The subiect of this Treatise. CHAP. I.

O O Altitudo diuitiarum.] Rom. c. 11. ALTITVDO diuitiarum Sapien­tiae, & Scientiae Dei! Thus did that 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 [Page 2] 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 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 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. [...]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, & transcēding 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 [Page 3] enioy not; like the Sunne which animateth the in­feriour Bodies with heate, and life, and yet it selfe not Not hauing either heate.] The Distinction which the Philosophers do heere vse, is, that the Sunne, and other Heauenly Bodies, haue heate, and other such qualities per productionem, non per inhaerentiam, that is, they cause the same qualities in other Bodies, (and so may be said to haue them) but these qualities do not inhere in the said heauenly Bodies; for these primae qualitates are originally peculiar, and naturall to the Elements only, and to other Bodies com­pounded of them, by participation. But the Heauens are not com­pound of the Elements. hauing either heate or life.

But now if we turne our Pen more particulerly to the most Blessed, & Reuerēd Sacrament of the Eucharist (where the Word being made Flesh, by his Word, made Bread Flesh) we shalbe able to discouer whole seas of wonders, and be forced to acknowledge, that Mans vn­derstanding is not of force to sound them, or that it best apprehendeth them, in not apprehending them (still bea­ring an obsequious, and inuolued beliefe of what Gods Church teacheth therin) no otherwise then the Memory often serues to remember, that some things it did not re­member.

Now seeing it is my intended Method to spend this first Part in explicating, and vnfoulding our Aduersaries greatest, and strongest difficulties which they vse, as so many Arietes, or Engines, to ruinate and batter downe the walles of the ancient Catholike doctrine therin: All which though they shalbe fully reconciled, & explaned, so as our vnderstanding shalbe conuinced of the possibi­lity therof (and consequently that Christ was able to ex­hibite his Body truly, and really vnder the formes of Bread, and wine) yet neuerthelesse the externall betray­ing Sense (the alluring Eue, entising our Vnderstanding, the proper seate of Faith, to giue assent to it owne dan­ger) will still be whispering in our eares the contrary doctrine. Therfore I haue thought good to premonish the Reader in the entrance hereof, that in this Mystery he is to relinquish all entercourse with Sense, & to stand in hostility with the same, yea euen forcing, and con­strayning his Vnderstanding to receaue no intelligence [Page 4] from thence; and euer to remember, that he who first made the Eye, still retaines a commaund ouer the Eye. Thus violence, only in enioying of him, who forbiddeth all violence, is warrantable (for not only touching life, but faith also) Regnum Caelorum.] Matth. c. 11. Regnum Caelerum vim patitur, and heere rapine is true purchase: so in all other things, for vsing of force we are punished, heere for not vsing we are pu­nished.

OF THE OMNIPOTENCY OF GOD. AND VVhat he is able to performe. CHAP. II.

THE small streames, wherewith the floud of the Sacramentarian Heresie is fed, and maintained, spring chiefly from the extenuating of Gods omnipo­tency: intimating therby that the ab­struse Mysteries which are confessedly acknowledged by the Catholikes to be in the Reall Presence, are greater, then can be performed by that power, which through it infinitnesse is euer vn­knowne, though through it continuall manifestatiō, still eminent. In this manner doth that French Apostata.] viz. Caluin, who saith. l. 4. Instit. c. 72. Cur inquiunt (vi [...]. Catholici) non faciat Deus, vt caro eadem plura diuersa (que) loca occupet, vt nullo loco contineatur, vt forma & specie careat? Insane, quid à Dei potentia postulas, vt carnem faciat, simul esse, & non esse carnem? first French Apo­stata, & that late Late Patriarch.] viz. Beza, lib. de Coena Domini con­tra Westphalum. Patriarch of Geneua dispute of this [Page 7] matter. In like sort that False Martyr.] Peter Martyr, lib. contra Gardinerum. obiect. 10. 11. 12. &c. false Martyr (who with the Apostle of his owne name denied his Maister, but neuer with him lamented his denyall) laboured to shorten Gods arme, and omnipotency heerin: so ready are these great Rabbins to interleague, & compart with the very Hea­thens in depressing of his might, whose Greatnesse is without VVithout Quantity] The hauing of Accidences euer implyes composition: therfore God being most simple, can haue no Accidences. Quantity, whose Goodnesse without Quali­ty, and whose Eternity without Tyme.

