the bread is not annihilated for Annihilation is an action which terminateth and endeth in Nothing but this action in the Eucharist by the which the bread ceaseth to be doth not terminate in nothing but in something to witt in the body of Christ not annihilated A Change which is caused by a e Successiue The words of Consecration are the cause of this conuersion and therefore this conuersion is not made without a true successiue pronouncing of the said words Successiue pronouncing of seuerall words and yet wrought in an f Instant Though all the words successiuely pronounced doe worke this Conuersion yet the said words haue no perfect signification and consequently causeth not the change till the last instant wherein the last word is pronounced for in that last instant and not before the effect of the words doe really and truly exist â—hat is the Conuersion of Bread into the Body of Christ and of the wine into his Bloud The like difficulty we find in the words of Baptisme which produce no effect till the last Instant Now heere it is to be obserued that though the signification of the words and the Conuersion be perfected together in one instant yet in order of Nature they reciprocally precede and follow one the other for as the truth of this Proposition This is my Body depends à rei essentia of the essence or being of the thing touched in this Proposition so the Conuersion doth precede the signification of the words but as those words are the Cause of the Conuersion so the words precede the Conuersion instant A Change wherein the Priest may be said of Bread g To make In a sober construction the Priest may be said to make the Body of Christ in that by his only and no lay persons pronouncing of the wordes of Consecration the bread is really turned into the Body of Christ and in this sense the Ancient Fathers doe most frequently teach that the Priest maketh the Body of Christ See Cyprian l. 1. epist 2. 9. lib. 3. epist 25. Athanasius 2. Apolog contra Arianos Basil l. â— de Baptisin c. S. Chrysostome l. 3. 6. de Sacerdotio Hierome lib. contra Luciferianos Now though the Fathers in this their peculiar sense were accustomed to write so in regard that none could consecrate but a Priest yet if we will speake in precise termes the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ because Christs Body being afore the Priest by his words doth not produce it of new but only causeth it to be vnder those externall formes of Bread and wine vnder which afore it was not to make the Body of Christ yet the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ A Change wherein the Body being made h Of Bread The Body of Christ may be said to be made of Bread because the Bread is truly and really conuerted into his Body though the Body doth truly exist before any such Conuersion And in this sense diuers ancient Fathers doe write that the Body of Christ is made of Bread Cyprian saith Serm. de Coena Domini Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei factus est caro Gaudentius tract 2. de Exodo Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum facit S. Augustine in his Sermon cited by S. Bede vpon the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith Non omnis Panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi so vsuall and obuious was this phrase with the ancient Fathers which is so harsh to the curious eares of our new Brethren of Bread a thing farre different from flesh is the very same which was made of the flesh of the Queene of Heauen A Change where by the force of Consecration the Body is without Bloud and yet euen then the Body is i Not without Bloud The reason hereof is because Christ is there whole vnder either of the externall formes in regard of the naturall vnion of his soule with his Body which vnion is neuer more to be dissolued since he is neuer more to die But if his Body should be without Bloud then should it be a dead Body and consequently himselfe were hereafter to die againe contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 6. Christus resurgens ex inortuis iam non moritur mors illi vltra non dominabitur not without Bloud In like sort by the same vertue the Humanity of Christ is only intended and yet k His Diuinity The Humanity of Christ is euer accompanied with the Diuinity and therfore his Humanity being in the Sacrament by force of Consecration his Diuinity is also there with it per concomitantiam as the Deuines do speake Now that where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity of Christ must be also is proued from this Principle of Faith to witt That Christ is one diuine Person subsisting in two natures and therefore wheresoeuer the Body of Christ is it can haue no other then a diuine subsistence which subsistence is the same in matter with the diuine Essence So as we see by force of the Hypostaticall vnion which is neuer to be dissolued where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity is also his Diuinity which is euer l In all places If the Diuinity of God were not in all places then should it be circumscriptible or at least definitiue in place and consequently not Infinite then it were no true Diuinity in all places is * Heere of new In like sort all do grant that the Diuinity of Christ was in the wombe of the B. Virgin before her Conception