The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

CHAP. VIII. [ 10]

Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers, for proofe of an Vnion of Christs Body by a Bodily Commix∣ture with the Bodies of the Communicants.

SOme of their Objections are taken from the Sentences of the Fathers, Some from their Similitudes, and Some from their Histori∣call Reports. Wee beginne with their Sen∣tences. [ 20]

That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion; but are proved by their owne Dialect to be unconscionably alleged. SECT. I.

THe expresse Testimonies of the Objected Fathers you may reade in the Margin, as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuita 1.1 Suarez, to wit, Irenaeus, Chrysostome, Cyril Alexand. Greg. Nyssen, Pope Leo, and Hilarie. The summe is, The mixture of Christs Body with ours, by a Corporall and Naturall Vnion in∣deed, [ 30] and not onely in faith or affection.

Two kind of Semblances are to be Observed, one in their like Hyperbolicall Phrasing, concerning Baptisme; and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ.

Of Baptisme, Hilarie the VI. objected, saith, Christians by Baptisme, which is one, are made one, not onely in affection, but also in nature. Leo the V. objected, saith also that By Bap∣tisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ cruci∣fyed. And furthermore marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine, namely thatb 1.2 Infants, by being Baptized, are made partakers of the Eucharist, because they are Members of the Mysticall Body, and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament, (that is to say) of the thing [ 10] signifyed, Eating his flesh, and Drinking his Blood. So hee. By which your Objectour must be inforced to admit a like Reall Conjunction, and Consequently of a Reall presence of Christ in Baptisme, as they have for the Bodily Vnion and Pre∣sence of Christ in and by the Eucharist.

Yea, and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things:c 1.3 Isidore Pelusiota of the word of God, that It feedeth mens soules, and is in a maner mingled therewith. Of the Baptized, that by Baptismed 1.4 They are incorporate into Christ, saith Augustine: And that thereby [ 20] e 1.5 They are made bone of Christs bone, and flesh of his flesh, saith Chrysostome. Of the Eucharist,f 1.6 It is mingled with our soules. So Damascen. Of the participation of the Bread of Idolaters, with the participation of the Sacramentall Bread of the Lords Supper, thatg 1.7 As by the one Christians are made partakers of Christs flesh, so by that other are men made partakers with Devils. So Primasius.

Wherefore your Disputers, by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former, if they shall take them as spoken properly, and not Sacramentally and Figuratively, shall [ 30] be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishings of mans soule, by the word. First, a proper Mingling of Gods spirit with Man. Secondly, a proper Incorporating of man into Christ; and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils. And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers, ob∣jected by you, with these now alleged by us, concerning the Eucharist it selfe, it will necessarily follow, that by the same reason, wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of Proper presence of Christs Body, and Transubstantiation, and Vnions you must allowh 1.8 Foure more: One of Christs [ 40] Body into the Body of the Communicant; a Second of a

Christian Communicant into Christ Body; a Third of a Na∣turall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves. And Fourthly (which is Damascen's) of Christs Body into mens soules. All which kind of Presences, Vnions, Mixtures, and Transub∣stantiations, taken in a proper sense, you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and senselesse, in your owne Judgement; not∣withstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers, for your Corporall Conjunction.

{fleur-de-lys} The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fa∣thers, [ 10] more vehemently (and as unconscionably) insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril. Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav. SECT. II.

WEe have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these twoi 1.9 Fathers, as being, in your Choice, More speciall, because that all your Disputers, whensoever [ 20] they produce them, for proofe of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Vnion, they esteeme them Insoluble above all others; Insomuch that one of your Doctors, after hee had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus, Greg. Nyssen, Damascen, Leo, and Saint Augustine, no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilarie, but prefaceth of it, saying; This is a more notable Place. Another concludeth the Doctrine of Cyril to be so abso∣lutely Romish, that he accounteth Protestants no better than Men sold over to the Devill, for not assenting to your Com∣mon Interpretation of him. But this Flash of your Doctor [ 30] will appeare to be but an Ignis fatuus, or a Blind Zeale with∣out knowledge, when wee come to this Particular.