But before we vndertake to shew the possibility of all such points, as are found in this Mystery of the Eu­charist, it will much conduce (I suppose) to our inten­ded proiect, if we lay downe the graue iudgments of the learned, concerning what things be factible, or may be done by God, and what things may seeme to transcend his might, who in might transcendeth all things: fince so the impartiall Reader may the better obserue, whe­ther the acknowledged doubts in the Eucharist imply in themselues any absolute impossibility, or no.

First then it is generally agreed vpon by the Lear­ned, that God is able to do euery thing, which Mans vn­derstanding is able to conceaue. The reason hereof be­ing, that fince the Obiect of our mind is Ens, and Verum in generall, and that which may be conceaued or vn­derstood, may really & truly exist: Therfore it follow­eth, that God can effect all that, which Man is able to conceaue in his Mind.

Secondly, the Learned (especially those which are Christians) affirme, that not only those things, which Man is able to apprehēd in his mind, but also many other things incomprehensible in Mans vnderstanding, God can effect. For seeing (say they) that totum Ens of it selfe is intelligible, and to be conceaued, and that which [Page 8] is non Ens cannot be conceaued; neuerthelesse our Vn­derstanding through it weaknesse, and imbecillity (ex­cept it be cleared with the Light of Grace) is often de­ceaued in cōceauing of things, & supposeth many things cannot exist, or be (and consequently not to be appre­hended by our Vnderstanding, or in themselues to be factible) which may indeed exist, and so become the ob­iect of our Mind. Thus our Vnderstanding may appre­hend, that some things there are, which it cannot appre­hend: neuerthelesse the more the vnderstanding doth lift it selfe vp towards God, the more it is illuminated, and the better refined for the penetrating of any difficul­tie; no otherwise then a vapour the higher it is eleuated vp by the Sunne, the more cleare, and purified it be­comes. This doctrine of theirs, as it is warrantable in the Authority of Gods sacred word, so is it iustifiable in di­uers exemplified Articles of our Faith, which the Hea­then Philosophers esteemed, as things impossible, and by deniall therof ascribed vnto God, only a kind of impo­tent Omnipotency.

Thirdly, they teach, that God hath in all things so much an Actiue Power, by how much they haue in them­selues a Passiue Power: And in this sense perhaps the Heathen Philosophers acknowledged Gods Omnipoten­cy. But their Errour was, in that they thought, that the Actiue Power of God could not extend beyond the Passiue Power of things (thus we see it verified in these learned men, That the world.] 1. Cor. c. 1. That the world through wisdome knew not God) wheras all Christian Philosophers do teach the cōtrary: and therfore they belieue, that God could, & did create the world of Nothing. Now to make a thing of Nothing, is not to depend, and rely in any sort of the Passiue Power [Page 9] 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 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 Not­being. 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 [Page 10] 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 shalbe 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 [Page 13] 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 well­meaning 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 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 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 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 Not annihilated.] Because, as it is aboue said, the Ma­teria prima of bread remaineth not: the Bread is nothing; and yet 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 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 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; [...]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 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. [...]. 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 [Page 14] maketh not the Body of Christ.

A Change, wherein the Body being made 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 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 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 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 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, Sacramentū 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 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 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 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 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 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, [Page 15] 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 is made of the Bread into the Body, but a Consubstantiall coexi­stency of both: which opinion, though resting only in the manner of the Conclusion, we repute no lesse then Heresy; since in points doctrinall (once Definitiuely.] For the Generall Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius the third defined for an Article of Faith the doctrine of Transubstantiation (though this doctrine was generally belieued a­fore) in the first Chapter of the Decrees of that Councell. He therfore that reiecteth the authority of a lawfull Councell, reiecteth the autho­rity of Gods Church, and consequently his Errour (though resting but in the manner, or circumstance of any question) cannot be small, since in such his Errour is included his greater Errour, in thinking, that a true and lawfull Generall Councell may definitiuely, and sen­tentially erre. definitiue­ly true, or false) who erreth litle, erreth much.