and yet the Diuinity was there after another manner at the tyme of her Conception heere of new truly and really exhibited A Change where the Body of our Sauiour is present and yet m Represented It may be said to be represented First because the externall formes of Bread and wyne doe represent the Body of Christ as it dyed vpon the Crosse and the Bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse for the Eucharist is a commemoration of the Passion of Christ according to those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat And in this respect his Body may be said to be represented in the Eucharist because it is not there after the same manner as it was vpon the Crosse but only by similitude and in this sense Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium is to be vnderstood where he saith Secundum quemdam modum SacramentuÌ„ Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Secondly it is said to be represented or in figure because the externall formes of Bread and wyne are the signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ there present
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
this saying to agree with such as are Catechumeni to whom our Lord gaue not his Body Thus he saith Si dixerimus Catechumeno c. If we say to one that is but Catechumenus Doest thou belieue in Christ He answereth I do belieue and he signeth himselfe with the signe of the Crosse of Christ neither is he ashamed of the Crosse of his Lord for behould he belieueth in his name But let vs demaund of him Doest thou eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man drinke the bloud of the sonne of Man He knoweth not what we say for Christ herein hath not commended himselfe to him But if the body of Christ be taken in the Eucharist only in signe and by faith then Saint Augustine saith false that Christ hath not committed himselfe to the Catechumeni for they haue Christ in signe and they eate his body by faith because they belieue in Christ and signe themselues with the signe of the Crosse Besides there were no reason why the Eucharist should not be giuen to the Catechumeni seeing that more cleere signes are giuen to them to wit the written preached word of God In the tenth Tome serm 2. de verbis Apostoli he calleth the Eucharist Precium nostrum in these words Audiuimus verâ—cem Magistrum c. We haue heard the true Maister the diuine Redemptour the Sauiour of Man commending to vs his Bloud which is our Price for he did speake of his Body and Bloud which Body he said to be Meate and Bloud to be Drinke Such as are Faithfull acknowledge the SacrameÌ„t of the faithfull Heere he speaketh not of the figure of his Bloud since the figure therof is not our Price Neither can they say that this meate and drinke is taken only by faith for he there adioyneth that it is the Sacrament of the faithfull which the faithfull only do know intimating therby that only the faithfull do vnderstand this Mysterie how the Body and Bloud of Christ can be meate and drinke Lastly in sermone ad Neophytos as Paschasius witnesseth epist ad Feudegardum he saith Hoc accipite in pane quod c. Take that in the Bread which did hang vpon the Crosse take that in the Cup which flowed from the side of Christ But his Body did hang vpon the Crosse and Bloud issued from his side S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Mystagogica thus plainly writeth Haec Beati Pauli doctrina satis potest efficere vos eertissimos de diuinis Mysterijs This doctrine of S. Paul is of force to make you assured of the diuine Mysteries And after he saith Cum Christus ipse sic affirmat atque dicat de Pane Hoc est Corpus meum quis deincâ—ps audeâ—t dubitare Ac eodâ—m quoque affirmante ac dicente Hic est Sanguis meus quis inquam dubitet ac dicat non esse illius Sanguinem Seeing that Christ himselfe affirmeth and speaketh of Bread This is my Body who after this dare doubt therof And he in like sort confirming and saying This is my Bloud who is he I say that doubteth and will say it is not his Bloud So cleere is S. Cyril herein his booke from whence these places are drawne being most certaine and vndoubted of and entreating of such things and in such Method to wit in a Catechisme which require a most literall and plaine explication S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate de veritate Carnis c. There is no place left to doubt of the truth of Christs flesh and Bloud for now euen by the profession or speach of our Lord himselfe and according to our beliefe it is truly Flesh and truly Bloud S. Cyprian Serm. 5. de Laâ—sis Vis infertur c. Violence is offered to Christs Body and Bloud and they now offend more against our Lord with their hands and mouthes then when they denyed our Lord. Hence Cyprian reprehendeth such as denying Christ afore would receaue the Eucharist without any former due pennance But it caÌ„not be a greater sinne to handle with vnworthy hands a Signe or Figure of Christ then to deny Christ therfore he there speaketh not of the signe but of the true Body and Bloud of Christ He also in Serm. de Caena Domini which booke though perhaps it was not written by Cyprian yet our Aduersaries confesse that it is written by a most ancient and learned Father thus saith Noua est huius Sacramenti c. There is a new doctrine of this