In the Interim, that you may know wee meane to deale clearely, wee First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers, in their Discourses. Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretikes by defending a Naturall Vnion of the Godhead of Christ, the sonne of God, with God the Father. Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Here∣tikes, for proofe of an Hypostaticall Vnion of the two Na∣tures, Godhead and Manhood, in one person of Christ. Se∣condly, [ 40] wee grant that both the Fathers, together with that Generall Councel at Ephesus, call the Flesh of Christ, which Christians participate in this Sacrament, [Vivificatricem,] that is, Vivificall, or giving life to the Receivers, even unto Immortality. Thirdly wee grant, that they name our Con¦junction of Christ by this Sacrament to be, not onely an Vnion in Affection and Concord, but also a Naturall and Cor∣porall

Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Bodie of the Communicants. And Lastly wee grant, that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Vnion of Waxemelted with Waxe. And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknow∣ledgements and Grants, wee presume to affirme, that all these Testimonies teach, indeed, a Mysticall, not your Ro∣mish Missaticall Vnion, by a properly Corporall Touch of Christs owne naturall Body, with the Bodies of the Recei∣vers. Our ground is the same, which wee have often layd [ 10] in our former Confutations (to wit) by paralleling this Vnion of the Eucharist (as it is to be seene in the Margin) with other Vnions mentioned by both these same Fathers, in as Aequivalent and Equipollent termes (equally named by them both) Naturall and Corporall; albeit voyd of any Corporall Touch of the Body of Christ, as you your selves will grant.

For the Instances, used by these Fathers, are divers, Some consist onely in Relation, and some in Application also. The Instance given in the Relative onely, is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ, when hee tooke the same nature of our flesh upon him; which Relation of a Christian mans flesh

with the Humane flesh of Christ, is universally in all persons, at all times (even without this Sacrament) called by Hilarie, [Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi] that is, an Vnion wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh, being the same Specifi∣cally with his; and notwithstanding it is called by him an Vnion Naturall and Corporall, and not onely the Vnion of Will and Affection, albeit voyd of all Bodily Touch.

Next of the Vnions made by Application, some are Spiri∣tually onely, and some are Sacramentall also. Of the Spi∣rituall Vnion (which is also free from all Bodily Touch) they [ 10] say of Christ, and of True Christians, that they are Vnited by the Vnity of Faith; which notwithstanding is likewise called by him, a Corporall Vnion, and not onely in Will and Af∣fection. I come to the Sacramentall Vnion. Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments, and some in the Eucha∣rist it selfe. Of others it is indefinitely here sayd, that Chri∣stians are united by the Sacraments, and namely (as is confes∣sed) The Regenerat, by Baptisme, have an Vnion Corporall with Christ, and not onely in Affection and Concord: albeit this also be (as you know) exempted from all Bodily Touch. [ 20] Accordingly of the Vnions made by the Eucharist; Some are of Christians among themselves; and some of Christ with us. Of the former, the Vnion of the faithfull Com∣municants, as the Members of Christ, is named by them a Naturall and Corporall Vnion, and not onely in Concord, although (as you know) this can be no coincident Corpo∣rall Touch of their Body reciprocally.

Thus these holy Fathers. And now that you may under∣stand, from them, Foure several Vnions, One Relative; Ano∣ther Spirituall; A third Sacramentall in Generall; And a [ 30] Fourth (as I may say) Eucharisticall; (peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist) all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions, and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely; notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure, being named Naturall and Corporall, Improperly, onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body, by the virtue of the same words, Naturall, or Corporall? Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason;2 1.10 It is not the same thing with Hilarie (saith [ 40] hee) Some things to be one Naturally; and to be one in another Naturally: For things to be one Naturally, it is sufficient, if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one; and so hee calleth all Christians one Natu∣rally by Faith. But to be one Naturally [In] another, it is ne∣cessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other: and so (in the meaning of Hilarie) is Christs Bo∣dy

sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist. This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement, whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke, immoveable; which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed; both False and Fond; (as you may finde in the Marginalls.)

For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions, which hee calleth Naturall, by reason of Christs Incarnation, in taking our nature of Flesh upon him, saith that wee are [In him.] Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False. Next [ 10] of the very Sacramentall Vnion, whereof it is sayd, that Christ is [Naturally In us,] it is also as expressely sayd, that wee are likewise [Naturally In Christ.] But none can affirme, that Wee, in true propriety of speech, are Naturally in the Body of Christ. Therefore is his Answer most Absurd. But you will aske, how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers, for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies, by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ? First thus; By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament (according to Christs Institution) [ 20] is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ, giving eternall life un∣to the world; which (as these Fathers truly teach) it could not do, if it were the Flesh of a meere man: And therefore he is, by Nature, God; one with God the Father. Ergò Avant! Thou Arian-Heretike. The Second thus; The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue, except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead; and therefore is Christ both God and Man; and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely, but by an Hypo∣staticall Vnion of two Natures. Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike [ 30] Recant.