We also dissent from the Sacramentaries, who re­lying altogeather vpon their sense herein (like Labans sheep led mainly by their Eye) do inforce an impossi­bility of our Doctrine; whereas Faith assureth vs, that the Body of Christ is heere really exhibited. And there­fore we teach, that the vnderstanding (which is in this place the Eye to the Eye) though borrowing all know­ledge from Sense, euen in knowledge heere controles Sense, and secureth vs, that his Sacred Body, and Bloud (through the vertue of his owne speaches) is heere really present; though (through the dignity thereof) veyled ouer from our sight, and yet not veyled ouer with any thing, since they are not Are not things.) The Philosophers do teach, that Sub­stantiae only, are truly and perfectly Entia. And that Accidentia, are only Analogicè Entia, being in their owne nature imperfect. And thus in this sense the Accidents of Bread, and Wine (vnder which the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour lye) may be truly tearmed Non En­tia. things, but for­mes, vnder which it lieth. Thus against the Sacramen­taries we hold it most cleare, that heere to peruert Christs words, is to impugne Christs power.

THE SECOND PASSAGE. CHAP. IIII.

BVT let vs passe on to the difficulties of another nature. We find, that Christs Body by force of those operatiue words, is in diuers places, & Chur­ches at one, and the same time: for though Christ be incircumscriptibly in the Sacrament, yet we teach, that as a Body by Gods power may want all VVant all Circumscription.] See the explication of this difficulty hereafter in the next Passage at the letter D Circumscri­ption; so by the same power it may haue diuers Diuers Circumscriptions.] A Body may by Gods Power haue at one time diuers Circumscriptions; which is, to haue seuerall places extensiuely. And the reason hereof is, because that only implies a contradiction (and consequently, as we touched afore, cannot be done by God) which impugnes the very essence of a thing, so as it doth presuppose a Being, and a Not-Being of the said thing. But to be in place, or in diuers places at once, is extrinsecall, and acciden­tary, and not of the Essence; but what is extrinsecall, or Accidentary, is posterius, and later then the thing it selfe, and consequently by Gods Omnipotency may be deuided from the nature, and essence thereof. The proofe of this doctrine is also deduced from the example of our Sauiour, who neuer leauing Heauen, appeared to S. Paul vpon the Earth, as we read Act. c. 9. & 22. That it was not any voice (which spake to him) made by Gods Power, or the ministery of the Angells only (as some doe answere) but our Sauiour himselfe, appeareth: both because mention being made hereof in diuers places of the Actes, it euer toucheth Pauls seeing of Christ in his owne Person. So we read Act. c. 22. That Ananias put Paul in remembrance of his seeing of Christ. In like sort c. 26. Christ himselfe saith, That he appeared to him, thereby to make him a witnesse of the things, which he saw, but he could not be a witnesse thereof (especially of the Resurrection) except he had truly, and really seene the very Body of Christ. And answerably hereto we read, that S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. after he had recko­ned diuers, who had seene our Sauiour after his Resurrection, con­cludeth in the end with these words: Nouissimè tamquam abortiuo visus est mihi, which saying of his had beene false, except he had seene Christ himselfe, seeing that the rest numbred by S. Paul, had seene him in his owne true, and naturall Body. Neither can it be said (as some others would haue it) that S. Paul saw Christ, as he was in Heauen, and not heere vpon the Earth, or in some neere place of the aire; and this for diuers reasons. First because those, that were with Paul, did heare a voyce, and saw a great light, Act. 9. & 22. but the Eares, and Eyes of his Compa­nions, could not penetrate so farre as Heauen. Secondly, because the light, which appeared to S. Paul himselfe, was so great, as it almost stroke him dead for the time; which could not haue had in likely­hood such force, if it had come so farre, as from Heauen. Thirdly, if S. Paul had seene Christ only in Heauen, it might haue beene ob­iected to him, that he was no true witnesse of his Resurrection, and that what he had said to haue seene, was only in imagination, and a strong apprehension of the Mind. Now our Aduersaries cannot heere obiect, that if our Sauiour did appeare heere vpon the Earth, or in the Ayre, truly, and really to S. Paul, that notwithstanding he was not circumscriptible in that place for the time, in that he is only circumscriptible, as he is in hea­uen. This vrgeth nothing: For, for a Body to be circumscriptible in a place, it is not required, that it should not be circumscriptible in no place also, but only it is required, that it should be truly commen­sured with that place; so as the Termini of the Place, and the Body be answerable the one to the other. Cir­cumscriptions; much more then may it be at once in diuers places Sacramentally, since Vnity of Essence.] The essentiall vnity of a thing de­pendes not of the vnity of Place, seeing a thing is one, before it hath one place: so as to be in place is but subsequent, and accessory to the nature of any body; but it dependes of the internall principles of the said thing. Vnity of Essence, and Nature is not dissolued by diuersity of place. Hence is it, that it may be neere Neere to the Earth.] The same Body in seuerall places may be neere to the ground, and far of from the ground. Neither doth this imply any contradiction; for seeing, that when a Body is in diuers places, and the relation is terminated to diuers places, it there­fore necessarliy followeth, that this diuerse relation is multiplied; for it is to be vnderstood, that those contrary relations are in one, and the same subiect per diuersa fundamenta, to wit, in a different respect of seuerall places; which diuersity of respect taketh away all 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 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 [Page 23] 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 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 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 Heauen.] According to that in Actes, c. 3. Oportet illum Coelum suscipere, vs (que) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 resurrection, as also in Hea­uen before his Ascensiō. Againe these Mysteries could not be truly per­formed except the Body of Christ did truly. & really mooue from one place to another: But Christs Body being in euery place cānot be said to moue from place to place; for true Locall Motion of a Body cānot be conceaued, without obteyning of a new place, which afore it had not: so many points of Christian Religion, and of all true Philosophy Luthers Vbiquity impugneth. of our Faith, and retay­ning ouer much leauen of Eutyches his Heresie : so easily will a Lutheran transplanted, grow vp a perfect Eutychi­an. And thus much of Luthers errour herein, in this pro­gressiue [Page 24] digression.

