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
Aduersaries heere doe It is not felt not seene Ergo it is not a Body for it may be that a true body may be present and yet neither seene nor felt either in that it is couered with a new Body or else because God may hinder that it shall not transmit any sâ—nsiâ—les species to the sense of sight Besides it may be effected by diuine power that a Body may exist indiuisibly after the manner of a spirit and yet it is impossible that a spirit should exist diuisibly after the manner of a true and naturall Body But of this point also I haue discussed in the former part hereof and felt That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is called u Is called Bread The Eucharist is called indeed Bread in the two former texts of the first to the Corinthians yet it followeth not that therefore Christs Body is not in the Eucharist for it may be called Bread in that in the Hebrew Phrase vnder the name of Bread is vnderstood all kind of meate Againe it may be so called in that the Scripture is often accustomed to call things as outwardly they appeare so it calleth the Brasen Serpent a Serpent Angells appearing in Mens shape Men the brazen Oxen of the Temple Oxen c. Therefore in that the Eucharist externally differeth nothing from Bread no meruayle if it be so tearmed Thirdly the Eucharist may be called Bread because it is made of Bread or because it was Bread before Thus we find that Matth. 11. the blind are said to see and Exodus 7. the wands changed into Dragons were notwithstanding after called wands And Genes 3. Eue is called the Bone of Adam Bread That the Iewes who receaued not the Eucharist did neuerthelesse eate the same spirituall x The same spirituall meate 1. Cor. 10. Patres nostri eamdem â—scam spiritualem manducauerunt eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt All our Fathers did eate the same spirituall foode and did drinke the same spirituall drinke This place prooueth not that the Iewes did eate the same spirituall meate which we Christians doe eate which point is to be proued or else these words make nothing against the Reall Presence but it only euinceth that all those Iewes which then did liue as well the wicked as the vertuous did eate the same spirituall meate And therefore S. Augustine to distinguish the spirituall meate of vs Christians from that of the Iewes thus saith Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus meate with Christians That whatsoeuer entreth in y Entreth in at the Mouth Matth. 15. Omne quod intrat in â—s in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur Heere our Sauioure speaketh only of meates which are taken for the nourishment of the body for such meates doe hold their ordinary course wherefore when after his resurrection he did truly eate and drinke yet seing he did it not to the end of nourishing his Body therefore that meate and drinke so taken by him had not the ordinary passage with other meates described by our Sauiour In like sort the Body of Christ which is taken by the faithfull not to nourish their bodyes but their soules is not corporally disgested nor hath the common passage with other meates at the mouth is to haue it ordinary and naturall passage with common meates Finally that our Sauiour himselfe affirmes that it is the spirit z The Spirit which quickeneth Iohn 6. Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing From which place our Aduersaries do gather that seeing the flesh profiteth nothing that therfore Christs flesh is not truly in the Eucharist which Inference is false for heere the litterall sense of these words is not that the flesh of Christ doth not profit but that a carnall vnderstanding of spirituall things doth not profit and so is this place explicated by Cyprian Serm. de caena Domini Origen lib. 3. in epistola ad Romanos Chrysostome vpon this place and by diuers others Now this construction heerof is proued because almost in euery place in the Scriptures the flesh is distinguished against the spirit as we find in Gen. 6. Matth. 16. Rom. 8. Gal. 1. and in diuers other places Therfore our Sauiours meaning in the former wordes is that to thinke that the flesh of Christ is to be eaten after a carnall manner as other meates are to wit to be cut in pieces to be boyled to be conuerted into our proper substance by force of the naturall heat in which sense the Capharnaites did afore think our Lord to haue spoken that thus carnally to imagine profiteth nothing and therfore our Lord immediately subioyneth Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt that is they are words explicating diuine spirituall things and such as bring eternall life and therfore they are not to be vnderstood after a humane and carnall sense But let vs suppose that Christ spake of his flesh yet it proueth nothing against his being in the Eucharist both because by the same reason we may conclude that the bread is not in the Sacrament for if the body of Christ profiteth vs nothing much lesse will a little peece of wheaten bread profit vs Againe if our Lord had spoken of his flesh he would not haue vnderstood it absolutely but only that the flesh without the spirit profiteth nothing since otherwise our Lord should haue crossed himselfe who saith euen in the said Chapter Qui manducat carnem meam habet vitam aeternam Lastly it is no lesse then a great impiety to deny that the flesh of Christ being vnited with his Diuinity profiteth vs nothing seeing that S. Paul Coloss 1. attributes all our saluation to the flesh of Christ since he saith that we are reconciled to God by the said flesh which quickeneth and that the flesh profiteth nothing Let vs I say display at full how in these Texts they euen diuorce the letter from the true sense of the Holy Ghost and that they are so impertinently or forcedly applyed by them as that they appeare hereby to vse the Prophets Idiome a In sua fortitudine confusi Ezech. 16. in sua fortitudine confusi their weakenesse thus rising out of their imaginarie strength yet as men desirous still to intertaine further contestation and dispute they neuer cease to make their sallyes and attempts out of these weake fortresses thus heere enlarging ouermuch the sense of the letter where it is to be rather straitned as afore straitning it when it was to be enlarged and euer forgetting that notwithstanding all contrary machinations of Sectaries whatsoeuer it is recorded in the Scripture that b Scriptura non potest solui Iohn 2. Scriptura non potest solui Let vs laying aside the written Word alledge the diuers stupendious and astonishing Miracles Gods peculiar Language Dialect
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
represent him truly when he spake those former words in the Mount A second Point which we are to obserue in the state of this Question is That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is by the Scripture sometimes called Bread for so we find it termed by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Panis quem frangimus c. The Bread which we breake is it not the participation of the Body of Christ Now this appellatiō may be for a double reason First in that it is an accustomed Dialect of Scripture to call a thing by that name which afore it was or of which it is made as hertofore I haue shewed Thus we read Gen. 3. that Eue is called the Bone of Adam because she was made therof And Exod 7. the Serpents of Moyses are termed Wands because the Wands were turned into Serpents For this very reason we find that the Eucharist is somtimes called Bread by the Fathers which places our Aduersaries are not ashamed to obiect against vs. Examples heerof we haue in Origen l. 8. contra Celsum where he calles the Eucharist Panes oblatos Bread which are offered vp in Sacrifice where instantly after he shewes that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ therby distinguishing it from other bread In like sort the Eucharist is called by Irenaeus l. 4. contra Haeres c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meate or bread sanctified or made the Eucharist In this sense also the Eucharist is called bread by Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph Chrysostome also homil 24. in prior ad Cor calleth the Bread the Body of Christ meaning bread consecrated not common Bread Finally S. Augustine c. 19. l. de fide ad Petrum calles the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread Wine The second reason why the Eucharist may be called Bread by the Scripture is in regard of the similitude which it hath with bread I meane in nourishing the soule as the bread nourisheth the body And in this sense it is so called in Iohn 6. Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And by reason also of the said resemblance we find the Eucharist termed Bread by the Fathers for Dionysius Eccles hierarch c. 3. part 3. calles the Sacrament Diuine and Heauenly Bread for the same reason Tertullian l. 3. contra Marcion termes the Eucharist Bread to wit the bread of Life for there the Trope is that the Body of Christ is called Bread because it nourisheth like bread and not that the bread is there called the Body Betweene which two Propositions there is great difference since the first which is commonly vsed by the Fathers to wit the Body of Christ is Bread presupposeth a true being there of Christs Body but yet in regard of nourishing our soules with some resemblance of bread wheras the other Proposition to wit the bread is the Body of Christ neither hurteth nor aduantageth our cause since therto is only required that bread be in the Eucharist as far forth as belong to signification that is that the externall formes therof be there for by reason of the Accidences only the bread and wine do signify thus may Bread be said to be some where in respect of it Accidences only and not of it Substance though the body of Christ hath not any such relation of being I meane only in regard of it Accidences not of it Substance And heere we may see how our Sectaries dissent from the Fathers since they alluding to the nourishment therof doe figuratiuely call the body of Christ Bread wheras the other with reference only to a naked representation do figuratiuely call the Bread the Body of Christ And thus much of these two Reasons why the Scriptures and the Fathers doe sometimes call the Eucharist Bread or Wyne Whereunto I might adioyne a third cause in that the Scripture and consequently the Fathers doth often call things as they externally appeare to the Eye So the Scripture as aboue I shewed calles Angells which appeared in humane shape Men the Brasen Serpent a Serpent c. Wherefore the Eucharist may be tearmed Bread and Wyne either by the Scripture or the Fathers in that to the Eye it seemeth only as Bread and Wine To this point I thinke good to range this one Note touching the writings of the Fathers which is that some of the Fathers though most seldome do say that the substances of the externall Symboles doe remaine after Consecration Where they