The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough, by their owne Sentences, as is now proved; which if it nee∣ded any further Illustration, might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius, who, from this Ar∣ticle, of Christ his Incarnation onely, whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh, spared not to say:3 1.11 that By his flesh, thus assumed of the word, (God) wee men are Dei∣fyed and made Gods. So hee; without any Relation to the Sacrament at all. And againe, when he spake of the same Ar∣ticle [ 40] of Christs Incarnation, he hath Relation to a Sacrament, and saith as much of Baptisme, as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist.4 1.12 Wee, (saith hee) being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, are all made alive by Christ; and our flesh is no more Earthly, but now by that [word, God] Wordi∣fyed, and made the same by him, that for us was made flesh. So hee. And so, according to the Romish presumption of Arguing, from the like words of the Fathers, concerning

the Eucharist, Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme. I. That the Substance of water is changed. II. That by it, there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized. III. That by the same, the Flesh of the Bapti∣zed is made the Word, God. Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive, or Impudencie utter, or else Obstinacie de∣fend. [ 10]

The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable, by their owne Confessions, in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense. SECT. III.

ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs (concerning the Speeches of the Fathers, objected [ 20] by them, through the whole Treatise of the Masse, for proofe of a Bodily Presence) is, whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly, as they sound to the eare; or Impro∣perly and Figuratively, as they are to be apprehended by our understandings, in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mysti∣cal Signification. And whether you can conclude from them a Properly (so called) Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body; whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast, Mixture, or Nutri∣tion and Augmentation thereby, or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers: will you be so good as heare them [ 30] againe, both relating the Expositions, which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected, and afterwards enforced, by good evidence, to interpret the Fathers accor∣dingly.

These you Doctors certifie you (see the Margin) that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech, for extolling, and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament. So hee, of Calvin. Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors (saith your Vasquez) Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine, did interpret the words of the Fathers, as spoken Hyperbolically. And if you [ 40] shall reject these, as the meaner Some; wee shall enquire in∣to other Some, of better eminencie. As namely your Bellar∣mine, and Tolet, both Cardinalls: your Suarez, and even Vasquez himselfe, all Iesuits in their Times.

Let them (wee pray you) make their owne Answers in order, as they have beene Cited. First Bellarmine;5 1.13 It is ordinary (saith hee) with these Fathers, to wit, Irenaeus,

Hilarie, Nyssen, Cyril, and others, to say that the Eucharist nou∣risheth our Bodies: But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition, or augmentation of our Bodies; for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly, and not for the soule, than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd. So hee. Cardinall Tolet is the Second, wee desire to heare his Judgement.6 1.14 These Fa∣thers (saith hee) Cyril and Hilarie, when they tell us, that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament, are not to be understood, as if our Bodies and Christs [ 10] Body were made one, in Entity: this were a Doctrine unworthy of them; but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection, Christ being within us Really, as the Cause thereof. So he. Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd, that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, have One naturall Being; because of their other Sayings, that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nou∣rished and Augmented by Christs Body. All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech, and not properly, as you heare. Francis Suarez his Course is next;7 1.15 I say (saith he) [ 20] that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught (namely, as out of the Fathers) that Christ's Body is so united with our Bo∣dies, that they are both joyntly mingled in parts, one with another. Which is an Opinion Improbable, and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament, which was instituted by Christ, not for a Corporall, but for a Spirituall Conjunction: and the other Con∣junction is False and Absurd. So he. Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne, first to make his Preface, and then to deliver his Opinion.8 1.16 Although the Ancient Fathers, in expounding these [ 40] mysteries of Faith, use words not so usuall in our Schooles, yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so, that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity, yet not to take them contrary to their [ 30] meaning without due advise, and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity. So hee. And for Instances hee bringeth divers, and

more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction, already ob∣jected out of Cyr••l; As waxe with waxe melted are joyned toge∣ther. And this (if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words) hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body, or else a Substantiall Conversion into them.