Now heere we are to note, that the difficulties in this Passage sway much the iudgements of our sensible, and materiall Christians (for so I may well style them, since they measure their faith by the Lesbian Square of their Sense.) And therefore in regard thereof, I haue thought good, in two or three subsequent Chapters, (seposed only to this end) to exemplify the said difficulty of multiplicity of places, in other points acknowledged, and confessed by our Aduersaries. Wherefore I could wish, that when they doe looke vpon the Mysteries of Christian Religion, they would shut the Eye of Sense, and Naturall Reason; since so they might (no doubt) by seeing the lesse, be able to see the more; and be like herein to that great Apostle, who by loosing his Eyes, obtained Light. ¹

THE THIRD PASSAGE. CHAP. V.

NOVV to ascend to the last Mount of difficulties in this miraculous Trans­elementation: We are to obserue, that though the Body of Christ be heere indued with Life, yet it is not Not obiectiuely sensible.] That is, that the externall sense of another cannot apprehend it to haue life. Now, the Catho­likes doe generally teach, that (in regard of the peculiar manner of the existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist) Adiectiues, which in­clude a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia, do not predicate of his Body, as it is in the Eucharist, though they may be said of it, as it is in heauen. The reason hereof being, in that the Body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread, and wine, without any reference, res­pect, or order ad Corpora circumstantia. And therefore though his Body, as it is in the Sacrament be a naturall, and corporall substance, indued with life, sense, and colour; yet it is not there tangible, sensible, or visible &c. because to be actually tangible, sensible, or visible, implieth a reference ad Corpora circumstantia, in whose senses, and eyes the Body is so to appeare. ob­iectiuely sensible; though it be a true corporall Substance, it is not tangible; and though it be coloured, it is not visible. In In like sort we teach.] Christs Body in the Eucharist hath eyes, and eares, because it is there a true, and perfect body, which it could not be, except it were organized with those parts. And yet those organs of Sense do not exercise in the Eucharist (as they are in the Eucharist) these facultyes (as the Eye to see, the eare to heare.) The reason hereof is that, which was touched afore, to wit, that not only Adiectiues which haue relation ad Corpora circumstantia, but also Verbes, which imply a presence of his Body in the Eucharist with reference ad Corpora circumstantia, do not predicate of his Body, as it is in the Eucharist, in regard of his spirituall, and peculiar man­ner of existing there, though they do predicate of it, as it is in heauen. Now to see, to heare &c, beares a necessary reference ad Corpora cir­cumstantia, to wit to the externall obiect of the Eye, and to the sound caused by some body &c. Notwithstanding Christ in the Eucharist may be said to see, to heare &c. and this for a double reason. First, because it is there the said body, which it is in heauen, but his body in Heauen seeth, heareth &c. therefore his Body in the Sacrament doth see, and heare, though not quatenus est in Sacramento. A second Reason may be, in that as his body is in the Sacrament, so it is accom­panied with the Diuinity, in the fruition whereof the Humanity seeth, and heareth all things. And in these two respectes the ancient Fathers (according to that saying of S. Basil: Verba Inuocationis &c. quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit? c. 27. lib. de Sp. sancto:) as also the Priest in those words, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, did, and doth daily pray vnto Christ, as he is in the Eucharist, as being most confident, that he doth there heare him. like sort we teach, that it heere performing the operations of Sense, and enioying the organs of Sense, doth yet per­forme them without the help of those said organs. We heere also find Quantity without VVithout Diuision.] The Body of Christ as it is con­sidered in it selfe, hath a true quantity, and consequently it is diuisi­ble, but yet in regard, that it existeth in the Eucharist after the man­ner of a spirit, and not of a naturall body, as being exempted from all extension of place (for it is whole in euery part) therefore it may in this sense be said, that it is not diuisible. Diuision, Magni­tude without Magnitude without place.] Most of the difficulties in this Chapter are solued, by knowing, what is of the essence of Ma­gnitude, or Quantity, and what not, therefore I will insist the longer in setting downe the iudgements of the best learned herein. The Philosophers then doe assigne three things to concurre to Magnitude, of which the one euer causeth the other. The First of these three is, that euery Magnitude should haue an extension in it selfe, and haue Partem extra Partem, that is, that one Part should not be confounded in it selfe with another Part, and consequently an intrinsecall site, and disposition of parts. And this is of the very essence of euery Magnitude, and cannot be separated from the same. Thus we say, that a Body is an extension in Longitude, Latitude, and Profunditie: Superficies an extension in Longitude, and Latitude; A Line an extension in Longitude only. So as extension euer presupposeth different parts of the body, and consequently a Body cannot want extension. The second thing agreeing to euery Magnitude, is, to haue a commensuration, or coextension with place, that is, an extrinsecall disposition, and order of Parts according to Place. And this second ariseth from the first, and consequently as being later in nature, then the first, may by Gods Power, be separated from the same, yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Sphere, which being a true Body, hath true Magnitude, and Partem extra Partem, and yet it hath not any Coextension, or Commensuration with place, for it is in no Place. In like sort, if God before the