are to be vnderstood that they speake of the essence and nature of the Accidences and not of the substances of Bread and Wyne An example whereof we find in Theodoret Dialog 2. who there teacheth that the Mysticall signes after consecration do remaine in their former substances figure and forme Now this is meant of the nature of the accidences and not of the Substance of bread and wyne This is proued diuers wayes first because the two Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which Theodoret being a greeke Father heere vseth containe euery kind of essence and nature aswell of accidences as of substances Secondly because Theodoret doth expound himselfe in the words following saying that we see and touch the said colour and forme which words haue necessarily reference only to the outward Accidences Thirdly in that we Catholikes doe vrge this very place in proofe of the Reall Presence for heere Theodoret plainly saith that the Body of Christ is to be vnderstood to be belieued and adored in the Eucharist and therefore to be vnderstood belieued adored saith he because the bread of the Eucharist to wit the bread consecrated is truly that which is vnderstood belieued and adored The same exposition doth a Testimony alledged out of Gelasius admit lib. de duabus naturis which testimony we also produce in that it teacheth that the bread is changed into a diuine substance by the working of the Holy Ghost Thus we see that the Sacramentaries are not ashamed so needfull and begging of proofes is Heresy out of the least appearance of aduantage or naked sound of wordes to retort the very same sayings of the Fathers against vs in which we for the fortifying of our Catholike doctrine do vehemently insist Belike they thinke that the Fathers were irresolute in their faith or that their writings doe stand according to the Prospectiue of ech Mans humor so as the Sense may that way looke as euery Eye behoulding the words would haue it Heere now I will end this consideration of the Eucharist being called bread with a short animaduersion of our Aduersaries petulant frowardnes discouered herein who lighting vpon some few straying passages where the Eucharist is called Bread presently as if they had found another Sparta to enrich with their discourse they crie out in great prodigality of words that it is nothing but materiall bread and yet when in euery leafe or page of
the Eucharist THE Subiect of this Treatise Chap. 1. Of the Omnipotency of God and what he is able to performe Chap. 2. The first Passage of the difficulties in the Blessed Eucharist explicated Chap. 3. The Second Passage of them explicated Chap. 4. The Third Passage of them explicated Chap. 5. The Difficulty of a Body being in diuers places at once answered from more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation Chap. 6. The same answered by the like difficulty drawne from Eternity Chap. 7. The same answered from the Vbiquity of God acknowledged by all Christians Chap. 8. The difficultyes of a Body wanting Circumscription of Place and of an Accident without a Subiect explayned by the difficultyes discouered in the power of Seeing and the Circumstances thereof Chap. 9. The Contents of the Chapters of the secoÌ„d Part wherin is proued the Doctrine of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation in the Eucharist THE Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist proued from the Figures of the Old Testament from the Prophesyes of the Rabbyns from the New Testament froÌ„ Miracles from the first beginning of the Sacramentaries doctrine c. Chap. 1. That the Ancient Fathers taught our Catholike doctrine and first of such their Testimonies as concerne their appellations and naming of the Eucharist Chap. 2. Of the Fathers Authorityes touching the Chang made in the Eucharist from whence is demonstrated the doctrine of Transubstantiation Chap. 3. Of their Authorityes contayning their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Mysteries Chap. 4. Of their Authorityes confessing the inexplicable Greatnes of this Mystery Chap. 5. Of their Authorityes expressing the Effect of the Eucharist and the Veneration exhibited to the same Chap. 6. Of their Authorityes shewing that the Celebration of the Eucharist contayneth a proper and true Sacrifice from which doctrine as from all the other Heads of their Testimonies is necessarily euicted and proued the doctrine of the Reall Presence Chap. 7. Of the diuers manners of the Protestants Euasions and Answeres to the Authorityes of the Fathers Chap. 8. That all the chiefe obiected Authorityes of the Fathers vrged by our Aduersaries are impertinent Chap. 9. That by the Confessions of the most Learned Protestants the Fathers do teach the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation Chap. 10. Of certayne Considerations drawne from Luther the Lutherans and other Protestants concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist Chap. 11. That there are many Congruentiall Reasons shewing the conueniency why Christ might be induced to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist to vs Christians as also the Conueniency of the manner of Transubstantiation Chap. 12. The Conclusion Chap. 13. THE CHRISTIANS MANNA THE FIRST TRACT The subiect of this Treatise CHAP. I. O a O Altitudo diuitiarum Rom. c. 11. ALTITVDO diuitiarum Sapientiae Scientiae Dei Thus did that b That heauen rapt Apostle viz. S. Paul who 2. Cor. 12. saith of himselfe I know a man euen rapt to the third Heauen Heauen rapt Apostle burst forth into admiration of Gods vnsearchable Wisdome through the contemplation of his will and pleasure whereby he was moued to draw some out of that heauy and dreadfull masse of damnation caused through the all-spreading fall of our first Parents as also to leaue therin others no more interessed in the fault of Adam then the rest Vessells and Vassalls of wrath and thrall to eternall perdition And thus may we Catholikes haue no lesse reason to admire the inscrutable Wisdome and Goodnesse of the said diuine Maiesty if we enter into consideration of diuers Articles of Faith taught by the Catholike Church and belieued by her obedient Children to see how far some of them are estranged from all humane Prudence and how far discosted others do lye from the reach of Mans capacity And to particularize this in some Examples we find that answerably hereto it was our Sauiours good pleasure among all the Apostles to institute him as Head of the rest who openly forsooke his Lord and Maister and after increased his sinne of Abnegation with the aggrauating circumstance of Periury So as Iesus thought it best in the abyssmall depth of his Wisdome to build the Confession of Faith vpon the deniall of Faith and to appoint him who disclaimed in Christ to be the future Anchor and stay of all those who should after trust in Christ In like sort the Sacraments which are ordained to be certaine conduits passages wherby to deryue into Mans soule Gods grace do consist of externall signes or formes wherein the stupendious wonder is though I grant c Some congruentiall Reasons Among diuers other Reasons this is the chiefest That seeing Man aswell consists of a corporall Substance as of a spirituall Substance the Soule therfore our Sauiour thought it conuenient that the Sacraments should consist of materiall and externall signes or formes answerable to the nature of our Bodies and so externally working vpon the Body internally and spiritually they worke vpon the Soule according to that saying of Tertullian lib. de resurrect Carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro inungitur vt anima consecretur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur some congruentiall reasons may be giuen therof to obserue that things materiall and sensible are ordayned to sanctify our immateriall spirituall soules where through the action of them being in their very vse d Eleuated aboue themselues The manner how the Sacraments do worke in Mans Iustification being not the Conclusion it selfe betweene the Protestants and vs but a circumstance only of the Conclusion is disputable and not a point of Faith and therfore is seuerally defended by the School-men For some of them do teach that the Sacraments are Causae morales of our Iustification euen as he is the true cause of a Mans death who comaundeth the Man to be killed though himselfe do not touch the Man Thus doth Scotus Durand Bonauenture others hould But the more probable opinion is that of S. Thomas 3. part quaest â—2 art 4. who teacheth that the Sacraments are Causae efficientes Physicae Instrumentales of our Iustification and that the vertue heere infused by God is not any new inherent quality either spirituall or corporall but only the Motion vse of God therein for in that God doth vse this Sacramentall action to produce Grace he doth eleuate the same action maketh it to beget a supernaturall effect the which effect it could not if it were moued by any other then God eleuated aboue themselues transceÌ„ding their owne worth and dignity they produce spirituall celestiall Effects Thus we see that things not capable of sense much lesse of Grace cause that in another which themselues enioy not like the Sunne which animateth the inferiour Bodies with heate and life and yet it selfe not e Not hauing either heate The Distinction which the Philosophers do heere vse is that the Sunne and other Heauenly
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