All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous, and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors, of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church, do minister unto us matter of Astonishment, to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these [ 10] Sentences of the Fathers, as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech; seeing that now, after some Delibe∣ration, they find the same to be so glowing hot, that they them∣selves, not daring to touch them with their bare fingers, take hold of them with a Distinction, as it were with a paire of Tongs, saying, that9 1.17 Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours, excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other, under formes of Bread: The Vnion, spoken of by the Fa∣thers, is not Physicall, or Naturall, but Spirituall. So Suarez. Not Physicall, or Naturall, but Metaphoricall. So Vasquez. But yet [ 20] how Mysticall it is, this will be handled in the next Section.

Can there then be any thing more Odious or Vnjust, than for your Disputers to proclame their Adversaries Heretikes, for expounding the aforesayd Sentences of the Fathers, in an unproper Sense; which liberty, They themselves both now have practised, and also instructed Others to doe the like by their owne words and examples? wherein as they are gene∣rally found Contradictory to themselves, so are they more particularly one to another. For Doctor Heskins objecting the Sayings of Chrysostome and Cyril, concerning the Conjunction [ 30] of Christs Body with ours, to be like as when Waxe is melted with waxe in one Vnion, Hee himselfe waxed wroth with Protestants so farre, as to iudge them Men given over to the Devill, because they did not believe them according to the outward letter. Notwithstanding your owne Vasquez (as you have heard) taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strict∣nesse of the Termes; as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying, that to Interpret them Literally, were to detract from the Wis∣dome of those Fathers, and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itselfe. Lastly, albeit your* 1.18 Bellarmine presseth [ 40] much this Testimony of Cyril, wherein the Christian Com∣municants are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Cariers of Christ; yet your Suarez expounding this, and that other of Damascen, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Ioynt Bodies with Christ, and so partakers of the Divine Nature; alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carying of Christs Body, and Vnion therewith, but onely a Spirituall, that is, of Grace and Affection.

That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, in two more especiall Points. SECT. IV.

[ 10] ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants, which your Romish ••aith tea∣cheth, consisteth onely in a Mutuall Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs, as your Iesuites every where teach. Our Observables hereupon, at this present, are especially two. One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Vnion: The other in respect of the Persons united toge∣ther. Of the former, you professe by your10 1.19 Jesuite, that Christ is but onely so long in the Bodies of the Receivers, as the formes of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt. And, concer∣ning [ 20] the Persons, you hold of this your Bodily Vnion (as your 11 1.20 Suarez relateth) that It is common to the wicked, and to the faithfull Communicants of the Body of Christ. So you. And now (O you great pretenders of Antiquity!) behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers against you, both in respect of Continuance of Time, and of the Difference of Persons: to wit, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Au∣gustine, Hilarie, Cyril of Alexandria (under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuites, to whom wee may adjoyne both Basil, and Theodoret) acknowledging, that whereas the Vnion which you believe to have with Christs Body in this Sacrament, onely by Bodily Touch, is Transient, during [ 30] 12 1.21 no longer, than the formes of Bread and Wine, eaten and transmitted into the stomacke of the Eater, are uncorrupt, (this Conjunction being indeed momentary,) They, I say, do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent, even to Immortality it selfe.

And againe, your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men, and this Conjunction, spoken of by the Fathers, being13 1.22 Proper onely to the Godly and Faithfull, who are joyned together in Faith with Christ, and in Charity with all Christians (which therefore you your selves call a [ 40] 14 1.23 Morall and Mysticall Vnion:) It followeth in both these Respects, that you may easily deserne in your Romish Faith notable degeneration from the Judgement of Anti∣quity. The seeming Contradictions of the former Spee∣ches of the Fathers will be reconciled in the next Chapter, and the Third Section.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Suarez Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. recenset. I. viz. Irenaeum. Quandò mixtus calix, & fra∣ctus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eu∣charistia, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae sub∣stantia. Lib. 5 contra Heres. cap. 2. II. Chrysostom. Nos secum in unam massam reduxit, nequè id fide solum, sed reipsa nos suum corpus effecit. Hom. 88 in Matth. Vt non solum per dilectionem, sed re ipsa in illam carnem convertamur. Hom 5. in Ioh. III. Cyril. Alex [Qui mandu••at meam carnem in me manet, & ego in illo.] Sicut si quis iquefactae cerae aliam ceram insuderit, alteram cum altera commisceat, necesse est—ita qui carnem ecipit, cum ipso conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Lib. 4. in Ioh. Cap. 17. Rursus. Christus vitis, nos palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus. Audi Paulum, Omnes unum Christi corpus, qui de uno pane participamus—quae cum ita fiat, nonne corporaliter facit, communicatione carmis ejus, Christum in nobis habitare? Lib. 10. cap. 13. IV. Greg. Nyssen. Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione, ita Corpus Christi, cum fuerit intra nostrum, ad se transmutat & transfert. Orat. Catech. Cap. 37. V. Leo Papa. Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, [ 40] transeamus. Epist. 23. VI. Hilarius. Not vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quo modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiseuit. Lib. 8. de Trinit. [Hee might have added Iustin Martyr, and others.] Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scribens: Quotquot Baptizati estis in Christo, Christum induistis—Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium, conditionum, Sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis, an ex Sacramenti unitate? quia his & Baptisma sit unum, ita{que} qui per candem rem sunt unum natura unum sunt•• Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 8. Suscipiens Christum non idem sit post Iavacrum, qui ante Baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi. Leo. Serm. 14. de Passione Demini.
• b 1.2