Creation of the world, had created a Man, or a stone &c. this Man or stone would haue had Partem extra Partem, and yet without any coextension or commen­suration with Place. The third, and last property of Magnitude, is, to extrude, and driue away all other Magnitudes from that place, which is made equall, and commensurable to it selfe, that is, not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it. Now, as the second was later, and proceded from the first, so this third resulteth out of the second, and is later then the same in nature: So answerably hereto we see, that the reason why one Magnitude doth not suffer another to be in the same place, is, because it doth possesse all the place it selfe. But now seeing, that the later depends on the firster, and not the fir­ster of the later, therfore we do hould, that Diuinâ potentiâ it may be effected, that a Body may possesse, and occupy a place, and yet not expell another from the same. And this is that, which we call penetration of bodies, so much [...]mpugned by our Protestant Philo­sophers. Now according to this doctrine (which is deliuered by all our best Philosophers) we hould, that Christs Body in the Sacrament hath the true, and whole Magnitude of his body. But this Magnitude hath there only the first condition, which is essentiall to euery Magni­tude (to wit, to be extended in it selfe, and by reason of that intrin­secall extension, to haue Partem extra Partem) but it hath not the se­cond condition (much lesse the third) for it is not coextended with any place, since though it haue true Quantity, yet it is not cōmensurable with any place, but existeth whole (in respect of all externall place) in euery part. And thus what is assigned in this Passage to our Saui­ours Body in the Sacrament, which seemes to be common to euery naturall body, it is to be vnderstood (according to the first condition of Magnitude) of the extension of the body in it selfe, and intrinsecall disposition of it parts without any reference to Place. But what is heer denyed to the said body, as it existeth in the Sacrament, which is in­cident to euery other naturall body, that is meant of it (according to the second, or third condition) only in respect of externall extension of parts, and outward commensuration with place, which heere it wanteth. And this may suffice for this Point, where by the true ap­plication of it, most (if not all) of the doubts of this Passage may be answered; and therfore they will only need a short application hereof for their full Illustration. Place, a Body without VVithout Circumscription.] viz. Externall Commen­furation of Place. Circum­scription, Parts really Really distinguished.] viz. Distinguished in respect of an intrinsecall disposition of parts in it selfe, though confounded in re­gard of Place, it being whole in this respect (as also in respect of the outward sensible formes) in euery Part. distinguished, yet confoun­ded; and being Remote.] They are separated, and remote one from a­nother in regard of the inward distinctions of Parts, yet they touch one another, because they want all Circumscription of place. remote one from another, yet tou­ching one another. So as we heere find Contiguity in Contiguitie in distance.] viz. In the different respect of the inward site, or disposition of parts, and the outward coextension of place. distance, Confusion (as I may say) in distinction, and a ioyning togeather in separation. My meaning is, [Page 30] that Christs Body, though hauing Quantity, yet doth heere exist, as if it were without VVithout Quantity.] Because it wanteth the second, and third condition of Magnitude aboue mentioned, which are inci­dent to euery Body, as it is naturally in place. Quantity, for the parts therof are receaued in the same place, and yet doe not penetrate themselues. In like sort his Body hath heere the true quantity, and distinction of parts, which it hath in Heauen, and yet it is (without being greater, or les­ser) wholy contayned within the least part of a conse­crated Hoast. Thus we see, that though a Though a Spirit.] A Spirit cannot be extended in place, because it hath not any extension of Parts at all, & therfore it is indiui­sible; for seeing, to be extended in place is a formall effect, proceeding from it formall cause of Extension in it selfe▪ if therfore a Spirit should be extended in place, we should admit the formall Effect without the formall Cause, which cannot be, since the formall Effect is later in nature, then the Cause, and cannot be without the Cause, though the formall Cause may be without the Effect, as we say heere; that the inward Extension of Christs Body doth want (by Gods power) all extension of place. Spirit (e­uen by Gods Omnipotency) cānot be extended in place, yet that a Body may want all such extension. And thus answerably heereto we teach, that this sacred Body is whole in euery part, and yet hath a true distinction of Parts. And so though the externall formes be broken, or disparted in themselues; yet the Body lying vnder them, remaines in the least parcell therof, entire, and vndeui­ded; as we see that when a looking-glasse is broken, a mans whole face will appeare in euery parcell thereof. Briefely we hould, that in this stupendious Mysterie, that Christs Body remaining a Body, & not a Spirit, yet doth exist as a Exist as a Spirit.] viz. As not hauing any Coexten­sion with place, no more then a Spirit. Spirit, and not as a Body: so as we may well terme it in a sober construction a Body Spiritualized.] Not that the Body by this meanes is be­come a Spirit, for that is false: Nor that still remaining a Body, is with­all a Spirit, for that is impossible: Nor that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist only Spiritually, as the word Spiritually in our Aduer­saries construction is opposed against the words Truly, or Really: But it may be said to be spiritualized, because (as it is often said) it existeth in the Eucharist like a Spirit, to wit, without any extension of place, but being (in respect of all such extension) whole in euery part. spi­ritualized.

