoxes forsooth defended by vs Catholikes heerin Which if they shall attempt by diuorcing the one from the other now after this conuenient forwarning they are to be reputed but as Men conscious of their owne bad Cause and willing fraudulently to abuse the weake Iudgments of their followers I haue deuided this Treatise into two Parts In the first I proue that it is possible for the existence of any thing euer presupposeth a possibility of the same existence that the sacred Body and Bloud of our Sauiour may truly really be contayned vnder the formes of Bread Wine and that though the effecting therof doth transcend Nature yet doth it not ouerthrow Nature This labour I am forced to vndertak◠〈◊〉 regard of our Aduersaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—oâ—â—â—station with God heerin for they maintayne in their Wrytings with great estuation and heat of dispute like a Raging waues Iudae Epist raging waues of the sea foaming out their owne shame that to be at once in diuers places or to want all circumscription of place besides many other difficulties occurring in the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist are against the nature of a true Body and therfore caÌ„not be accomplished by God In which point they partake ouer neere with the ancient Philosophers though perhaps with their greater offence towards God then it was in those Heathens since in such cases that saying houldeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Falsa fides infidelitate peior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason why the Sacramentaryes do belieue the words of Christ in the doctrine of the Eucharist so little is because they belieue their Sense therin so much for they are resolued that their outward sense shall heere euen prescribe Lawes to their faith whatsoeuer may seeme to be incoÌ„patible therwith as the forme the colour the tast c. the maintayning therof to be reputed as an exploded Errour In which kind of proceeding they appeare in my conceipt to deale more niggardly with the faith of Christ then euer the c Donatists August de Vnitate Ecclesiae Donatists did with the Church of Christ since they though banishing the Church out of all the other partes of the World yet were content to allot to it the whole Countrey of Africke wheras these labour to withdraw our faith heerin from all the chiefe Powers of our Mind and to confine it within the narrow compasse of the ball of the Eye or the end of the tongue So far off is the Soule immersed in Sense from apprehending truly this high and reuerend Mystery The second Part heerof iustifying his Maiesties learned Iudgment heerin deliuereth the diuine Authorities of both the Testaments for confirmation of the Reall Presence it contayneth the Prophesies of the ancient Rabbyns therof it reporteth the Myracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same it discouereth the weaknesse of such testimonyes as are out of the Scripture obiected to the coÌ„trary finally it displayeth the innouation and first appearance of the Sacramentarian Doctrine But because our Aduersaries do vse diuers circulations and inflexions to and fro for they most strangely detort the holy Scripture and insolently reiect the other proofes therfore to draw them to a more particuler fight I haue reduced the issue of this point to the iudgments of the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church in whose * In whose wrytings See hereof the later end of the Marginall References of the first Chapter of the Second Part at the letter q Wrytings many of the Sacramentaries seeme to haue good confidence and from whose Censures they cannot iustly appeale since it is said Non d Non te praetereat
then was agreeing to the Institution of our Lord for their Supper maketh shew of an iterated or at least renewed Sacrifice c. for they haue imitated more nearely the Iewish manner of Sacrifising then either Christ ordeyned or the Ghospell could well suffer And in another g Another place lib. de vera Eccles reformat place Caluin thus proceedeth Solenne est nebulonibus â—stis c. It is an accustomed manner with these Knaues so raylingly he tearmes the Catholikes to scrape togeather what faults soeuer they find in reading the Fathers Therefore when they obiect that the place ef Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus of the Sacrifice of the Masse and the Oblation of Melchisedech in like sort is so interpreted by Athanasius Ambrose Augustine Arnobius I answere in few wordes that the same Wryters do also in other places vnderstand by bread the body of Christ but so ridiculously as both Reason Truth force vs to dissent from them Thus Caluin Neither do we find KeÌ„mtius h Kemnitius pag. 798. to be much lesse sparing in censuring the Fathers concerning this point for he thus pronounceth of them Neque Veterum qualescumque sententiae c. Neither in this Controuersie the sentences of the ancient Fathers but the Canonicall Scripture is to be the Rule and Square of faith And againe reprehending the Fathers for calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice he saith that the so naming of it is de Naeuis quorumdam Veterum And thus much concerning our Aduersaries charging the Fathers of euery age euen from the Apostles to S. Augustine euen insimulating S. Augustine himselfe within the same supposed Errour with the doctrine of the Sacrifice And