therof remayning or superfluously redouÌ„ding So maist thou suppose the Mysteries heere to be consumed by the substance of the body Gaudentius tract 2. de Exod. 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 He who is the Creatour and Lord of all Natures who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth and againe who of the bread maketh his proper Body for he is able and he promised to do it and who made wine of water and of wine his owne Bloud And after againe O altitudo diuitiarum c. O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and knowledge of God! Doe not thinke that terrestriall which is made heauenly by him which passeth into it and made it his owne Body and Bloud And finally Non infringamus os illud c. Let vs not breake that most solide and firme bone This is my Body This is my Bloud Now what remayneth in the sense of any one which he cannot conceaue by this exposition let it be consumed and burnt away with the ardour heate of faith Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium Videmus quod accepit Saluator c. We do see what our Sauiour tooke into his hands as the Euangelist noteth that he did rise from Supper that he did take these things and when he had giuen thankes he said This is mine and This and This. And we do see that it is not equall nor like to the proportion or Image in flesh to the inuisible Deity to the lineaments of MeÌ„bers for this is of a round forme and insensible according to Power And he would through grace say Hoc meum est Hoc Hoc And yet euery one belieueth his speach for who belieueth not to be his very true Body doth fall from grace and saluation Now when he heere saith that it is to be belieued though it be repugnant to sense this must needs be vnderstood of the Body it selfe and not of the signification therof since the sense rather helpeth then hindreth why we should belieue the SacrameÌ„t And when he saith that we ought to belieue that it is ipsum verum Corpus the true Body hereby are excluded all Tropes and Figures S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo c. Wherfore we now truly belieue euen by the word of God that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God c. That these things which are seene to wit bread and wine are changed into that Body of oar Lord is to be attributed to the vertue of Benediction S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 4. Tu fortè dicis Panis meus c. Perhaps thou sayest My bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the words of Consecration but after Consecration is finished of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Though our Aduersaries doe answer this place by reiecting this booke as not written by S. Ambrose yet is it cited vnder his name by Lanfrancus Guitmundus and others who liued aboue fiue hundred yeares since In like sort in his booke de mysterijs init c. 9. he thus writeth Fortè dicas Aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quòd Christi Corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non esse hoc quod Natura formauit sed quod Benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m Naturae quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur Virgam tenebat Moyses proiecit eam facta est serpens c. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Nam Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur c. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae vt ignem de Caelo deponâ—râ—t non valebit Christi Sermo vt species mutet Elementorum De totius mundi operibus legisti Quia ipse dixit facta sunt ipse mandauit creat a sunt Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Perhaps thou mayst say I see another thing how prouest thou to me that I take the body of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to proue What then or how great examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature formed but what benediction hath consecrated And that there is greater force of Benediction then of Nature for euen Nature it selfe is changed by Benediction Moyses houlding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent c. Now if Mans Benediction or blessing be of such force as that it can chang Nature what do we say of that diuine CoÌ„secration where the very words of our Lord our Sauiour doe worke for this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speach of Christ And if the speach of Elias was of such power as to draw fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ be of force to chang the formes of the Elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they are made he commanded and they are created Therefore the words of Christ which of nothing could make that which was not can they not chang those things which are into that which afore they were not for it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures to things then to chang Natures So cleare and euident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true and reall chang in the Sacrament of the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutauit in Vinum c. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turne water into Wyne which is neere to Bloud and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wyne into bloud Wherefore with all assurednesse let vs take the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of Bread is giuen to thee his Body and vnder the forme of Wine is giuen his Bloud The same Father in the same Booke also saith thus Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem nudum vinum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet neâ— ex gustu rem iudices c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Et vinum quod