These (loe) alledged, and at large in the margi­nall References solued, are the chiefest Mysteries, and difficulties, which are produced in the doctrine of the Real Presence. And heere I am to aduertise the Reader of two things: the one, that the most (if not all) of these obscurities were first through an incessant agitatiō of the mind discouered by our Catholike 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 [Page 31] 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 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 the Virginall parts. For thus hereof doe the Fathers write, to wit Hierome in Apolog. pro libris contra Iouinianum, Gregorie Nazianzen in Tragoedia, Christus Patiens. Augustinus epist. 3. ad Volusianum, Am­brose lib. de instit. Virginum c. 7. A point so generally belieued by the ancient Fathers, that Iouinian is for the denyall thereof registred for an Heretike by Ambrose epist. 80. & 81. In like sort we read Iohn 20. that Christ came to his disciples Ianuis clausis, which action howsoeuer our Aduersaries seeme to elude, yet doe the Fathers gene­rally acknowledge the Wonder herein to be, that the Body of our Lord did then penetrate another solide, and firme body; thus Hierome epist. ad Pamachium, de erroribus Ioannis Constantinop. Epiphanius hae­res. 64. Ambrose in cap. vlt. Lucae, as also Chrysostome, and August. vpon this place. Againe another is of our Sauiours rising out of the graue, the monument, or doore thereof being shut. In which point also the Fathers put the former like Miracle, to wit, that a true natu­rall body should passe through the graue, it still remayning shut. See hereof August. serm. 138. de Tempor [...]. Hierome epist. ad Hebidiam quaest. 6. Chrysostome. Homil. de S. Ioa [...] Baptista. Iustinus quaest. 117. be­sides diuer [...] others. Assertions in Christian Reli­gion (whereof some are set downe in the Marginall Re­ferences, besides others reserued to their peculiar Cha­pters) [Page 37] and of other irrefragable Positions in Philosophy, we may fully perceaue, that Mans vnderstanding is too short a scantling to measure out Gods power. For diuers such Passages there are, & other Conclusions in Nature, whereunto all Christians giue an absolute assent, and yet their proofes cannot be deduced from the grounds of Naturall Reason: so true it is, that perfection in know­ledge is not in this life the portion of Man. I will insist in some particulers, so shall our Aduersaries see, that they haue reason either to admit the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist, or else with the deniall thereof to deny the said Articles of Christian Faith, and other Philoso­phicall Demonstrations.