though veyled ouer with those formes And thus is S. Basil to be vnderstood in sua Liturgia who calles the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figure or Representation of the Body of Christ And in this sense all the Sacraments of the new Law may be called Figures or Representations because they are externall signes representing and withall working an inward Grace represented A Change whereby that sacred Body at the first Institution of the Eucharist being yet mortall and passible was then receaued as n Immortal For as it was at the first deliuered to the Apostles it was in that spirituall manner vnder the externall formes as now at is after his death immortall and impassible A Change where the externall formes of the things changed doe by themselues after a sort o After a sort subiect The Accidences of Bread and Wine are said to be in themselues because they are not in a liquo suppofito or subiect and yet they do not truly subsist by any positiue act but are in Corpor◠Christi as they are preserued there though not by way of inherencie Now where our Aduersaries do vsually obiect that it is of the essence of an Accident to inhere in the Subiect and therfore the Accidences of Bread Wine must either inhere in the body of Christ which all Catholikes deny or else in the bread and wine and consequently no Transubstantiation I answere hereto that all chiefe Philosophers deny it to be of the essence of an Accident for Aristotle himselfe lib. ◠de Anima text 9. saith Aliud est magnitude aliud magnitudinis esse Now if the existence of an Accident be distinguished from it essence much more is the inherency thereof which is but the manner of it existency Besides if Inherency were of the essence of an Accident Aristotle would neuer haue demaunded 4. Physic text 58. whether that space were supposed to be vacuum where there should be only sound and colour intimating thereby that though by naturall Reason an Accident cannot exist without a subiect yet that inherency is not of the essence of colour or sound since otherwise his demaund should be absurd and idle for who should suppose Colour or Sound would necessarily presuppose a subiect and therfore a Body subsist and yet are not substances they inhere not and yet are Accidents they are in themselues in respect of negation and not of position in another by way of preseruation not of inherency A Change whereby the Testament made being Christs p Christs Bloud As the Bloud of Christ is taken for that Bloud which was in the Chalice vnder the externall species of wine so it is a Sacrament and consequently a Will or Testament But as his Bloud is taken for that Bloud which was shed vpon the Crosse so is his Testament sealed and established in the same Bloud And therfore according to this double acception of Christs Bloud we find that S. Luke did speake in these words Hic Calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo where by the word Calix is meant Bloud and consequently the Testament Bloud was yet sealed in his Bloud A Change where the q Externall Formes We hold that when the Externall Species are corrupted the same substantiall Forme succeeds which would naturally haue succeeded if the Bread and Wine had not bene changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And yet we teach not that this commeth by any Generation for in euery Generation there is eadem materia numero vnder both the Termini or Formes which heere is not for the same Materia prima which was in the Body of Christ is not in the new introduced forme Now then though it doth not proceed from any preexistent Matter yet it cannot be said to be Created for Creation properly hath no reference or relation as proceeding meerly of Nothing to any former thing whatsoeuer but heere this new forme hath a necessary relation and dependency of the corruption of the former species of bread and wine for if the said formes were not and after became not corrupted this new substantiall forme would not succeed Lastly we teach that this new substance is substituted or brought in by God euen in that very Instant when the Formes of Bread and Wine cease to be And this neuerthelesse is not accomplished by any second and new Miracle for euen as when the matter of a Mans Bodie being sufficiently disposed God doth immediately create and infuse the soule and yet this is not called a Miracle because the order of things already set downe by God doth require it In like sort when the alteration of the species of Bread Wine is proceeded so far that then are made present requisite dispositions as the course of things requires to introduce some forme then doth God in that very instant minister the matter and so the substantiall forme is introduced Now heere we are to note that when any part of these formes are corrupted the Body of Christ either in whole or in part is not extinct therby but only ceaseth to be vnder those corrupted formes still continuing whole vnder the rest not corrupted and if all the formes be corrupted then it ceaseth to be there at all not much otherwise then when a Mans Leg is cut off the soule which was in the Leg dyeth not for if it dyed then he who wanted a leg should want a part of his soule but only ceaseth to informe that part informing all the rest and if all parts of the Body were disioynted asunder then the Soule not dying ceaseth only to informe any of the said parts externall Formes being corrupted a new substantiall Forme is introduced and yet heere is no Generation it is not produced out of any preexistent Matter and yet no Creation it is exhibited immediately and only by God and yet without any new Miracle To conclude A Change see heere repose in Motiō wrought without Change since the Body of our Sauiour suffered no alteration therby for it r Relinquished Nothing For Christs Body in the Sacrament enioyeth all those essentiall perfections of a true Body which afore it had in Heauen only it receaueth a new relation to the species of Bread and Wine as it is in the Sacrament which it hath not as it is in Heauen and consequently it is inuested thereby with some other circumstances accompanying that it existence vnder it species as to be freed from all extension of place as also to be freed from that relation of place which it hath as it is in Heauen relinquished nothing which afore it had but acquired some things which afore it had not Thus though what he heere is he was not yet what he was he heere is Now out of this Passage it appeareth how the Catholikes dissent herein both from the Lutherans from the Sacramentaries From the Lutherans for though they acknowledge the true presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet they teach that no reall Change
all of these obscurities were first through an incessant agitatiō of the mind discouered by our Catholike n Catholike Schoole-men For these and such like are handled and discussed by S. Thomas Aquinas The Maister of the Sentences Scotus Suarez Vasquez and diuers others School-men for the more exact search of the truth and after most fully answered by them so as these short currents of doubts from thence receaued their stops from whence they first did spring But now our Aduersaries for it is the misfortune of learning euer to be wounded by her owne hand are not ashamed euen to turne the edges of those Arguments first propounded and answered by Catholike Deuines vpon vs who maintayne the said faith which those Doctours did By which course of proceeding we may easily discouer how barren dry our Sectaries are for they bring little or nothing of themselues to impugne our faith heerin but only Eccho forth what they haue heard our learned Catholikes afore speak yet do they Eccho after a strange manner for they do not repeate the last words as in nature and reason they should but this were for their disaduantage since they containe the answers and solutions but only the firster part thereof wherin do lye the obiections The other point wherof the Reader is to take notice is this That most of the former difficulties especially of the two latter Passages or Chapters do consist in the repugnancy which they beare to the outward Sense and therfore seeing that these are chiefly insisted vpon and more more reinforced by our Aduersaries we may heere truly say that no small part of a Sacramentaries Faith lyes in his eye Thus howsoeuer such rapt Spiritualists will at other times vaunt of their hidden reuelations from God concerning the secrets of their Profession yet you shall euer find them euen in the midst of these their aerie high-towring Illuminations to looke downe vpon Sense and naturall Reason though Reason teacheth vs not to rely vpon Reason in things transcending Reason bearing thēselues herein not much vnlike to your great vnprofitable Kites which though they fly high yet they haue their Eye still fixed vpon the earth THE PROTESTANTS DIFFICVLTY OF A Body being in diuers Places answered from two more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation CHAP. VI. NOvv after we haue dissected as it were point after point such difficulties in the Blessed Sacrament wherein the very synewes and strength of our Aduersaries cause doe chiefly lye We are further heere to aduertise the Reader that through the consideration of many Dogmaticall a Dogmaticall Assertions A third Example besides those two chiefe Mysteries afore specified may be the wonderfull difficulty of Creation or Annihilation which to Heathen Philosophers may seeme to imply a Contradiction for to say that Something may be made of Nothing which is Creation and that Something may be turned into Nothing which is Annihilation may be thought to say that Something is Nothing and Nothing Something And doubtlesse it cannot be apprehended by Mans vnderstanding that a Thing should now exist which afore was Nothing and in like sort that Something should be turned into Nothing except this Nothing be Something A fourth Example may be the Resurrection of the Dead Now the difficulty in this Mysterie is how one and the same Indiuiduum or particuler Body should be twice made for if it be twice then is it with a double action and if with a double action how comes it to passe that it is not two seeing that the Effect depends on the Action vt eius Terminus Furthermore this Mystery is made more incomprehensible by reason of the Anthropophagi or Cannibals who feeding vpon Mans flesh neuerthelesse both their owne bodies and the bodies of those others vpon whom they feed and whose flesh is turned into the flesh and substance of the Canniballs shall rise at the day of the resurrection most distinct and seuerall Bodyes where we see that one Body is turned into the substance of another and yet hereafter that very said substance is to rise vp most different and distinct Bodies A fifth Example may be taken from the Paynes of the damned where the soules and the Diuells are tormented and punished with corporall fire for if the burning of the fire doth not otherwise torment a thing then dissolueudo continuum then how can it afflict an Indiuisible Substance as the Soule of Man or a Spirit is of which Point see Augustine lib. 21. de Ciuit. Die cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. A sixt is the Obseruation how a Spirit can be detayned and holden by a Body for it seemeth no lesse difficult to be vnderstood how a Spirit should be holden by a Body that it passeth not wheresoeuer it would then that a Body should not be detayned and hindered by another Body but that it may freely passe through any solide bodyes as if they were no Bodies at all Now the firster part of this difficulty appeareth in the former example of the Diuells who being incorporall Substances are detayned with Hell fire so as that they cannot passe whither they would which point may be also exemplified by our Soule which being an immateriall Substance is deteyned and holden by our Body A seauenth may be taken from the Examples out of the Scriptures where we read that the Fire by Gods Power did suspend it faculty of heating Dan. 3 And that Christ and S. Peter by the same Power did walke vpon the waters Matth. 14. and the like Now if God can effect that that which is naturally hoate shall no◠heate and that which is naturally ponderous and heauie shall not descend downwards hauing no hinderance by the same reason is he able to make that a true body may want also circumscription of place For the reason why through diuine power that which is hoat shall not heate nor a thing ponderous shall not descend towards the Center is in that Causa est prior Effectu the cause is before it effect and therefore not depending on the effect may by God be separated from the same but the like reason is found in Magnitude which is the Cause and to fill or possesse a place which is the effect arising from the said cause and therefor later in nature then it Besides Grauitas or Ponderosity is not only the cause why a heauy body doth descend being out of it naturall place but it is also the cause thereof euen in that kind of Cause to wit in genere causae formalis in which Magnitude is the cause why a Body doth possesse a place An eight may be deduced from other Examples in Scripture whereby is proued that diuers bodies may possesse one and the same place and consequently that a Body may want all circumscription of place Hereof are no few Examples borrowed from our Sauiour himselfe as that of his Natiuitie where our Sauiour did proceed out of the wombe of the Blessed Virgin without any breach of