Sacrament and the Euangelicall Schooles haue brought forth this first kind of learning and this discipline first appeared to the world by Christ the teacher therof That Christians should drinke bloud the eating wherof is most strictly forbidden by the authority of the Old Law Thus the Law restrayneth altogeather the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commaundeth to drinke it But the old Law did not forbid the taking of bloud in figure for the Iewes did drinke in figure the bloud of Christ in drinking the water which flowed from the Rocke Origen homil 5. in diuersa loca Euangel where he entreateth of the Centurions child thus sayth Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum accipis epulum quando vitae pane poculo frueris manducas bibis corpus sanguinem Domini tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur Et tuergo humilians temetipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Voi enim indignè ingreditur ibi ad iudictum ingreditur accipienti When thou takest the holy meate and this incorruptible banquet when thou enioyest the Cup and Bread of Lyfe thou eatest and drinkest the Body and Bloud of Christ Then doth our Lord enter into thy house Therefore thou humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my house For where he entreth vnworthily there he entreth vnto the iudgement of the receauer Here cannot be vnderstood the Bread signifying Christs Body because the Bread is not Epulum incorruptum an incorruptible Meate or Banquet neither to the Bread can it be said O Lord I am not worthy c. Neither can heere be vnderstood the body of Christ as it is eaten by Faith because then it could not be said Where he entreth vnworthily there he entreth vnto Iudgement of the receauer For our Aduersaries doe teach that Christ is taken by faith of the godly only and not of the wicked and that the godly take it to saluation and that which the wicked do take vnworthily is only the externall signes Tertullian lib. de resurrect Carn Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro inungitur vt anima consecretur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur The flesh is washed that the soule may be made cleane the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may
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
the Fathers workes vpon this matter they find it termed the Body and Bloud of Christ all such places or else we wrong them must needs be interpreted figuratiuely Thus insisting much in those phrases which are but rare in the Fathers and passing ouer with a censuring neglect such forme of speaches as most frequently occurre in their bookes A third Point which we hould in this high Mysterie is touching the effect therof of which much hath bene already deliuered only heere it will be necessary to recapitulate some of the former matter Heere we teach that though the end therof be principally to feed our Soules yet doth it giue a spirituall nourishmēt to our bodyes since our Bodyes therby are nourished to immortality taking euen frō the touch of Christs Flesh a certaine disposition to a glorious resurrection and immortall life sorting to that of Iohn c. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem c. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp at the last day Now though the Fathers in their Writings do conspire with the Scripture and vs heerin yet will our Aduersaries peruert such their Testmonies who finding that they say that the Eucharist doth nourish our bodyes somtimes without any further explication of the māner do therupō inforce that since Christs Body doth not nourish our bodies therfore only bread and wine and not his Body is in the Sacrament so materially and grossely do our Aduersaries mistake the Fathers iudgments heerin Examples of this we haue in many of the Fathers as Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haeres Nyssenus Orat. catechet c. 36 37. besides diuers others heertofore alleaged So as these very places ascribing according to their true exposition a greater vertue to the Eucharist then our Aduersaries will acknowledge may fully instruct vs as before is shewed at large that the Fathers belieued the very Body Bloud of Christ to be in the Eucharist A fourth Point also toucheth the efficacy of the Eucharist for we teach that the fruite and benefit therof consisteth not in delighting our Bodyes as corporall meates do but in nourishing and strengthening of our Soules and therfore in respect of the effect and fruite therof to eate the flesh of Christ is to belieue in him to remaine in him by Charity This we deduce out of the words of our Sauiour himselfe who speaking of this Mysterie Iohn 6. thus saith Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing And againe subioyneth to the former words Verba quae ego c. The words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life The meaning of which latter sentence being coincident with the former instructeth vs that a carnall vnderstanding of the Eucharist as if it should be eaten as other meates are for so the Capharnaites framed to themselues auayleth nothing but that we ought to cōceaue that things diuine and spirituall are heere deliuered to vs which we are not to entertaine in a humane sense but by faith and apprehension inspired by