be nourished of God But the flesh is washed really and truly with water as also it is annoynted really and truly with oyle therfore it ought really and truly to feed vpon the Body and Bloud of Christ Ignatius epist ad Smyrnenses as Theodoret citeth Dialog 3. thus saith Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse Carnem Saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam Pater sua benignitate suscitauit They do not admit to wit certaine Heretickes denying that Christ had true Flesh the Eucharists and Oblations because they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which flesh suffered for our sinnes the which the Father through his benignity raysed vp againe Heere Ignatius sayth not that the Flesh of Christ is giuen to vs in some one manner or other as our Aduersaries would expound him but he saith that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ Heere also we are to note that these Heretickes against whom he heere speaketh did refuse the Eucharist least they should be inforced to confesse that Christ had true flesh if they did admit the Eucharist which was the Flesh of Christ But if the Eucharist did only signify the flesh of Christ they had no reason to deny the Echarist for they did not deny the Images and Figures of Christ but only his true Flesh for such bodies as are only apparent and not true bodyes may be painted or figured out in Images as appeareth by the Images and Pictures of Angells OF THE FATHERS AVTHORITIES touching the Change made in the Eucharist CHAP. III. A SECOND Branch of the Fathers Testimonies may extend it selfe to the Change which is made in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which change that it is reall is necessarily included in their writings For they teach that after the Mutation is once made the Bread remayneth not and in further acknowledgment heerof they purposely do paralell it with other reall Mutations As first with that of the Water turned by our Sauiour into Wine But if an imminent Act of his will was of Power to turn water into wine cannot a Transient operation of the said will breaking out into words of a positiue Assertiō change wine into Bloud Secondly they compare the change heere with that of the Wands of Moyses turned into Serpents But what proportion can there be betweene these stupendious Mutations and a little representatiue Bread and Wine still remayning Bread and Wine Therfore we may iustly say that as those true Serpents a True serpents Exod. 7. of Moyses did eate vp those counterfaite Serpents made in emulation therof by the false Prophets euen so ought the reall Transelementation taught by the Fathers exyle and banish this but Sacramentall and Sophisticated chang brought in by the Sacramentaries They further teach for the more facilitating of this great worke that he who could first giue the Essence and Forme to euery thing could more easily superinduce a second forme And therefore with good reason one of them saith Non b Non minus est Ambros de mysterijs initiand c. 9. minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Since the first includeth an Absolute and Primatiue Creation the very Maister-peece of Gods Omnipotency and such as Man cannot apprehend but by apprehending that Nothing is Something The second implieth a former Existence of something and consequently only a new kind of inuesting of it Which later point much more the First the Fathers ascribe only to his power who causing all changes is yet himselfe vnchangeable and producing all mutations is immutable Ego c Ego sum Dominus Malach. 3. sum Dominus non mutor Now then by reason of the true and reall chang heere made the Fathers doe further write that our Sense which in other things hath a great Soueraignty ouer our Iudgemēt is heere deceaued for though the Eye would persuade vs that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist yet they say plainly that there is neither bread nor wyne thus teaching that the vnderstanding heere corrects the Eye in seeing though only by the Eye it learnes that there is any seeing and affirming that the vnderstanding for Faith is an Act therof which seeth not at all heere only truly seeth Thus if we belieue those ancient Doctors a Faith wrought out of sense only is no better then Israel whereof the d The Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Apostle speaketh according to the Flesh But now to descend particulerly to their authorities sorting to the passages of this Chapter First then Eusebius Emissenu serm de Corpore Dom. sayth Inuisibilis Sacerdos c. The inuisible Priest doth change through a secret power of his word the visible Creatures into the substance of his body and bloud And againe he saith more plainly Quando bencdicendae c. When the Creatures which are to be blessed are placed vpon the Altars before they be consecrated with the inuocation of the highest Power they are the substance of Bread and wine but after the words of Christ they are the body and bloud of