Christian Mysteries for their resemblance is great the one coÌ„sisting in the vnity of Nature with reference to diuersitie of Persons the other in the Vnity of the Person with respect to diuersitie of Natures THE SAME ANSVVERED BY the like difficultie drawne from Eternity CHAP. VII A SECOND Example shal be drawne from that which in it Concrete is the peculiar incommunicable Attribute of God I meane Eternity for if we find Mysteries far passing Mans vnderstanding in the Proprieties of God how much short are we from sounding the bottomlesse gulfe of his Power who is the sourse of the said Proprieties But heere we are first to know what Eternity is The Philosophers a The Philosophers define Aristot in Metaphysic passim define it to be Instans Duration is non flâ—ens An Instant of Duration or continuance which is euer present and neuer passeth away Thus Eternity besides that it hath no beginning according to Philosophy consisteth of that which is shorter then the shortest time and therin Indiuisible and yet the continuance thereof extendeth it beyond the length of all Tyme and therin Interminable Now the mayne difficulty heerin is this and such which in the like touch of the doubt is greater then the former confessed difficulty of multiplicity of place to wit That this Instant of Duration being but one instant yet is and coexisteth in seuerall Tymes both past and to come yet neyther is this Instant deuided or distracted in it selfe nor these seuerall times confounded He that seriously penetrateth this difficulty how can he make doubt but that by Diuine Power one Body may be in seuerall places without either diuision of the Body or confusion of the places And this the rather a circumstance much increasing the Mystery heere alledged in that diuers places wherein we suppose a Body may be do still remaine at one time though far distant one from another whereas these precedent and future times in both which one and the same Instant of Duration or Eternity is are euer in a flowing and departing Motion and consequently cannot by any possibility whatsoeuer remayne and exist togeather for we see that the Tyme past euer giues place to the Tyme to come And thus much of this abstruse difficulty of Eternity the doctrine wherof who denieth denieth withall Gods euerlasting Being of which I was the more willing to intreat because it is that whereto after our Pilgrimage ended in this world we all trust most ioyfully to arriue And therefore by allusion we may truly say that as Eternity in it owne nature consisteth of a continued Instant so of this short Instant of Mans Life dependeth all Eternity of future Ioy or Calamity Furthermore not only we but all Creatures whatsoeuer shall finally haue their Periode and Dissolution in Eternity yea Tyme it selfe wherein all things are now swallowed vp shall hereafter be absorpt in the abyssmall depth thereof Thus what gaue an end to euery thing shall in an endlesse Eternity receaue it end A THIRD ANSVVERE drawne from the Vbiquity of God CHAP. VIII PHILOSOPHY teacheth vs that the highest Heauen is in Quantity finite because the reuolution of that huge Body is periodicall and terminable as being perfected within a prefixed time The consequence wherof is euicted by force of a contrariety from a receaued Axiome among the learned to wit What Body accomplisheth not it course in a designed and limitable time the same if any such were is of an infinite and immensurable Quantity Now vpon this Basis or ground by resemblance we may stay our selues in the search of his Power who is the Creatour of all the Heauens for since his Omnipotency is not confined within the compasse of any tyme for himselfe was before a Before all Time Seeing that Tyme according to it definition in Philosophy is but the course or Motion of the highest Heauen secundum prius posterius according to the firster or later part of the said motion and that seeing all the Heauens were once created of God therfore it must needs follow that God was before all times all tyme nor of things for he gaue the first b The first Being to all things viz. through the creation of them according to that of the Scripture In Deo sumus moâ—â—mur Act. 17. being to all things nor of Place for he is both by c By presence in all places According to that Hierem. 23. Caelum terram ego impleo And that God is actually and truly present in all places is proued First because as it is aboue said it should otherwise follow that he 〈…〉 circumscribed or defined in some certaine place and consequently he should not be infinite Secondly God is vnited with euery thing he created since the consistence and the preseruation of ech thing depends on God but this vnion between God and his creatures is not by the meanes of any Quality in God for in God there is no Quality therfore the vnion is with the Essence of God Presence and Might in all places It therfore may be assumed as an inexpugnable verity that his said Power is infinite boundlesse and illimitable and consequently that our weake vnderstanding is not able to lay any true leuell therto But since I haue heere named Gods Vbiquity I will insist a little in one incomprehensible Mysterie found therin it being such as that it incomparably surpasseth that of one Body being in seuerall places For how can our vnderstanding comprehend that Gâ—d being one d One simple and indiuisible thing The like Example may be taken from the Soule of man which being indiuisible in it selfe and most simple is in euery part of the body and whole in euery part since otherwise if it should be extended to the extension of the Body it should be materiall and depend only of the Body and consequently it should not be immortall Neither auaileth it to answere heerto that the Soule possesseth the whole Body as one Place And that a signe hereof is in that if any one member be separated by any change from the Body the soule ceaseth to be in that member in that that said part beginneth to be a different Body excisting by it selfe and not depending on the former This satisfieth nothing for although the soule cannot naturally be preserued in a member cut from the rest of the body yet there can be no reason assigned but that God is able to preserue the soule in a part of the Body cut from the rest simple and indiuisible thing should be at once in all places and things whatsoeuer A doubt so inexplicable that it forced S. Augustine to say therof Miratur hoc mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit They cannot salue this Point in answering that God doth replenish all places as one place For though we acknowledge that all places are to him as one yet who will not graunt but that he is able to create another world farre remote
or to seuerall Eyes according to the different Angles to vse the imposed Phrase herein of Irradiation or Incidency made by the entrance of the Obiect into the Eye wherby we may be admonished that in points of faith one and the same Authority doth seeme of a different weight according as the VnderstaÌ„ding is afore either lightened with Gods Grace or darkened with the myst of Passion And thus far hereof where we see that the Body contrary to the accustomed manner is able to schoole and instruct the soule HEERE now I will conclude this first Part in which the Reader hath all the chiefe obscurities of this great Mysterie explicated at large and diuers of them paralelled by other acknowledged difficulties both in Diuinity and Philosophy For the close wherof I only wish him to haue his mind euer fixed in this one position which is That what Faculty or Operation God doth impart to any thing created the same he also eminenter retaineth to himselfe since otherwise the Creature should transcend in Might the Creatour and is able to performe it without the help of any secondary Cause being in such cases sole Agent of the same Effect Which Axiome if he do apply to most of the r Most of the abstrusest Points To instance this ground in some difficulties of the Eucharist God hath imparted to a Substance the facultie of supporting and sustentating an Accidence by meanes of Inherency therefore it followeth out of this Principle that God is able of himselfe to support an Accident without it Subiect for otherwise he should giue more power and ability to the Subiect then he keepeth to himselfe or can by himselfe performe which were both impious and absurd to maintaine In like sort God hath giuen this property to Place for the better conseruing of the Subiect conteyned that it should circumscribe euery sublunary naturall Body with a certaine coextension answerable to the Quality of euery such body Therefore God can of himselfe as we belieue he doth in the Sacrament of the Eucharist keep a Body without any such circumscription of place since otherwise it would follow that he hath so qualified this circumstance of place to performe that which himselfe immediately cannot This might be exemplified in many other difficulties touching the doctrine of the Reall Presence neither is there found herein in a cleare Iudgement the least appearance of any Contradiction abstrusest Points in this Question of the Eucharist he shall easily acknowledge that the extending greatnesse of them become confined by him who is only confined within his owne illimitable Power and vnsearchable Wisdome himselfe being the sole bound to himselfe The end of the first Tract THE CHRISTIANS MANNA THE SECOND TRACT The Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist proued from the Figures therof in the Old Testament from the Prophesies of the Rabbins from the New Testament from Miracles c. CHAP. I. IN the precedent Passages the possibility of the Catholike doctrine herein is I hope most cleerly and irrefragably proued partly by soluing all the abstrusest difficulties which are accustomed dangerously to inuade our Iudgment by the assault of the Eye of other the senses and of naturall Reason and partly by shewing that God still is God and his diuine Maiesty euer himselfe I meane that he is in Power infinite boundlesse and inscrutable And