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
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
represent him truly when he spake those former words in the Mount A second Point which we are to obserue in the state of this Question is That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is by the Scripture sometimes called Bread for so we find it termed by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Panis quem frangimus c. The Bread which we breake is it not the participation of the Body of Christ Now this appellatiō may be for a double reason First in that it is an accustomed Dialect of Scripture to call a thing by that name which afore it was or of which it is made as hertofore I haue shewed Thus we read Gen. 3. that Eue is called the Bone of Adam because she was made therof And Exod 7. the Serpents of Moyses are termed Wands because the Wands were turned into Serpents For this very reason we find that the Eucharist is somtimes called Bread by the Fathers which places our Aduersaries are not ashamed to obiect against vs. Examples heerof we haue in Origen l. 8. contra Celsum where he calles the Eucharist Panes oblatos Bread which are offered vp in Sacrifice where instantly after he shewes that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ therby distinguishing it from other bread In like sort the Eucharist is called by Irenaeus l. 4. contra Haeres c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meate or bread sanctified or made the Eucharist In this sense also the Eucharist is called bread by Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph Chrysostome also homil 24. in prior ad Cor calleth the Bread the Body of Christ meaning bread consecrated not common Bread Finally S. Augustine c. 19. l. de fide ad Petrum calles the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread Wine The second reason why the Eucharist may be called Bread by the Scripture is in regard of the similitude which it hath with bread I meane in nourishing the soule as the bread nourisheth the body And in this sense it is so called in Iohn 6. Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And by reason also of the said resemblance we find the Eucharist termed Bread by the Fathers for Dionysius Eccles hierarch c. 3. part 3. calles the Sacrament Diuine and Heauenly Bread for the same reason Tertullian l. 3. contra Marcion termes the Eucharist Bread to wit the bread of Life for there the Trope is that the Body of Christ is called Bread because it nourisheth like bread and not that the bread is there called the Body Betweene which two Propositions there is great difference since the first which is commonly vsed by the Fathers to wit the Body of Christ is Bread presupposeth a true being there of Christs Body but yet in regard of nourishing our soules with some resemblance of bread wheras the other Proposition to wit the bread is the Body of Christ neither hurteth nor aduantageth our cause since therto is only required that bread be in the Eucharist as far forth as belong to signification that is that the externall formes therof be there for by reason of the Accidences only the bread and wine do signify thus may Bread be said to be some where in respect of it Accidences only and not of it Substance though the body of Christ hath not any such relation of being I meane only in regard of it Accidences not of it Substance And heere we may see how our Sectaries dissent from the Fathers since they alluding to the nourishment therof doe figuratiuely call the body of Christ Bread wheras the other with reference only to a naked representation do figuratiuely call the Bread the Body of Christ And thus much of these two Reasons why the Scriptures and the Fathers doe sometimes call the Eucharist Bread or Wyne Whereunto I might adioyne a third cause in that the Scripture and consequently the Fathers doth often call things as they externally appeare to the Eye So the Scripture as aboue I shewed calles Angells which appeared in humane shape Men the Brasen Serpent a Serpent c. Wherefore the Eucharist may be tearmed Bread and Wyne either by the Scripture or the Fathers in that to the Eye it seemeth only as Bread and Wine To this point I thinke good to range this one Note touching the writings of the Fathers which is that some of the Fathers though most seldome do say that the substances of the externall Symboles doe remaine after Consecration Where they are to be vnderstood that they speake of the essence and nature of the Accidences and not of the substances of Bread and Wyne An example whereof we find in Theodoret Dialog 2. who there teacheth that the Mysticall signes after consecration do remaine in their former substances figure and forme Now this is meant of the nature of the accidences and not of the Substance of bread and wyne This is proued diuers wayes first because the two Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which Theodoret being a greeke Father heere vseth containe euery kind of essence and nature aswell of accidences as of substances Secondly because Theodoret doth expound himselfe in the words following saying that we see and touch the said colour and forme which words haue necessarily reference only to the outward Accidences Thirdly in that we Catholikes doe vrge this very place in proofe of the Reall Presence for heere Theodoret plainly saith that the Body of Christ is to be vnderstood to be belieued and adored in the Eucharist and therefore to be vnderstood belieued adored saith he because the bread of the Eucharist to wit the bread consecrated is truly that which is vnderstood belieued and adored The same exposition doth a Testimony alledged out of Gelasius admit lib. de duabus naturis which testimony we also produce in that it teacheth that the bread is changed into a diuine substance by the working of the Holy Ghost Thus we see that the Sacramentaries are not ashamed so needfull and begging of proofes is Heresy out of the least appearance of aduantage or naked sound of wordes to retort the very same sayings of the Fathers against vs in which we for the fortifying of our Catholike doctrine do vehemently insist Belike they thinke that the Fathers were irresolute in their faith or that their writings doe stand according to the Prospectiue of ech Mans humor so as the Sense may that way looke as euery Eye behoulding the words would haue it Heere now I will end this consideration of the Eucharist being called bread with a short animaduersion of our Aduersaries petulant frowardnes discouered herein who lighting vpon some few straying passages where the Eucharist is called Bread presently as if they had found another Sparta to enrich with their discourse they crie out in great prodigality of words that it is nothing but materiall bread and yet when in euery leafe or page of