  Tolet. Com. in Iob. •• A••not. 26. D••cet Augustimus lib. 1. de Pec•• merit. Parvulos per B. p••••s∣mum participes fieri hujus Sacramenti (Eucharistie) quod nac 〈…〉〈…〉 nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae, ad unita∣tem Christi perti∣nent; hoc Sacramen∣tum hujus unitatis corporis signum est, & ideo hoc Sacra∣mento aliquo modo participant, nempe quantum rem signifi∣catam, & dici possunt carnem Christi man∣ducare & bibere san∣guinem.
• c 1.3

  Isidor. Pelus. Verbum Dei [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] l. 2. Epist. 281. Item Greg. Nyssen de son∣cto Stephano; Gra∣tiâ spiritus sancti per∣mixtus est & contemperatus.
• d 1.4

  August. apud Gratian. de Conse∣crat. Dist. 4. Ad hoc. Ad hoc Baptismus valet, ut Baptiza••i Christo incorporen∣tur.
• e 1.5

  Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. 20 (de Baptismo.) Facti su∣mus os ex ossibus, & caro ex carne ejus in lavaero.
• f 1.6

  Domase. E∣pist. ad Zachar. E∣pisc. D••arorum. Quod accipitur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Teste Casaub. in Baron. Exercit. 16. cap. 39.
• g 1.7

  Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut salvator dixit [Qui manduc••at carnem meam, in me manet]—Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatio est. Et ut multi de uno pane participantes, unum corpus sumus: Sic si de eodem pane manducamus, unius Idololatriae, unum cum illis corpus efficimur.
• h 1.8

  August. Confess. lib. 7. cap. 10▪ Munducabis me, Tu me in te mutabis, & Tu mutaberis in me. Theophyl. in Ioh. 6. Qui manducat me, vivet propter me, & quodammodò miscetur mihi, Cyril. in Ioh. 11. cap. 26. Suo corpore Christus credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens nos se∣cum & inter nos unum corpus fecit. Suarez in 3. Tho. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. §. 3. Vnionem hanc Pati•••• dicunt non esse solum inter Christum & nos, sed etiam inter no••metipsos, quarenùs sumus membra Christi. [Primisius his Testimonie is at the letter (g) immediately before]
• i 1.9