that whensoeuer this proud slyme of Man presumes to assigne limits to him by obiecting that Omnipotency cannot passe it selfe and the like he endeauours but to graspe the water or to bind the Ayre since he labours to restraine him euen Him whose Ocean euer flowes without any borrowed streames whose Day stil continues without ensuing Night and whose Center is without any bordering Circumference It now remayneth briefly to demonstrate that not only it is possible that Christs sacred Body and Bloud may lye really vnder the formes of bread and wine but that actually in the Eucharist so it doth Which point though it receaue it chiefest synewes strength of proofe from the two Oracles of Gods written Word to wit from the Propheticall and Apostolicall Scriptures yet such is the petulancy and wantonnesse of our Aduersaries in detorting those sacred Testimonyes as that they tell vs except we will admit their owne expositions of the said Scriptures though contrary to the words themselues and to all the accessarie circumstances we do but idely diuerberate the ayre with impertinent allegations And thus Let vs produce such Texts of God Word which conteyne euen by their owne confessions the Types or Figures of the holy Eucharist during the time of the Law which Tyme a VVhich Tyme serued According to that Omnia eiâ— contingebant in figuris 1. Cor. c. 7. serued but as the Eue to the greatest Festiuall day of Christianitie as that it was shaddowed by the Paschall b Paschall Lambe Exod. 12. S. Augustine saith of this Figure l. 2. contra literas Petiliani cap. 37. Aliud Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in corpore sanguine Domini accipimus That the Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist is further testified by Leo Serm. 7. de Passione Domini by Cyprian lib. de Vnitate Ecclefiae by Chrysostome homil de proditione Iudae by Hierome in c. 26. Matth. by Tertullian l. 4. in Marcionem and diuers others Lambe by the c The bloud of the Testament Exod. 24. That this bloud was a figure of the Eucharist appeareth out of Luc. 22. where our Sauiour plainly saith Hic calix nouum Testamentum est in meo Sanguine In like sort Matth. 26. Our Lord in these words Hic est Sanguis meus noui Testamenti seemeth in both places to allude to the words of Moyses Hic est Sanguis Testamenti quem misit ad vos Deus Now heere it cannot be replyed that the bloud of the Testament was a Figure only of the Passion and not of the Eucharist and the reason hereof is this in that a Testament ought to be made by a free man before his death and by some publique Instrument for the remembrance thereof after the Testators death All which circumstances are more truly and liuely found in the Institution of the Sacrament then in his Passion Bloud of the Testament and by the Manna d Manna descending Of this we read Exod. 16. That the Manna was a Figure of the Eucharist appeareth from our Sauiours owne words Ioan. 6. Patres vestri manducauerunt Manna in Deserto mortui sunt Qui manducant hunc Panem viuent in aeternum The same is confirmed by the Fathers See hereof Ambrose l. 5. de Sacramen c. 1. and De ijs qui initiantur Mysterijs c. 8. 9. Augustine Theophylact Cyâ—il and Chrysostome in c. 6. Ioannis descending from Heauen vpon the Iewes wherein we affirme that the accomplishment of these figures ought to be more noble and worthy then such naked representations and that therefore if nothing be in the
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
takest not the Sonne of any Prince being but a Man but the only begotten Sonne of God art thou not affraid and doest not thou cast from thee the care of all secular things But if Chrysostome did heere speake of Christ only in Signe and representation the comparison should haue bene made only between the Image or Picture of the Kings Sonne and not with the Sonne himselfe And Homil. ad Neophytos Sicut Regnantium statuae c. Euen as the Statuaes or Images of Princes haue bene accustomed to succour such as haue fled to them for Sanctuary and this not because they are made of brasse but in that they doe beare the Image of the Prince euen so that bloud did free meaning that Bloud of the Lamb in the old Testament which was sprinkled vpon the Posts to free the Israelites from the striking Angell not because it was bloud but because it did figure out the comming of this Bloud But now if the Enemy shall see not the bloud of the Type cast vpon the postes or walles but the bloud of Truth shining in the mouthes of the faithfull he will much more withdraw himselfe from hence For if the Angell gaue place to the Example how much more will the Enemy be terrified if he shall behould the Truth it self In which place we see that Chrysostome placeth the truth of the Bloud not in the mind but in the mouths of the Faithfull And Homil. 51. in Matth. O quet modo dicunt c. O how many doe now say I would see the forme of Christ and his fauour I would see his vestments and euen his shooes Now thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him Where he meaneth that we see feele and eate Christ truly and really vnder those formes of Bread and Wine which are properly seene and touched Againe he saith in the same place that there was neuer Shepheard who fed his shep with his owne flesh as Christ did and that diuers Mothers are to be found who deliuer ouer their Infants to others to be noursed contrary to the procedings of our Sauiour which comparisons can haue no fitting proportion if we eate the Body of Christ only in Figure and signe Lastly to omit for breuities sake diuers others of his similitudes he thus writeth Hom. 2. ad Pop. Antiochenum Helias melotem c. Helias did leaue to his disciple his vestement but the Sonne of God ascending to Heauen did leaue his flesh But Helias by leauing it was disuested thereof whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to Heauen there also hath it So frequent is this holy Father in Comparisons and Similitudes all brought in to shew the excellency of that thing which we receaue in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which if it were not the body and bloud of Christ then were these comparisons most cold and disproportionable Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo teacheth that the Iewes had not all one Paschal Lambe but diuers in that euery family did kill it peculiar Lambe but that among the Christians one and the same Lambe to wit the body and bloud of Christ is offered vp and eaten in all the Churches Which words signify that the body of Christ is not offered vp only in representation since in that sense the Iewes had one and the same Lambe in that all their Lambs did signify one Lamb to wit Christ S. Basil l. 2. de Baptismo c. 2. thus writeth Si tales minae c. If such threats be ordayned against those who come rashly to such holy things as are sanctified by Man what shall we say of him who is temerarious and rash towards such and so great a Mysterie For by how much Christ is greater then the Temple according to the voyce of our Lord by so much it is more greiuous and terrible rashly to touch the body of Christ in impurity of soule then to approach to Rammes or Bull◠c. But this saying of S. Basil cannot be true except the body of Christ be really in the Eucharist For betweene Christ and the Rammes sacrificed by the Iewes the difference is infinite but betweene those Rammes signifying Christ and bread figuring our Sauiour the difference is but small S. Ambrose lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. teacheth that a more excellent meate is giuen to vs in the Eucharist then euer the Manna was to the Iewes The like he hath l. 4 de Sacramentis c. 3. 4. 5. But Manna was both for substance and signification as is proued afore better then bread only representing the body of Christ Againe lib. 6. de Sacramentis c. 1. Sicut verus est Filius Dei c. Euen as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true Sonne of God not as Men are his Sonnes by grace but as a Sonne of the Substance of the Father so it is true Flesh euen as himselfe said which we take Out of which sentence it followeth that as Christ is truly and really the Sonne of God So is that which we take in the Eucharist the true body and bloud of Christ Againe lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. he proueth the same from the mysterie of the Incarnation in these words Liquet quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo generauit hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Quid hic queris Naturae ordinem in Christi corpore cùm praeter naturā sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus ex Virgine It is manifest that a Virgin brought forth a Sonne beyond the course of Nature And this Body which we make proceedeth from the Virgin Why doest thou heere expect the course of Nature since our Lord Iesus is borne of a Virgin aboue nature But if the Bread did only signify our Sauiours Body in the Eucharist this proofe of S. Ambrose had bene superfluous S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate speaking of the Truth of the Body and Bloud in the Eucharist thus concludeth An hoc veritas non est c. What is not this Truth Let it not be a truth to those who deny Christ Iesus to be true God Thus Hilarius heere proueth the Mysterie of the Eucharist by the Mysterie of the Trinity S. Athanasius as he is cited by Theodoret in 2. Dialog thus writeth Corpus est cui dicit c. It is a Body to whom it was said Sede à dextris meis of which Body the Diuells with all the wicked Powers as also the Iewes and Grecians were Enemies by meanes of which Body Christ was both the High Priest and an Apostle and this Body is specified in that Mysterie which is deliuered to vs when himselfe said This is my Body which is deliuered for you and the bloud of the New Testament not of the Old which is shed for you But Diuinity hath neither a Body nor Bloud Heere he proueth that Christ hath a true Body in that Christ as an High Priest gaue his Body to vs in those wordes Hoc est Corpus meum but if