God yet so by faith as that we belieue Christs sacred Body and Bloud to be heere truly and really taken Hence now it is that the Fathers resting vpon the former words of Christ and therfore chiefly ayming at the auaylable receauing of the Eucharist do write sometimes that we are to eate the Body of Christ by Faith and not with teeth not excluding therby a corporall receauing of Christ as the Sacramentaries do suggest but teaching that the benefit and operation of the Eucharist is chiefely to nourish and fortify our Soules with spirituall and Theologicall vertues In this sense is S. Cyprian to be vnderstood in seuerall passages of his Sermon de Coena Domini who there thus concludeth Quod esca est carni hoc animae est fides In the same construction also is Athanasius tract vpon the wordes Quicumque dixerit verbum in filium hominis to be taken who there calleth the flesh of Christ Alimoniam spiritualem a spirituall nourishment in that it is giuen for meate of the Spirit and not of the Body The same Interpretation is to be made of S. Augustine tract 25. in Ioan. Quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti And tract 26. Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem viuum though the one if not both of these places by the iudgements of some not without great probability is to be vnderstood not of the Eucharist but of the spirituall eating of Christ through faith and beliefe of his Incarnation Now out of this former ground resultes an obseruation not to be neglected to wit that seeing the effect of the Eucharist is that the soule may remaine in Christ by faith and charity and that such as doe not truly belieue in Christ doe not with the intended fruit thereof eate the Sacrament therefore the Fathers leuelling only at the benefit which the Receauers reape thereby doe write somtimes that the Misbelieuers and Men of bad life do not eate in the Sacrament the body and bloud of Christ which sayings our Aduersaries doe most calumniously wrest inferring from thence that the Fathers doctrine was that such misbelieuers and other wicked persons do not take at all the Body Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and that therefore his Body and Bloud is not in the Eucharist which is most farre from their meaning who in such places as I haue said haue reference only to the profitable eating of Christs Body whereof the wicked are not partakers In this sense is to be vnderstood Origen in 15. Matth. S. Hierome in comment in c. 66. Isaiae in c. 22. Ieremiae and finally S. Augustin tract 59. where he saith that the rest of the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum but Iudas only Panem Domini because he receaued no fruite by his eating See him also in sermone de Verbis Apostoli where he writeth that the wicked doe not take the body of our Lord who as chiefly insisting in a fruitfull eating thereof there saith I llud manducare refici est I llud bibere quid est nisi credere And thus much concerning the true state of this question of the Eucharist which being heere sincerely set downe may serue to salue diuers such places of the Fathers as seeme to fortify and strengthen the Sacramentarian Heresy Some other few Passages there are of which our Aduersaries take hould which receaue their Answeres out of the circumstances of such places so as an obseruant Reader carefully there noting the scope of the Father as also the words precedent subsequent may easily find out and therefore as not being reduced to any one generall head of explication I remit them for greater breuity to the studious search of the iudicious Reader But before I finish this Chapter I will subnect therto some few short animaduersions which a discreet Reader may take as a Correctiue wherwith to tast the
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
Pledge of our Resurrection and Saluation that by it to vse the Apostles phrase we are made diuinae a Diuinae c. 2. Pet. 1. consortes Naturae that Christ is therby inwardly and corporally vnited with vs. Which corporall vnion being most precious serues as a meanes to procure our coniunction caused thereby with him in all vertues flowing from him as from our Sauiour and Redeemer And therefore we are not only armed by force hereof against the assaults of all future temptations but also Grace is deriued to vs to haue a true loathing and contrition of our former Impieties withall to receaue a full remission of the same for we hold that this Holy Mysterie is not only a Commemoration but also an application of Christs death to vs and we willingly acknowledge that touching the expiation of our Sinnes the fire of the Fathers wrath is only quenched in the Bloud of the Sonnes Passion All which Celestiall Operations as streaming from the Blessed Eucharist he may more easily belieue who will consider that Christ is the proper Sphere wherein the soule reposeth her selfe His grace being the spirituall Ayre that she anhales and drawes in the which she no sooner ceaseth to Breath then she ceaseth to lyue for it is written She who b She who liueth 1. Tim. 5. liueth in sinne dyeth while she liueth Now as for the second Point we gather out of their Writings first that they were most sollicitous carefull that no part of the Consecrated Hoast should fall vpon the ground and if casually it