therfore no meruayle if Sebastianus i Sebastianus Francus lib. de abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Eccles Francus an eminent Protestant did peremptorily pronounce that Statimpost Apostolos c. Presently after the Apostles all things are turned vpside downe the Supper of the Lord is transformed into a Sacrifice And yet Hospinian not content heerwith proceedeth further saying k Iam tum primo in Histor Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. â—â—m tum primo illo saeculo viuentibus adhuc Apostolis c. The Diuell in the very first age and when the Apostles werâ— yet liuing gaue subtily more to this Sacrament then to Baptisme and by litle and litle withdrew Men from the first forme therof And thus far of the Protestants acknowledgment of the Fathers minds touching this point of the Sacrifice Now to come to the last Point which is to shew out of the ProtestaÌ„ts Writings that the Fathers did in plaine and direct wordes without the help of any inferences though neuer so immediate and necessary teach the doctrine of the Reall Presence First then to omit Gregory the Great as not being within the first fiue hundred yeares condemned by Doctour Humfrey heerin we find S. Chrysostome reprehended by the m The Centurists Cent. 5. col 517. Centurists because Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare In like sort Eusebius Emyssâ—nus is charged by the Centurists in that n Parùm commodè Cent. 4. c. 10. col 985. Parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit He spake vnprofitably of Transubstantiation Neither doth S. Ambrose o Ambrose escape Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. escape the like rebuke of the Centurists since he is affirmed by theÌ„ in the bookes of the Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose to confirme the doctrine of Transubstantiation which Father for the very same is taxed by p By Oecolampadius Lib. epist Oecolampad Zuinglij l. 3. Oecolampadius S. Cyril in like manner is heynously traduced by Peter Martyr for his doctrine of the Reall Presence for thus Martyr saith q I will not so easily Peter Martyr l. Epistol epist ad Bezam annexed to his Common places I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril who affyrmed such a Communion as therby euen the substance of the Flesh and Bloud of Christ is ioyned to the blessing for so he calleth the holy bread c. Martyr also r In another place In his second Alphabeticall Table annexed to his Common places of the Additions vnder the letter H. at the word Heresy in another place thus saith The Heresie of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ As also in a third s In a third place Epist ad Caluinum place he further reproueth the doctrine of Cyril and of diuers other Fathers in this point S. Cyprian also is charged in the booke ascribed to Vrsinus intituled Commonefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Coena who there t There writeth pag. 211. 218. writeth thus In Cyprian are many things which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation And hence it is that the Sermon of Cyprian de Coena Domini wherin he writeth so fully in defence of Transubstantiation is said by our Aduersaries to be but counterfait And yet notwithstanding D. Fulke against the Rhemish u The Rhemish Testament in 1. Cor. c. 11. Testament acknowledgeth the authour therof to be in the time not much inferiour to Cyprian and there produceth Authority out of the same Booke Lastly Ignatius is acknowledged by x By Kemnitius Exam. part 1. pag. 94. Kemnitius to haue confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that eminent place of his Eucharistias Oblationes non admittunt c. already herefore alledged Now seeing the voluntary Confessions of our Aduersaries concerning the Fathers Iudgements in this point are so cleare I cannot but approue the ingenuous playne and impoliticke dealing of some other Protestants who in regard of the truth hereof freely confesse the further Antiquity of this Doctrine And according hereto we find that Antony de y Antony de Adamo In his Anatomie of the Masse pag. 236. Adamo a markeable Protestant saith I haue not hitherto beene able to know when this Opinion of the Reall and Bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne And in like sort Adamus z Adamus Francisci In margarita Theolog. pag. 256. Francisci another Protestant confesseth no lesse thereof saying Commentum Papistarum c. The Papists Inuention touching Transubstantiation crept early into the Church Thus haue I heere set downe the Fathers Iudgments in this high Mysterie confessed by the most Learned though to their owne Preiudice of our Aduersaries by the foure former wayes to wit by acknowledging that the Fathers did teach the Reseruation the Adoration the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ech of these necessarily inuoluing our Catholike Faith and lastly the Conclusion it selfe in playne direct and literall words Wherefore if any of the Sacramentaries shall seeme to haue iust reason to vse hereat the complaint of that Apostata a Anti-Constantyne Thus Theodoret recordeth Iulian to say l. 3. c. 8. Anti-Constantine I meane Lucian We are wounded with our owne quills out of our bookes they take armour which in fight they vse against vs. Let such remember that Truth hath a Soueraignty
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