his true body were not deliuered to vs therby his reason would proue nothing against the Heretikes denying the Truth of his Body in that it might be replyed that the Eucharist was but a Figure of the apparent and seeming body which they taught that Christ had S. Cyprian sermone de Coena Domini saith Coena disposita c. The Supper of those sacramentall Banquets being prepared the Old and New Institutions did there meete togeather and the Lamb which the Ancient Tradition proposed being spent the Maister gaue to his Disciples an inconsumptible meate Heere by the words Cibum inconsumptibilem cannot be vnderstood the Body of Christ as it is eaten by Faith because in that the Iewes by their Paschall Lamb had that meate to wit by representation as well as we Christians Neither by the said words can be vnderstood the Bread in the Eucharist because Bread is as well consumptible and to be spent as a Lambe is In the same Sermon he also saith of which place I haue entreated before Sicut in Persona Christi c. Euen as in the Person of Christ his Humanity appeared but his Diuinity was hid or latent so in the visible Sacrament the Diuine Essence doth ineffably infuse it selfe From which words the truth of the Doctrine of the Eucharist is proued from the Mystery in the Incarnation Origen homil 7. in Lib. Numeri Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei est verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Quia caromea est verè cibus Then to wit in the Old Law the Manna was meate obscurely Enigmatically but now indeed the Flesh of the Word of God is true meate euen as himselfe said Quia caro mea verè est cibus But the Manna was the body of Christ tropically and figuratiuely Tertullian lib. de Idololatria thus saith Prâ—h Scelâ—â—l semel Iudaei c. O Villany the Iewes once offered violence vnto Christ but these Men dayly do wrong his body O that their hands might be cut off In which place he inueigheth against certaine men who made such Priests or at the least Deacons which were artificers or makers of Idolls But if Tertullian had thought that there were only Bread in the Eucharist representing the Body of our Sauiour he would not compare such as handled the Sacrament vnworthily with those which crucified Christ Where also we are to note that he there speaketh not of such who with affectation and intended purpose did wrong Christ by violating the Sacraments but of those only who being sinners dared to deliuer the Sacrament to the Communicants Irenaeus l. 4 contra Haeres c. 34. Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis Panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia EucharistiaÌ„ iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as the Bread proceeding from the Earth receauing the inuocation of God is not now common Bread but it is the Eucharist consisting of two things to wit a terrene thing and a celestiall thing so our Bodyes receauing the Eucharist are not corruptible as hauing thereby the hope of rising againe Where Irenaeus maketh a Comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Article of the Resurrection But our Body really truly after the Resurrection shall become immortall and not in signification only therefore the Bread is truly become the Body of Christ and not in signification only Now how the Eucharist may be termed terrena see S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in the sixt chapter of this 2. Tract S. Iustinus Martyr in Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum Imperatorem saith Non enim vt communem Panem neque communem Potum haec sumimus Sed quemadmodum per Verbum Dei Incarnatus Iesus Christus Saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuit sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factum cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostrae per mutationem aluntur illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these as common Bread and common Drinke but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour being Incarnated by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our health saluation euen so we learne that through the prayers of the Word of God that meate whereby our bloud and flesh are nourished through the alteratioÌ„ therof being made the Eucharist is the Flesh and Bloud of Iesus who was incarnated In which wordes there is a comparison betweene the Eucharist and the Incarnation of Christ and he proueth the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist from the Mysterie of the Incarnation inferring that by the same power the Bread might be made the Body of Christ by the which power God was Incarnated but if he did vnderstand that the Bread was the Body by representation only then in vaine is brought the Example of the Incarnation since it is no Miracle that Bread should signifie the Body of Christ Add heerto that Iustinus Martyr if he did meane the Body only in signe had reason to explane himselfe to the Emperour in that he heere did write an Apology for the Christians to whome besides other crimes it was obiected that in the mysteries of their Religion they did eate Mans flesh OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONFESSING The inexplicable greatnesse of this Mysterie CHAP. V. THE fourth Classis may conteyne such passages of the Fathers wherin is acknowledged a Supreme Mysterie in the Eucharist For first they teach that it transgressing the bounds of humane capacity is to be apprehended only by faith Thus aduancing the dignity and worth of faith as being able to vnderstand that which the vnderstanding of which Faith is but an Act cannot naturally vnderstand So cloudy darke is that Faculty of the mind except the mysts therof be dispelled and diffipated by the illuminating beames of Gods grace Hence it ariseth that they are very frequent in their exhortations that we should not fluctuate in any vncertainty of Iudgment but assure our selues by disclayming from sense humbling our Iudgments and voyding our minds of all preiudice of opinion of the infallible Truth therof since it is wrought by the vertue of his words who is Truth it selfe a Veritas Via Iohn 14. Ego sum Veritas Via So well those holy Doctours did know that the more Chrystalline cleare the chiefest faculties of our Soules are become and the more polished freed from all naturall blemishes the glasse therof is the more perfectly we may behould this high Mysterie since during our exile heere all such abstruse difficulties we do but see as it were per b Per speculum 1. Cor. 13. speculum in aenigmate But when we are arriued by meanes of death into our Countrey for Heauen is the soules proper Orbe then all such heauenly mysteries being now ouer
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
Sauiour more feelingly expresse a perseuerance of his Loue towards Man then by leauing at his departure his sacred Body with his Spouse wherewith the deuout Soule might at all conueniēt times be fedde and nourished The immensenes of which Loue our vnderstanding cannot comprehend and therefore we may heere well vse that forcible word i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14. Marke 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ the which the Euangelists vpon other occasions often apply to him that is that he was touched euen in his bowells of Loue and kindnesse when he first resolued and thought vpon for Loue is most inuentiue to institute this dreadfull Mysterie For if we consider the thing heere giuen or the giuer himselfe both being heere coincident and both being God and Man or the end whereunto it was bestowed to wit the spirituall nourishing of our Soules or the small deseruing of Man receauing it who dayly crucifieth him with his sinnes it will assure vs that such wonderfull Munificence issued from a Sea of most vehement Loue and Affection Furthermore his zeale to vs herein appeareth in that he is content by his entring into vs a strang affection which bringeth forth such strang effects that we doe enter into him and thus we are without any disordered confusion of things in that meate the which is in vs himselfe witnessing no lesse in those words Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me k In me manet Iohn 6. manet Ego in eo Therefore to conclude this point it remayneth since flames euer beget flames that seeing the burning Loue of Christ did first procure this Coniunction with vs in the Eucharist the said Coniunction ought reciprocally to engender in vs a gratefull Loue towards Christ for so great a benefit Ego l Ego dilecto meo Cantic 6. Dilecto meo Dilectus meus mihi still acknowledging it full worth and still remaining desirous by often participation of so high a Mystery without any fastidious or cloyed conceipt therof to renew all spirituall operations flowing from the same Qui m Qui edunt me Eccles 24. edunt me adhuc esurient qui bibunt me adbuc sitient There are many other Inducements according to the iudgments of the Learned Fathers and Doctours which might inuite our Sauiour to leaue his Body and Bloud in the Eucharist for they teach that it is a perpetuall Sacrifice euer to continue in the Church That it is a condigne and worthy Sacrifice for Christ to offer vp to his Father That it is a Sacrifice of Thanksgiuing for the Saints in Heauen That it is not only for the Liuing but for the Dead also a Propitiatory Sacrifice That it is a Commemoration of Christs Passion That it is a confirmation of his Testament That it is an Abstract or Abridgment of diuers of Gods chiefest Myracles That in a sort it Deifieth the Soule That therby we haue God present vnder a sēsible obiect to heare our Prayers which poynt mightily increaseth our deuotion and reuerence Finally that it is a Viaticum for the soules ready to depart out of this world All which seuerall Reasons besides diuers others if we should insist in vnfoulding the value and worth of them of which this place is not capable might well seeme to be most important and vrging occasions of the institution of this Sacrament since such spirituall ends intendements operations effects supposing that Christ would establish in his Church some setled course tending to the same could not by any other more conuenient and proportionable meanes be accomplished then by the ordayning of this most dreadfull Mysterie so agreeable is our Catholike doctrine heerin to all Prudence Reason and Morall Perswasion And thus we see how the Institution of this Sacrament and the many seeming inducements therof do in a different respect reciprocally presuppose the one the other And hence therfore more euidently appeareth the froward obstinacy of our Aduersaries who eyther not knowing or not weighing these and other such Arguments of credibility alledged in defence of the Reall Presence are not ashamed to vrge grounding themselues vpon our Method heerin by way of a Contrariety the vnprofitablenesse therof as also certaine Inconueniences and Indignityes to Christ proceeding in their opinion from this our Catholike Doctrine affirming thē to be such as that they minister strong probabilityes that Christ would neuer leaue his Body and Bloud to be giuen truly and really in the celebration of the Eucharist But this their Lightnesse and want of solide Iudgment consisting in dishonouring Christ vnder the texture of honouring him so did the Iewes conuitiate him in words of Reuerence shal be discouered n Hereafter in the Marginall Reference The chiefe Reasons which our Aduersaries doe alledge both from the vnprofitablenesse of the Catholike doctrine as also from the indignity which seemes to be offered to Christs Body are these following And first touching the seeming indignity and dishonour redounding to the sacred body of Christ by the doctrine of the Reall Presence They obiect that from our doctrine it followeth that the Body of Christ might fall might be burnt might become rotten and mouldy for so we see the externall symboles sometimes to appeare might be eaten by mice should passe into the belly and so to the common passage c. To all this we Answere First that these supposed Indignities doe not touch the Body of Christ but only affect the species and formes of the Eucharist which are ioyned with the Body As for example when the consecrated hoast falleth from the Altar vpon the Earth yet cannot the Body of Christ be truly said to fall for that is said properly and truly to fall which doth exist and is mooued corporally which cannot be properly said of Christs Body in the Eucharist And therefore when a Man falleth on the ground we vse not to say that his Soule falleth though accidentally it changeth it place therewith Answerably therefore we teach that the Body of Christ existing after a spirituall manner and indiuisibly in the Eucharist changeth it place but properly falleth not when the Hoast falleth Secondly we answere that seeing our Christian faith teacheth vs that Christ was included for a long time in the wombe of a woman that he was swadled and lapped in Cloaths that then he might fall vpon the earth and might also haue beene eaten with beasts or burnt if so by miracle he were not preserued from such mischances if then he was truly and in his owne person subiect to all these difficulties without any dishonor what dishonour is it to him if he did vndergoe in another forme the former supposed indecencyes vrged by our Aduersaries Thirdly The former Indignities do no more truly and properly touch the Body of Christ then the Diuinity because it is present in all places can be said to be burnt it being in the fire or to be rotten it being in bodyes that are rotten