more obscure writings of the Fathers herein without dāger The which obseruations in that they shall not be meerely aëry and speculatiue or like Accidences without Substances I will make choyce of S. Augustine i◠whome they shall as I may terme it inhere exemplifying them in him rather then in any other because our Aduersaries in this Controuersie with great vendication and shew of confidence seeme to rely vpon this Father First then he is to know that the Fathers omitting sometimes the literall sense of the words of the Euangelists or Apostles as confessed do giue some other Tropicall or Mysticall interpretation of them which course they often vse in exposition of other parcells of Scripture After this manner S. Augustine passing ouer the immediate literall and acknowledged sense of eating Christs Body thus saith in 26. in Ioan. Credere in eum hoc est manducare carnem eius Another Animaduersion may be diligently to conferre the more cleare places of a Father touching the Eucharist with the more doubtfull of the same Father for it is true that their Writings do affoard some darke sayings touching this Mysterie but it as is true that they do minister vs most pregnant and vnanswerable proofes for our Catholike doctrine heerin Thus do we find that diuers passages alleaged out of S. Augustine as particulerly in Psal 33. concion 1. vpon the words Et ferebatur manibus suis and l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. disputing vpon the formes wherin the Angells appeared and in Psal 98. vpon the words Adorate scabellum pedum eius do more strongly proue and fortifie this our Catholike doctrine then any other Countertexts obiected out of him do weaken it Seeing then that Augustine vnretracted doth not impugne Augustine is followeth euen in reason that the more obscure passages are to be illustrated by the more perspicuous and euident and not the contrary since Darkenesse cannot giue Light to light nor Vncertainty become a Rule of Certainty A third Caution is to remember that some of the ancient Fathers are so full and resolute in this point as that euen by the acknowledgment of all they are not capable of any solutions but confessed and therfore reiected to confirme the Reall Presence Now seeing that such Fathers so writing are not cōtradicted by any other Fathers it is therfore from hence necessarily inferred that those other Fathers that write more obscurely therof did neuerthelesse conspire and agree with the former in doctrine heerin which contradiction of any Nouelisme in Religion we find to haue bene in all ages as appeareth to omit the examples of Tertullian Origen Cypriā by the many registred Heresies by Irenaeus Epiphanius Augustine If then S. Augustine had written heerin contrary to the plaine testimonies of his age or the immediate tymes after him is it probable that none of them would haue taxed him as swaruing in this point from the vnity of Faith Or if the Fathers of his dayes other precedent tymes had in such their perspicuous sayings of the Eucharist broached a new Heresie in the Church can we suppose that S. Augustine who purposely elaborately wrot of other mens heresies would haue bene silent in so important a matter A fourth Caution which partly conspireth with the former is That we are to obserue what Fathers in any age haue liued in any strait enter course of friendship togeather eyther by writing or otherwise For we are to presume that the Faith of one of such if the contrary appeare not by wryting of eyther side was agreable to the faith of the other Seeing then that S. Augustine was tyed most firmly in freindship with S. Ambrose whose Testimonyes touching the Eucharist are acknowledged for vs euen by the Sacramentaries how can it be probably presumed that S. Augustine should dissent from him in so high a Mysterie and yet on note or remembrance thereof left in the monuments and writings of either of them How can it be I say that they should mainly dissent in faith since vnity of faith was the band of their most freindly agrement Or that they should be Heretickes one to another when their mutuall profession of being scourges of Heretickes gaue the first cementation and strenghtening to their inuiolable amity Or finally if we will belieue credible Authours how could they so conspiringly and vnanimously as if but one Soule had informed two Bodyes haue sayd in that diuine Hymme of theirs Te Deum laudamus Te Dominū confitemur if there had bin any disparity in theyr worship of God or different confession of him as their Lord The Fifth and last Caution which I will heere deliuer is to weigh whether the actions recorded by any Father do rather sort to the doctrine of the Catholiks touching the Reall Presence or to the opinion of the Sacramentaryes since the Fathers approbation of any such workes doth sufficiently warrant in theyr Iudgements the fayth wherunto such actions are truly appropriated Thus answerably heerto we find that S. Augustine lib. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. reporteth that a certaine a House infested The words of S. Augustine in that place are these One Hesperius hauing his house infested with wicked spirits to the affliction of his beasts and seruants desired in my absence certaine of our Priests that some would goe thither c. One went and offered there the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ praying what he might that the vexation might cease and God being thereupon mercifull it ceased Thus S. Augustine house infested with wicked spirits was deliuered of the said spirits through the offering vp of the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ as this holy Father there saith by certaine Priests thither sent Now heere he saith not that the particuler prayers of the Priests freed the house of them neither can we thinke that that Learned Doctour belieued the sacrificing of a litle bread and wine to worke such stupendious effects but he plainly affirmeth that this great Miracle was performed by the offering vp of Christs Body and Bloud Therefore it followeth euen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and demonstratiuely that S. Augustine belieued that Christs Body and Bloud was truly and really in the celebration of the Eucharist And thus much touching these Obseruations And now I will end this Chapter affirming that in regard of what hath beene deliuered in this second Part we may be the more bold to reproue the precipitate and wilfull blindnesse of the Sacramentaries who by reason of some few scattered darke passages found in the Fathers are not ashamed to vociferate and crye mainly out with Dioscorus the Hereticke in the Councell of Chalcedon We defend the opinions of the Fathers We haue their Testimonyes not by snatches or at the second hand but vttered in their owne Bookes Wee are cast out with the holy Fathers whereas indeed these vauntes are as farre from being iustified as their beliefe herein is distant from our Catholike beliefe THAT BY THE CONFESSIONS OF THE