First then may be presented to vs that Cardinall-Mi­stery of the Trinity, which is indeed the basis, and foun­dation, whereupon the edifice, or structure of Chri­stian Religion is builded. Heere now our Faith teacheth vs (for by the Eagle wings thereof only we do mount so high, our Sense, and naturall Reason fluttering ouer neere the ground) that there is one peculiar nature in three different Persons; so as to patterne this to that in the Eucharist, we find an Vnity, or (as I may tearme it) an Indiuiduality of Nature, and a diuersity of Persons, sortable to the Vnity of a Body, & multiplicity of places. Now heere we are to know, that euery one of these three Persons is identified really, and formally with this na­ture (the strictest Vnion that can be conceaued) where­as the Body is only externally conioyned with the place; so much is the difficulty of a Body enioying at once diuers locall Circumscriptions, surpassed by this dogmaticall Point of one nature being in seuerall Persons without any distraction, or multiplication thereof.

Now secondly, if we looke into that other chiefe Point of the Incarnation, whereby the Deity of God ap­peared in the frailty of Mans nature (as the Sūne shines in a pudled water) we shalbe oppressed euen with store of difficulties presented to vs therin. I will not insist in euery particuler therof; therfore I will passe ouer, how in this astonishing doctrine of Christianity, Christ be­ing borne in Time, was yet begor before all Time; and but newly borne, was full growne; lying weakly in a Cradle, yet able to dissolue with his finger the whole frame of this world; ignorant (in some sense) of the end of the world, yet knew all things; dyed in the raigne of Tiberius, yet slaine from the beginning of the world. Fi­nally his Soule separated from his Body by death, yet could not dye, since death ouer him had no power.