c. Lastly this kind of our Aduersaries arguing is borrowed from the old Hereticks denying other poynts of Christian Religion Thus we find that the Arians impugned the Diuinity of Christ as appeareth from Hilarius l. 12. de Trinitate from reasons drawne concerning the honour and dignity of the Father In like sort the Marcionistes denying the Incarnation did obiect as we read in Tertullian lib. de carne Christi that it was an Indignity to God to be inclosed in the wombe of a woman to lye in a Manger c. Finally the Iewes chiefely rest in obiecting against vs Christians that we belieue in a Man as Iustinus witnesseth in Dialogo cum Tryphone which was crucified among theeues By all which examples we are instructed how litle auayleable those Arguments are which our Aduersaries doe draw from the Indignities supposing that they were true which seeme to proceed from our Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist Now touching the vnprofitablenesse of the Catholike doctrine in this point our Aduersaries do obiect that the reall being of Christs Body in the Eucharist is needlesse in that seeing the end and fruite of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soule and this nourishment consisting in Faith and Charity may as auaileably be performed by apprehending Christ by faith as he is only in Heauen it followeth that no profit ariseth from the Catholike doctrine herein which is not by other meanes aswell effected To this I answere First that it is false to affirme that the same fruite is reaped by apprehending Christ in heauen as by receauing him really into our Bodyes Since experience doth witnesse that by this receauing him in the Eucharist our Faith Charity Deuotion and Reuerence are more increased Besides our Reall Coniunction with Christ affoardeth many benefits to the Soule which Christ giueth not without this Coniunction no otherwise then he cured all such as touched the hemme of his garment whom he would not notwithstanding that he could if they had not touched it Secondly it is a false Illation to conclude It was not conuenient that Christ should be really in the Eucharist because the fruite reaped therby may be obtayned by other meanes for that is profitable which doth conferre any good though the same good may be obtayned by other wayes for no man will deny but that Christ could haue cured the sicke and infirme if they belieued in him though they had not touched his garments or his hands yet it followeth not that the touch therof was vnprofitable to them In like sort one drop of Christs Bloud or any laborious worke vndertaken by him for our good had bene sufficient for our Redemption yet it followeth not that all his paines wounds effusion of his Bloud and death it selfe were vnprofitably and bootlessely performed yea God could haue redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christ shall we therfore say that the Incarnation of Christ was needlesse inconuenient and vnprofitable Finally our Aduersaries obiect that the doctrine of the Reall Presence is hurtfull in that it followeth that the Body of Christ is giuen to the wicked with prophaning therof To which may be answered besides that which is aboue said touching the Indignity offered to Christ by this Doctrine that no inconuenience or domage aryseth to Christs body being distributed to the wicked but the great Charity of God is shewed therein for we see that the Sunne-beames do light vpon most foule places and putrifyed bodyes they being in no sort corrupted or defiled therby why should then the Body of our Sauiour being after a spirituall and supernaturall manner in the Eucharist receaue any detryment hurt or losse by it entring into the bodyes of the wicked heeâ—after in the Marginall Reference and their supposed wrongs against Christs sacred Body solued The which are not rested vpon by them for any tender regard had of our Sauiours dignity and glory but because they are resolued in all points to be mainly crosse and contrary to this our Catholike and ancient Faith not only touching the Presence but also the manner therof which is warranted from o From reasons drawne Seeing that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth euer presuppose the Reall Presence therfore the Reasons heere alledged are preuayling chiefly against the Lutherans and all such Protestants as do acknowledge a true and reall being of Christs Body in the Eucharist Therfore supposing that Christ would truly exhibite his body to vs these Congruentiall Motyues following may perswade vs that he would not there haue it ioyned with bread but to be absolutely alone by it selfe First in that if the substance of bread should remaine with the body of Christ in the Eucharist Then two different Substances should haue one and the same respect and relation to the same Accidences and should be demonstreted by the same Accidences as by certaine externall signes And which is more the first and principall relation of the Accidences should be to the Bread and only a secondary relation to the Body of Christ the reason heerof being in that the substaÌ„ce of the bread and not the Body of Christ is informed with those Accidences But this would be most inconuenient since from hence it would follow that the Actions performed by the Priest or the CoÌ„municant should first agree to the bread secondarily only to the Body of Christ And thus if one do aske what is eleuated what is eaten or what the Accidences do there signify or one should then answere a peece of Wheaten Bread and the Body of Christ which poynt could not stand with the dignity and reuerence of Christs Body Secondly it would appeare much opposite to the dignity of Christs Body that one and the same meate should be nourishment both to our Soules and Bodyes and it consequently would breed in vs a lesse reuerence to the Body of Christ there present Thirdly supposing the Bread to be in the Eucharist then could not the Eucharist be taken fasting and hence it followeth that none could seuerall tymes communicate the same day And yet according to S. Augustine epist 118. c. 6. euen by the Decree of the Apostles the Body of Christ ought to be taken only of such as are fasting As also it appeareth from S. Gregory homil 8. in Euang. that vpon Christmas day the Priest did celebrate three tymes during the tyme of the Primitiue Church Fourthly and perhaps principally it is fitting that the bread should not be in the Eucharist with the Body of Christ in regard of the danger growing therby to wit for feare that the more ignotant simple should adore the bread since such do not distinguish but absolutely adore that which lyeth vnder the Accidences Now that it was conuenient that the Accidences of bread and wine should remayne and not be changed appeareth by other like Reasons of CoÌ„gruency First because if they were absent then there would be no sensible signe in the Eucharist and consequently it would cease to be a Sacrament
the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases speaking of the Eucharist as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles So i Augustine Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol Augustine And Norunt qui mysterijs imbuti sunt So k Origen Homil. 13 in Exodum 9. in Leuiticum Origen They taught that in extremity of sicknes it was to be taken of euery Christian pro Viatico as appeareth out of the first Councell of l Councell of Nyce Canon 12. Nyce m Eusebius l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius and n Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdot Chrysostome Finally hither may be referred what the Fathers of the Primitiue Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples Vestments Chalices and other religious Vessels all vsed in the celebration of the Eucharist All which things as o Hierome Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith propter consortium corporis sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur And p Optatus l. 6. contya Parmenianum Optatus writeth that they being contaminata Sacrilegos faciunt And hence it riseth that it was obiected to the Arians by Athanasius that fregerunt mysticum Calicem which offence was acknowledged to be most heynous by the Councell of Alexandria as q Athanasius Apologia 2. Athanasius writeth To the same end to wit as tending to the facred function of consecrating the Eucharist may be referred what the Fathers haue written of the Dignity of Priesthood Of which point entreates r Nazianzen Apolog. 