Christ. What meruayle if those things which he could create by his word he can chang being already created Proclus Bishop of Constantinople lib. de Trad. diuinae Liturgiae Per quas preces Spiritus sancti aduentum expectabant vt eius diuina praesentia propositum in Sacrificio panem vinum aqua permixtum ipsum illud corpus sanguinem Saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi efficeret By the force of these prayers meaning the words of the Institution we expect the comming of the Holy Ghost that so his diuine presence might make the bread and wine mingled with water the very Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Sauiour Augustine serm quem citat Beda in c. 10. prioris ad Cor. Non omnis panis c. Not euery bread but that receauing the benedictiō of Christ fit Corpus Christi is made the Body of Christ where the word fit includeth heere a true change at least against the Lutherans Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. Non sunt humanae c. The words heere performed are not in the power of Man we only hould the place of Ministers but it is he that sanctifieth and changeth the things And then after Qui dixit c. He who said This is my Body confirmed the fact with his word And homil de Eucharist in Encaenijs Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites Quemadmodum enim sicera adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Doest thou see Bread Doest thou see Wine Do these things passe into the Common passage as other meates do Let it be farre from thee to thinke so For euen as wax laid neere to the fire doth assimilate it selfe to it nothing of the substance
and rely in any sort of the Passiue Power of the Subiect since in this kind of producing there was no preexistent subiect at all much lesse any Passiue power thereof Fourthly they further proceed and affirme that God can doe all things which can by any meanes exist agreeably to that of our Sauiour Omnia f Omnia tibi Marc. 14. tibi possibilia sunt Now all that may exist which in it owne nature implyeth a Being only and not a Not-being And from hence proceedeth that common Axiome of Deuines That euery thing is possible to God to be done which implieth not a contradiction Now what implyeth a contradiction is impossible to be done And the reason heerof is in that what implyeth a contradiction supposeth a Being and a Not-being of a thing and all this at one time and therfore if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose Being should consist in a Not-being Now only that which hath no Being cannot be effected by God since euery thing that is ought in some sort to be like to him of whome it is Besides to make that which is not and hath no Being is not to make but rather a Not-making to the which not any Power but an Impotency belongeth which Impotency can in no sort be assigned to his Diuine Maiesty who only is weak in not being able to be weake Thus is his mighty Arme shortened in deficiency but extended in strength since to him it is more easy to do then not to do And thus we teach that he is not able to make Nothing who yet of Nothing made all things And therfore answerably hereto because God is not capable of any defect we say God cānot dye because Death is formally non Ens besides that true Diuinity is impatible By the same reason we affirme that God cannot sinne since the power required to Sinne is only a want of Power though powerfully raigning in Man So free is he from all such weaknesse since he sheweth himselfe most Omnipotent in being herein not Omnipotent And thus much of these foure points which are as it were foure graduall steps wherby Mans Vnderstanding may climbe vp to see how far Gods Power may extend it selfe or so many high Turrets from whence our soule ouerlooking the low and beaten paths of Nature may with an inward reflexe view the boundlesse and vast heights of Gods infinite Might and Puissance The vse wherof is that the Reader may make application of this doctrine to the difficulties of the Blessed Sacrament and so see if any of them according to the former rules may imply any Impossibility or noe For though we graunt that many things therin do transcend the created course of Nature yet neuerthelesse God who is Natures Nature is able at his pleasure to disioint the setled frame therof and therfore heere appeareth the great Indignity which these Idolaters of Nature I mean the Sectaries of this Tyme who impugne the doctrine of the Eucharist namely because it is repugnant to naturall Reason do offer vnto God in seeking to confine his force within the narrow lymits of Nature as if the precincts therof were the Herculean Pillar beyond which his Omnipotency which is only bounded within a boundlesse compasse cannot passe So apt these Men are to breath out blasphemies against him through whome they breath to speake in dishonour of him in whome they speake THE FIRST PASSAGE OF THE MYSTERIES AND other difficulties of the Eucharist CHAP. III. BVT now at the last to come to those great difficulties which present themselues in the Blessed Sacrament I will touch them in these three Passages following which shal be accompanied with their Marginal References conteyning the explication and vnfolding of them Which Obscurities euen for the more aduantage to our Sectaryes I haue set downe in seeming Contradictions that being thus