  Cyrillus. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in Ioh. Filius per benedictionem mysticam, ut homo unitur; spiritualiter autem ut Deus; sui spiritus gratia nos ad novam vitam & di∣vinae naturae partici∣pationem redinte∣grans. Et lib. 11. cap. 26. Fortasse etiam corporali unione cō∣jungimur; licet Dis∣parati sums.—Nam si Petrus & Paulus unum unitate in Christo sunt, Pe∣trus tamen Paulus non est: age igitur, cum Trinitas unum natura sit, considere∣mus etiam quod nos inter nos corporali∣ter, & cum Deo spi∣ritualiter unum si∣mus. Et lib. 9. cap. 47. Christus etiam nos in seipso habet, quo∣niam naturam no∣stram assumpsit, & corpus nostrum cor∣pus unum sactum est, propterea divinae na∣turae participes facti sumus, & filij etiam naturales—Ita ego in Patre sum, quia ex ipso natus, & sic vos participes facti divinae naturae, cum spiritum meum in vobis habitate sci∣verim. Christus enim per spiritum in nobis est, corruptibilita∣tem nostram, ad in∣corruptibilitatem per∣mutans. Et cap. 39. opus est nos partici∣pes naturae suae fieri, & in novam vitam transformari, quod a liter quam per par∣ticipationem spiritus fieri ne quit. Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit, cum ad coelos asconderit, quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit, um praesentia tamen car∣nis abfuerit. Et l. 11. cap. 3. Cum post passionem in coelum ascenderit, spiritum misit, non enim cum Apostolis conversari poterat, cum ad Patrem ascenderat. Dialog. 2. in Trin. Si verè secti∣onem, & partitionem divina natura receiperet, intelligeretur ut corpus; si autem hoc & in loco, omnino & in magnitudine, & in quantitate, non essugiat circumscriptionem. Lib. 11. cap. 26. in illa verba [ut & ipse in vo∣bis sit, sicut ego in Patre] considerandum est, si ad unionem consensus et voluntatis, naturalem etiam invenire [ 20] possimus, per quam nos inter nos et omnes cum Deo conjungimar. Lib. 12. cap. 58. in Ioh. Christus omnibus apparet visibiliter et invisibiliter, Invisibiliter ut Deus, visibiliter ut humo, praebet etiam nobis carnem suam tangendam. Lib. 4. cap. 14 Quommodò non vivemus, cum carnem illam vivificatricem gustamus & mandu∣camus. Et lib. 11. cap. 22. Caro non prodest quicquam, spiritus est qui vivificat, ad sanctificandum et vivifi∣candum nihil prodesse carnem ostendit, in quantum scil. humanae naturae caro est, cum igitur Deitati salvatio tribuitur, non debetis carnis praesentiam propter hoc desiderare. Idem Cyril. de Trin. Qui mysticae benedictio∣nis participes, unum cum Christo corpus sunt, unionem cum illo por fidem sortiti. Et lib, 4. cap. 17. in Ioh. Sicut, si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum altera per totum permisceat; ita qui carnem & sanguinem Domini recipiat, cum eo ita conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Hilarius in Psal 137. Tollit etiam stultissi nam eorum temeritatem, qui frustrato falso{que} corpore Domini in carne visum esse contendunt, non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus; palpate & videre dicitur, si corpus Christi incircumscriptum, simul in multis locis emitteretur. Lib. 8. de Trin. Panis qui de coelo descendit, non nisi ab eo accipitur, qui Christi membrum est. Idem lib. 8. de Trin. Quomodo [ 30] in his non naturalem intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt, omnes enim renati sunt ad in∣nocentiam & immortalitatem—cessat in his ascensus unitas, qui unum sint in ejusdem regeneratione na∣turae—Docet enim Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium Dei unitatem. Quotquot (inquit) Baptizati estis, Christum induistis—quod unum sunt in tanta gentium & sexuum diversitate numquid ex assensu voluntatis est, aut ex Sacramenti unitate, quia his Baptisma unum est, unum Christum in∣dati sunt—Itaquè qui per rem eandem unum sunt, natura etiam unum sunt, non tantum voluntate—Cum dicit Christus ut sin•• illi unum, sicut ego & tu Pater unum sumus—quaero ut rumne per naturae verita∣tem hodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis: si enim vere verbum caro factum est, & nos vere verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui naturam carnis nostrae inseparabilem sibi assumpsit—nos qui vere sub mysterio carnem sumimus, per hoc unum erimus—De veritate carnis non est ambigendi locus, nunc enim ex Domini nostri professione, & fide no∣stra, vere earo est, & vere sanguis: et haec accepta, et haec exhausta, nobis Id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo, & Chri∣stus in nobis sit.—Est ergo in nobis per carnem, & sumus in eo, dum secum hoc quod nos sumus in Deo est; quod autem in eo per Sacramentum communicatae carnis & sanguinis sumus, ipse testatur dicens, ego in patre [ 40] meo, & vos in me, & ego in vobis; non tantum voluntatis unitatem intelligit, sed ut ille in Patre per natu∣ram Divinitatis esset, nos autem in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, & ille contra in nobis per Sacramen∣torum in esse mysterium crederetur—ut nos in eo naturaliter in essemus ipso in nobis permanente.
• 2 1.10