1. Oratione ad Iulianum Nazianzen s Chrysostome Lib. de Sacerdot Chrysostome and others as also of their vowed t Vowed Chastity Of which point do occur most frequent Authorityes in the wrytings of the Fathers Chastity principally directed for that purpose Now who shall weigh all these seuerall Obseruations accompanyed with the former heads set downe at large and all litterally and plainly expressed in the Fathers Writings and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typicall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all most sutable agreeable to the worth of his true and reall being there how can he be otherwise perswaded then that those Doctours did iointly agree with vs in this high Article of faith Wherfore the determination of this matter to wit whether the Fathers were SacrameÌ„taries or Catholikes heerin I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned for this were to wrong their Iudgments in making a Point so euident the Obiect of their graue Resolutions as I referre it euen to the fyue Senses of the ignorant and illiterate OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Euasions to the Authorities of the Fathers CHAP. VIII ALTHOVGH in setting downe the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters I haue illustrated most of theÌ„ with such short Animaduersions as best vnfould the true Sense of the said Authorities consequently preuent all such sleighty elusions as are vsed by our Aduersaries for the auoyding of the same Neuerthelesse I haue thought good heere to amasse togeather all their diuers kinds of Answeres being seuerally applyed in generall to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads for coÌ„monly to all Testimonies of one Nature they do appropriate one the same Answere Thus shall the discreet Reader haue at once a Synopsis or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble euasions being full of tergiuersation and distrust Now then one Kind of their Answers if so I may terme it is to giue no answere at all for when they are pressed with such perspicuous and euident places of the Fathers as are in no sort to be obscured with any myst of words for the Sunne is sometimes so radiant as that it cannot be ouerclouded then in their Replyes to Catholike Bookes therin they are content not taking notice therof like men of good natures to suffer all such sentences quietly to passe by them in Gods name the Kings Thus we find most cleere passages of the Fathers set downe in Catholike Bookes yet neuer answered by Caluin Peter Martyr or others who haue vndertaken a refutation of the said Bookes but altogeather passed ouer as if no such places had bene obiected Such carefull Pylotes they are as willing to auoyd the most dangerous Rocks Which course of theirs I caÌ„not condemne as impoliticke since it is lesse disaduantagious silently to giue way to all such Assertions then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same for we see that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance Of the many Authorities of the Fathers wherunto the Protestants to wit Caluin Peter Martyr c. giue no Answere at all I haue thought good to note these few viz. The Passion of S. Andrew Origen homil 13. in Exod. in â— 25. hom 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet c. 36. 37. EphreÌ„ lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo Chrysostome Hâ—mil 83. in Matth. 51. in Matth. Homil. 21. in Acta Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs lib. 6. de Sacerdotio Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione diuinae Liturgiae besides many other Testimonies of these and other Fathers The first forme then of their Positiue Answers may be assigned to those Authorityes wherin the Fathers doe absolutely call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ as where they teach that we doe eate his Body and drinke his Bloud or that the Body and Bloud which we receauâ— in the Eucharist is our pryce the Pledge of our Saluation or the like To the Testimonyes of this Nature our Aduersaries do shape a double Answere For either they vnderstand those places of the True Body and Bloud of Christ as it is in Heauen and receaued by vs by faith or else of the signes thereof which we truly and really doe take in the Eucharist But if we doe obserue intensly and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages it will be euident that neither part of this Answere is in any sort satisfactory For first that the Fathers meaning is not that we take his Body as it is in Heauen by faith is proued in that you shall for the most part euer find that in such places they teach that we receaue it from the Altar or at the Priests hands and consequently not as it is in Heauen or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body and Bloud or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words as doe force the Place to be interpreted of his Body and Bloud as it is vnder the externall formes and not as it is in Heauen And as touching the second Branch of their former Euasion to wit that the said Testimonyes are not to be interpreted of the Bread and Wyne signifying and figuring his Body Bloud in which they say Christs Body is symbolically taken is no lesse manifest the reason whereof being this
Because the words of those Testimonyes doe almost euer intimate some effect or efficacy of the Eucharist which to Bread and Wyne is incompetent as that it nourisheth our Soules or that it is the Price or Pledge of our Saluation or hope of our Resurrection or that it suffered for our Sinnes or some other such spirituall worke energy or operation whereof the bare Symboles of the Eucharist are not capable Thus may the obseruant Reader cleerely discerne the feeblenes of this their Answere and conclude with himselfe that such Testimonyes of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christs Body as it is in Heauen since the Words precedent or consequent restraine it to the Altar Nor of Bread and Wyne Symbolically and Sacramentally representing the Body and Bloud of Christ since Bread and Wyne cannot produce the spirituall Effects there specified so cleare it is that our Sectary in approaching to answere the said Sentences doth ineuitably runne vpon some one circumstantiall pyke or other of the said Authorityes wherewith he is most dangerously wounded That this my Reply may be more cleerely conceaued I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serue as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature The like couse of exemplifying I will obserue in all other kynds of their Answers and though such places were afore alledged yet here they are produced vpon a different occasion S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desiderauit vnde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis Only she desired that remēbrance of her might be made at thy Altar from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed or giuen by the which the hand-writing which was contrary to vs is defaced Out of this place we proue as we shewed aboue that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine is vnderstood the Body and Bloud of Christ Now heere it cānot be answered that the Body of Christ is meant as it is in Heauen because he saith that this Victima is dispensed or distributed from the Altar which thing agreeth not with his Body as it is in Heauen Neither can it be said as some seeme to interprete it of the Bread and Wine Typically signifying the Body and Bloud of Christ in that the Bread Wine was not the Sacrifice which was offered for vs vpon the Crosse And thus much of this first kind of our Aduersaries Answere Another forme of euading the pressures weights of the Fathers Authorityes is this That if in the alleaged Authority there can be found but any one word which is to be accepted not litterally but figuratiuely metaphorically or in some other forced construction then our Allegoricall Sectarie inferres therupon that the whole Sentence though most strōgly fortifying the Catholike doctrine heerin is to be taken figuratiuely not literally vrging that seeing both the points are cōtayned in one and the same Sentence or Period and that the one by our confession is not to be vnderstood literally why should the other obiected by vs be taken literally The Transparency of which Answere is easily seene through And first we are to know and obserue that euery thing which is not deliuered in plaine and literall words proceedeth not alwayes from an intention of Rhetoricke or Amplification in the Writer but often euen out of Necessity since somtimes we are forced therunto as not hauing that natiue habit of speach words wherwith otherwise we would apparrell the true conceipts of our Mind which scarsitie of apt wordes may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers yet hence it followeth not that all the rest adioyned therto must partake of the same want Againe whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words or out of a delicacy and choicenesse of a Mans pen yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent since by this reason we may inferre that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleaged as literally to proue or disproue any thing and why because some adioyning parcell therof is set downe in a Figuratiue kind of speach And thus we cannot alleadge contrary to all ancient Expositours that Text in the Apocalyps These are they which haue washed their Robes haue made them white in the Bloud of the Lambe cap. 7. to proue that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saued by the Bloud of Christ because forsooth in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors to wit the long Robes wherby are signified the Bodyes of the Saints and the word Lambe meaning therby Christ and therfore it should follow vpō the said ground that the word Bloud must also be here a Metaphor not signifying bloud indeed and so excluding the Bloud of Christ frō our saluation but some other thing shaddowed therby Yea which is more if this kind of Answere were solide we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalmes literally to be expounded of Christ or his Church in which Authorityes we Christians mainly insist against the Iewes since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes Schemes and other Figuratiue speaches And yet we see that it is most incongruous to maintaine that any whole Psalme is to be interpreted Allegorically because we find certaine Figures in some Passages thereof Thus it is euident how defectiue this Answere is which consisteth in resoluing the Fathers sentences into Figuratiue Senses But our Aduersaries boldnesse stayeth not heere in deprauing after this sort Mans word but extendeth it selfe to corrupt in like manner by ouer much origenizing and mystically interpreting it Gods sacred word This second Forme of Answere I will illustrate with this Testimony following S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs thus writeth Num vides Panem num Vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne nec cogites Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread doest thou see Wyne doe these things goe into the common passage as other meates Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as Waxe being put in the fire is assimilated or made like to it no part of the substance remayning or redounding So heere imagine that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body Of this place I haue entreated aboue But heere now we are to take notice that our Aduersaries labour to delude the force therof by answering that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi are not to be vnderstood literally for so they should be false in that the externall Formes of Bread and Wyne which are conteyned in the word Mysteria are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ for we see that the Accidences of