deliuered in the fullest shew of Impossibilityes if they can be solued then no doubt but being more neerly not so litteraly weighed they may the more easely be reconcyled But now since in an erring and mistaking Eye they may appeare meere Repugnances I haue thought good therefore once more this second tyme to forwarne our Aduersaryes for their former sleights with other Mens labours do presage their like dealing heerin if full preuention and caution be not made afore that they do not diuulge to their followers lesse capable of such nice speculations the bare difficultyes alone as here they lye concealing their Explications drawne from Philosophy and Diuinity and so traducing vs though most falsly as mantayners of most euident and irreconciliable contradictoryes but that they would vouchsafe withall to take notice of their Marginall illustrations and so either to relate them both together or to passe them ouer togeather since this deportment is best sorting to the candor integrity of an ingenuous and well-meaning Aduersary And first if we looke into the stupendious and miraculous Conuersion made therein we shall discouer these points following We shall find it to be a a A Change This Conuersion is not wrought by any assumption of Bread to the Person of the VVord Nor by any locall and simple vnion of the Bread with the Body Nor by any partiall change of the Bread into the Body but is an entire and whole conuersion of the Substance of Bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ Change of one thing into another and yet contrary to all other conuersions whatsoeuer nothing of that thus altered b Remayning In all naturall Conuersions the Materia prima of the thing conuerted remaineth vnder both the Termini of the Conuersion and by the Conuersion this Materia prima is inuested only with a new essentiall forme so when water is turned into ayre the Materia prima of water remaineth and is not altered but only taketh the forme of ayre But heere the Materia prima of Bread and wyne doth not remaine and therefore the Councell of Trent teacheth that the Conuersion is made of the whole substance of Bread and wyne meaning thereby both of the matter and forme thereof remaining nor any other thing c Produced of new In naturall Conuersions that into which any thing is changed is produced of new for the Terminus ad quem not afore existing but only by vertue of the change must be of necessity produced of new and this Conuersion is called by Philosophers Conuersio productiua But heere in the Eucharist the Body of Christ preexisting afore the Conuersion though not vnder the species or forme of Bread doth cause that the Conuersion heere maketh not that the Body of Christ should simply begin to be but only that it should begin of new to be vnder the forme of Bread produced of new and therefore we may truly say the Bread was but is not is Nothing and yet d Not annihilated Because as it is aboue said the Materia prima of bread remaineth not the Bread is nothing and yet
ponderous and weighty for vs as pressing our vnderstanding too much shall bnecome there most light and easie to be apprehended according to that to speake allusiuely in Philosophy Nullum Elementum ponderat in sua propria Sphaera for then we shall contemplate not only all Creatures but other thinges worthy of knowledge intuitiuely in God as now we do behould God discursiuely in his Creatures But to returne The Fathers finally do referre the miraculous change made in the Eucharist only to Gods Illimitable Puissance within which vast circumference euery thing is conteyned that may in any sort exist confessing fully that it cannot be wrought by any inferiour Power for he only is able to performe such as I may terme them possible Impossibilities since his Omnipotency doth facilitate that which otherwise in Nature is not factible Heere now I refer to the Iudgment of the impartiall Reader how vnaptly and vntowardly all such passages of the Fathers are applied to Bread and Wyne signifying only the body and bloud of our Sauiour We will then come to those Testimonyes acknowledging so great a Mysterie heerein Eusebius Emyssenus or whosoeuer else was the Author of that Treatise entitled Sermo de Corpore Demini which Booke was alledged by Paschasius Corbeiensis eight hundred yeares since thus writeth in the said booke Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum c. Let all doubt of infidelity dâ—part from thee since â—e who is the Author of the gyft is witnesse of the Truth And againe Ad cognoscendum c. To know and perceaue the Sacrifice of the true Body let the Power of him who consecrateth it confirme thee therein So cleare is this Father herein S. Leo Serm. 14. de Passione Domini Ipsum per omnia c. Let vs tast him fully both in spirit and in flesh S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in Ioan. explicating those words Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum thus writeth Firmam fidem Mysterijs adhibentes numquam in tam subâ—imibus rebus illud Quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus c. We firmely belieuing these mysteres neuer let vs in such high points either thinke or bring forth this word Quomodo How c. S. Augustine l. 3. de Trinitate c. 4. Quod cùmper manus c. Which thing speaking of Bread when it is brought by mens hands to that visible forme it