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. A∣liud esse, apud Hila∣rium, aliqua esse u∣num naturaliter, a∣liud autem, unum esse in alio naturali∣ter. Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturali∣ter, satis est, si verè participent naturam ipsius rei, in qua sunt unum: & hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fide∣les esse unum natu∣raliter per fidem—sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter—necesse est, ut natura unius, merè sit in a∣lio: & hoc modo—Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter; quia na∣tura carnis ejus no∣bis vere unitur per Eucharistiam.
• 3 1.11

  Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Con∣tra Arianos, pag 487. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4 1.12

  Ibidem. pag. 486. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 5 1.13

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §. Se∣cundo Respondeo. (Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin.) Non est novum apud Ite∣naeum, Hilarium, Nyssenum, Cyril∣lum, & alios, ut Eu charistia dicatur ale∣re corpora nostra, sed non intelligunt Pa∣tres, cum hoc dicunt, Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri; sic enim fa∣cerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris, non mentis, qu•• nihil absurdius fingi possit.
• 6 1.14

  Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar & Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem cor∣poralem & natura∣lem cum corpore Christ, Doctores ••i non sunt ita intelli∣gendi, ut velin•• ex Christo sumpto & su∣men••e fieri unū Ens naturale, indigna est illis Doctrina) sed hoc dicere voluerunt, praeter unionem, quae ratione charitatis & fidei sit, adesse intra nos ipsos verè & rea∣liter Christum ipsū, qui causa est fidei e∣jusdem.
• 7 1.15

  Suarez. in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia impro∣babilis, & aliena dig∣nitate & majestate hujus Sacramēti, quod non propter corpora∣lem conjunctionem, sed propter spiritua∣lem institutum est, dicente Christo, Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita. Ioh. 6. [See a∣bove, Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f.] Sua∣rez. Damascen. lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacra∣mento—nos Christi concorporei existimus—& animo & voluntate copulamur. Cyril. Hierosol. Catechis. 4. Mystag. Sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis & sanguinis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,—cum ejus sanguinem & corpus in nostra membra receperimus, arquè ita (ut B. Pe••ius dicit) Divinae naturae consortes efficimur. [Hinc Suarez:] Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem, non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam, &c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp. 64. quo supra.
• 8 1.16

  Vas∣quez in 3. Thom. quaest. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei, insolita, & pa••um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur, ita tamen eorum verba & sententias accipere debemus, ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur, nihil tamen contra ipsos; nisi maturo consilio & examine, aliorumque patrum, aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus. Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia, quae allegavimus, per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur; ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur: non quôd revera fieret ita. Ex Haereticis hoc mo∣do testimonia Hilarij & Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus.—Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui, qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent—Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt, si sine Hyperbole explica∣rentur, sequi, ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur, ut cera cerae lique facta—at non sic dissunditur—Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram & realem mixtionem corpo∣ris nostri cum corpore Christi, non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat—Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi, sicut ex duabus ceris, neque fieri unam carn••m per conversionem unius in alteram, sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali, neque id ullus sanae mentis, ullo modo assereret.
• 9 1.17

  Suarez. in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Ex∣istimo omnino cer∣tum, praeter conta∣ctum corporis nostri & Christi, medijs speciebus Sacramen∣talibus, non interve∣nire materialem ali∣quam unionem phy∣sicam & veram.
• * 1.18

  Vide Bellar. quo supra de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 13. supra ci∣tat.
• 10 1.19

  Vasquez. in 3. Tho. qu 7••. Art. 2. cap 4 Disp. 204 Chri∣stus tamdiu est in no∣bis, quamdiu speci••s in nobis incorruptae perseverant, at{que} ex∣tra eas non est, ante∣quam corrumpantur.
• 11 1.20

  Suarez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Quo∣ad hoc, unio haec cō∣munis est peccatori∣bus indignè man∣ducan••ibus Corpus Christi.
• 12 1.21

  Suarez. quo supra. Sancti (Patres) non loquuntur de u∣nione Transeunte, ut sic dicam, cum speci∣ebus Sacramētalibus, sed permanente & Durabili.
• 13 1.22

  Vasquez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap 3. Vnio quam Patres consti∣tuunt inter nostram carnem & carnem Christi, tamdiu ma∣net, quamdiu a Cha∣ritate Christi non se∣paramur.
• 14 1.23

  Suarez quo supra. Non est haec unio corporalis aut Physica, sed spiritua∣lis & Mystica. Et Vasquez. quo supra. Neque aliam quam moralem & mysti∣cam, Paties, inter carnem nostram & carnem Christi, in∣telligi voluerunt.