did then was that place scraped and the small parcells thereof put in the fire Secondly that they did adore the Sacrament which Action how can it be giuen by them without manifest danger of Idolatry if nothing but Bread and Wyne be there Thirdly that they taught that the Eucharist was to be inuoked according to that of S. Basil Verba Inuocationis dum ostenditur Panis Eucharistiae c. quis Sanctorum nobis in Scripto reliquit Finally that euen Angells capitibus inclinatis did attend vpon the Altar whilest the most dreadfull Sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud was offered vp in the formes of Bread and Wyne Hostia in manibus sayth one c One Father Chrysost homil 21. in Act Apostol Father adsunt Angeli adsunt Archangeli adest filius Dei cum tanto horrore astant omnes Which Harmony and Concent of doctrine in the monuments of so many of the Fathers if it seeme harsh and distunable to our nice Sectaryes we meruayle not since they haue vowed that their eares shall receaue no other intelligence herein then from their Neighbours their Eyes But we Catholikes who cannot brooke to haue the humanity of Christ which we assure our selues to be in the Eucharist diuorced from the Diuinity doe easily belieue that in this most holy Oblation his Godhead is there wayted on with millions of Angells No lesse happy then are those most blessed Spirits for enioyning the honor of such an Attendance then are those men in whom he vouchsafeth for the time to Inne that in him themselues may hope for euer after to dwell First then S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. thus writeth Sicut scintilla ignis c. Euen as a sparke of fyre lyghting vpon hay or straw doth presently inflame it all euen so the word of God ioyned to our corruptible nature by meanes of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise immortall glorious And l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. Non negamus recta nos fide c. We do not deny that we are ioyned with Christ spiritually in true faith and sincere charity but we altogeather deny that we are not in no sort conioyned with him according to the flesh and we affirme it to be altogeather contrary to the diuine Scriptures And a little after he thus enlargeth himselfe An fortassis putat c. What is it to be thought that we know not the vertue of the mysticall Benediction The which being in vs doth it not make through the communication of the Flesh of Christ Christ himselfe corporally to dwell in vs Where we see that he teacheth that we receaue Christ not only by Faith as our Aduersaries do teach but also corporally so making an Antithesis or opposition between these two manners of receauing him S. Augustine l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaking of his Mother Monica thus writeth Tantummodo memoriam sui c. Only she desired that she might be remembred at thy Altar where she knew that Holy Sacrifice to be dispensed by the which that Hand-writing which was contrary to vs is cancelled But here this Victima or Sacrifice cannot be any thing but the Flesh of Christ for the Bread was not sacrificed for vs and where he saith that this sacrifice is dispensed or ministred at or from the Altar he sheweth that he meaneth not Christ as he is taken by faith only but bodily by mouth And Epist 118. c. 3. he teacheth great Reuerence to be giuen to the Eucharist saying that such as do frequent the Sacrament daily out of deuotion or forbeare it sometime for deuotion also may be compared to Zachaeus or the Centurion wherof the one said Lord I am not worthy that thou spouldest enter into my house the other receaued him into his house Which comparison had bene most disproportionable if we take nothing but Bread as the signe of Christs Body And in Psal 98. expounding those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius saith That the Footstoole of our Lords feete is the Earth according to that of Esay 66. Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum Now S. Augustine expounding how the Earth may be adored without sinne thus writeth Fluctuans conuerto me ad ChristuÌ„ quia ipsum quaro hiâ— inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra adoretur Scabellum pedum eius Suscepit enim de terra terram quia Caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauâ—t ipsam carnem manducandam nobis dedit ad salutem Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi priùs adorauerit I nuentum est quemadmodum adoretur tale Scabellum pedum Domini vt non solùm non peccemus adoraÌ„do sedpeccemus non adorando I doubting herein do turne my selfe to Christ because I seeke him heere and do find how without aâ—y impiety the Earth may be adored the footstoole of his feet may be adored for he did take earth from earth because flesh commeth of the earth and he tooke flesh of the flesh of Mary And because he did heere walke in that flesh and gaue that flesh to be eaten by vs for our health now no man doth eate that flesh except he adore it before Heere then it is found how such a Footstoole of the feete of our Lord may be adored so as that heere not only we do not sinne in adoring but we sinne in
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
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
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