is noe otherwise sanctified to be so great a Sacrament then by the inuisible working of the spirit of God since all those things which are in this worke performed by corporall motions God doth worke But this working of the holy Ghost is not necessary that Bread should signify only the Body of Christ Adde hereto that S. Augustine in this place doth reckon the worke heere in the Eucharist among other great Miracles to wit the Raine of Hebas obtayned of God the Wand of Aaron which budded fresh the Wand of Moyses turned into a Serpent the water turned into wyne by Christ And in Psal 33. Conc. 1. vpon those words of the Psalme Et ferebatur manibus suis c. thus writeth Hoc quomodo potest fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur in manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis Who can vnderstand how this can happen in Man For who is carried in his owne hands A man may be carried in the hands of another but in his owne hands he cannot be carryed How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid we find not but in Christ we find for Christ was carryed in his owne hands when commending his body he sayd Hoc est Corpus meum for then did he carry that body in his owne hands But if Christ did carry his body in his owne hands only in signe and representation as a Man bearing about him the picture of himselfe then were it no difficult thing and yet S. Augustine saith it is a thing impossible and cannot be performed but only by Christ Neither do our Aduersaries satisfy this place in replying that Christ did carry himselfe in a Sacrament but none but Christ can institute a Sacrament and consequently none can carry themselues as Christ did This I say auayleth nothing because our Aduersaries doe confesse that Christ is said to carry himselfe in the Sacrament not because a Sacrament is an Instrument of conferring Grace for this they deny but because it is a signe of Christ and so in this last respect there is no difficultie for one to carry himselfe Finally S. Augustine tract 26. in Ioannem explicating that Panis quem ego dabo Caromea est thus writeth Hoc quando caperet caro quod dixit panem carnem vocatur Caro quod non capit Caro. When would flesh conceaue or apprehend how he called Bread Flesh That is called Flesh which Flesh apprehendeth not But flesh or a sensuall vnderstanding may easily conceaue that bread may be called flesh figuratiuely and by way of representation only S. Hierome epist. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. Nec Morses dedit c. Neyther did Moyses giue to vs true Bread but our Lord Iesus is the Guest and the Banquet the Person eating and the thing eaten But it cannot be truly said that Moyses did not giue Panem verum that is the body of Christ if the Eucharist were no otherwise the Body of Christ then by signification Adde heerto that S. Hierome heere implyeth a difficulty in being the thing eaten and the party eating which point cannot be referred to Christ eating Bread which only representeth his Body S. Chrysostome Homil. 60. ad popul Antiochenum saith Credamus vbique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit Superet sensum rationem nostram sermo quaeso ipsius quod in omnibus rebus sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus non illa quae ante non iacentes solummodo aspicientes sed verba eius quoque tenentes nam verbis illius defraudari non possumus Sensus noster deceptu facillimus est quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est Corpus meum nulla dubitatione teneamur sed credamus Let vs belieue God in euery thing neither let vs gainsay him though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation I beseech thee therefore that his speach may ouercome our Sense and Reason Which point we are to obserue in all things but especially in the Holy Mysteries not only behoulding those things which lye before vs but also laying full hould of his words for his words cannot deceaue vs but our sense may easily be deceaued Also in Homil. 51. in Matth. Qui mains
truly made Flesh we truly take the Word made Flesh in our Lords meate how can he not be thought to remaine naturally in vs. And in the same place he also saith De naturali in nobis Christi veritate c. Of the naturall verity of Christ in vs whatsoeuer we speake we speake foolishly and wickedly except we learne of him for it is he that said Caro mea verè est esca Origen Homil. 13. in Exod. expounding the 21. Chapter of that Booke saith Volo vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis nostis qui diuinis mysterijs inesse consucuistis qucmodo cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione seruatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur reos enim vos creditis certè creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat I will admonish you by the examples of your Religion Yow know well who haue bene accustomed to be present at the diuine Mysteries how when you take the body of Christ you obserue with all warinesse and veneration that no part of the consecrated Gift do fall downe for you belieue them to be guilty and you belieue truly if any parcell thereof doe fall downe through negligence Tertullian lib. de Corona Militis speaking of diuers Christian Rites Calicis aut Panis etiam nostri c. We doe suffer with griefe that any part of our Cup or bread should fall vpon the Earth S. Irenaeus l. 8. contra Haeres c. 34. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt c. How doe they say againe that the Flesh commeth into corruption and receaueth not lyfe which is nourished of the body and bloud of our Lord Where he maketh the receauing of the Eucharist to be a Pledge of our Resurrection and Immortality S. Pius the first Bishop of Rome of that name did set downe certaine seuere punishmēts for such by whose negligence any part of the Body or Bloud of our Lord did fall vpon the ground yea or vpon the Altar commanding the place to be licked with the tongue to be scraped But if the Eucharist were not the true Body of Christ but only by representation there were no reason why there should be greater diligence giuen to preuent that no part thereof doe fall vpon the ground then there was that the water of Baptisme the Images of Christ or the Holy Bible should not fall vpon the ground His Decree touching the former point appeareth out of Gratian de Consecrat distinct 2. Can. Si per negligentiam c. S. Dionysius Areopagita lib. de Hierarchia Ecclesiast c. 3. part 3. thus speaketh to the Blessed Eucharist O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacramentū obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi perspicuè nobis fac appareas nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple O most Diuine and most holy Sacament vouchsafe to remooue from thee the veyles or couerings of those signifying signes appeare to vs perspicuously and fill our spirituall Eyes with a singular and cleare resplendency of thy Light Heere it cannot be said that he did so inuoke the bread because such Inuocation were most ridiculous Neither can it be said that Dionysius did make an Apostrophe or Chang of speach from the Symboles of the Eucharist to Christ signified therby inuoking Christ before the Symboles for heere Dyonisius doth not inuoke Christ as he is in Heauen but inuokes the Sacrament it selfe and demandeth of it such things as are to be obtayned of God alone Add hereto that the ground of this Answere doth warrant the Catholikes praying before Images for if a man may pray to Christ before the Symboles of his Body by the same reason may he pray to him before his Image The said Father also in the former booke thus further writeth Pontifex quòd Hostiam salutarem c. The Priest when he sacrificeth the healthfull Hoast which is aboue him doth excuse himselfe speaking to it Tu dixisti Hoc facite c. Thou hast said Doe you this c. But the Bread is not aboue vs neither is there more reason that we should excuse our selues for handling the Bread then for handling the Water of Baptisme or other sacred things belonging to our Christian Faith Such was the reuerence of this most ancient Father for he liued in the time of the Apostles to wardes the blessed Sacrament And though our Aduersaries do impudently maintayne that this booke was not written by the said Dyonisius yet others of them do acknowledge at least that it is the worke of a most ancient Father yea Peter Martyr prizeth this booke as he is not affraid to wrest a place of the said worke for the defence of his Heresie herein Now that the Author of this worke is most ancient it appeareth from this one consideration to wit that the Author therof is cited for an ancient and reuerend Father by S. Gregorie Homil. 34. in Euangel but if S. Gregory who liued aboue a thousand yeares since did account this Author for an Ancient and Venerable Father then what estimation of him ought we to haue OF THEIR TESTIMONIES SHEVVING That the Celebration of the Eucharist contayneth a proper and true Sacrifice CHAP. VII THE last Branch of Authorities shall be deduced from the common Doctrine of the Fathers which teacheth that when our Sauiour had in place of the disobedient and degenerating Iewes adopted vs Gentiles that euen out of a more then Seraphical burning charitie towards vs he was content before his death to bequeath to his Church the true Sacrifice of himselfe there to be daily offered vp vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The which was according to the a The Psalmist Psal 109. in these words Iurauit Dominus non poenitebit eum Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Psalmist so long afore shaddowed by that of Melchisedech wherof one b One Father viz. Chrysostome homil 35. in Genes Father with reference therunto saith Videns Typum cogita oro veritatem and of which by reason of it perpetuall continuance to be in the Church the once Glory and Pride of Africke thus writeth c Perpes est hoc Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Perpes est hoc Sacrificium semper permanens Holocaustum Now heere it will not seeme needfull to alledge the Authorities of the Fathers though most frequent and punctuall therein expounding the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as a Type of the Eucharist therefore for greater breuity I will content my selfe in laying downe the Sentences and Iudgement of the said Doctours wherein they plainly acknowledge that the Eucharist doth conteine in it selfe a Sacrifice not in a forced and Metaphoricall but in a true and natiue acception of the Word And yet for the more cleere conuincing of our Aduersaries herein I will for beare all Inferentiall Deductions drawne by long circuitions and ambages