These, and the And the like] To wit, how in the Mysterie of the Incarnation, God separateth from the Humanity of Christ his manner of subsistence, inse [...]ting it in his Diuinity; A point, which hardly can be vnderstood without presuming some change in God, of which he is in no sort capable. Now, it is no more incident to an Accident to inhere in a Subiect, then it is naturall to a Substance to subsist by it selfe: if therfore God can effect, that a Substance shall not subsist by it selfe, as heere it doth not, why should not he be able to preserue an Accident without i [...] Subiect? like (I say) I will pretermit, & will chiefly rest (as most pertinent to this place) in this one Point, to wit, how one Hypostasis, or Person is in two Natures; for whatsoeuer our Aduersaries can alledge for impugning of a Body to be in seuerall places, the same is heere found with all aggrauating circumstances. Will they obiect, that the Places are really diuers, and farre distant one frō another? But heere the Natures are more different, and dislike, the one being Diuine, and the o­ther Humane. Or will they say, that the vnion of the Bo­dy, and the place is so strait, as that it hindereth, why the said Body should be in another place? But heere the Vnion betweene the Person, and the Nature is far greater; since that former is meerly accidentary and extrinsecall, this intrinsecall and substantiall: And which is more, heere the Person, or Hypostasis is identified, and made the same really, and formally with it diuine Nature, and yee [Page 39] is vnited most inwardly with the Humane Nature. If therfore one Person may be in two different, and vnlike Natures, being vnited most intrinsecally with either of them, and yet neyther this Person deuided, nor the Na­tures confounded: much more may a naturall Body be in diuers places (whose possessing of them is meere ex­trinsecall) without either diuision of the Body, or con­fusion of places.

Thus we see how our Aduersaries confessing the greater difficulty, cannot be induced to belieue the les­ser: such blind Blind Guydes.] Matth. [...]. Guides they are, who straine out a Gnat, & swallow a Camell Now if they were pressed to falue all doubts in this Article by Naturall Reasō, I am sure (how learned soeuer they are) they would confesse a great Im­possibility therin; since God as Man, is scarce able to penetrate the Mysteries of Man as God. Then by the same Reason they are to reject in any other dogmaticall Point whatsoeuer, these first Conceptions, and secret breathings of Atheisme: How? & by what meanes? Wher­unto to answere only by the Light of Reason, and to de­ny whatsoeuer cannot be made good therby, is to shew himselfe more conuersant in the Naturall Philosophers Catechisme, then in his Creatours sacred Writings; so prudently therfore it was said of our Father [...].] Nazianzen. Orat. 1. de Theologia, signifying as much, as, Ne anxiè [...] modum rei. [...].

And thus much of this Paire, or Twins of Christi­an Mysteries (for their resemblance is great) the one cō ­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 shalbe 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 The Philosophers define.] Aristot. in Metaphysic. passim. define it to be, Instans Du­ration is non fl [...]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, [Page 44] 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, [Page 45] 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 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 The first Being to all things.] viz. through the creation of them, according to that of the Scripture, In Deo sumus, & mo [...] ­mur. Act. 17. being to all things:) [Page 47] nor of Place (for he is both by 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 G [...]d (being one 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 from this? and so should be present in the fame world, and consequently in seuerall, and farre di­stant places. Nor can they further reply, that it is lesse possible for a true naturall Body to be in seuer all places at once, then for God who is only a spirituall substance. This aduantageth them nothing, since the mayne rea­son, why it should seeme, that a Body cannot be in di­uers places, is not taken so much à mole corporis, quà [...] ab vnitate, not from the heauy weight of the Body, but from the vnity therof; which vnity, as it is no lesse (but much more Much more perfect.] The Vnity of God is much more perfect, then the Vnity of any thing whatsoeuer; for seeing that the Philosophers do define Vnum, to be that, which is Indiuisumà se, sed diuisumà quocū (que) alio, & that this definition is more agreeable to God, then to any creatures; Therfore it followeth, that his Vnity is more per­fect then the Vnity of any other thing. And hence it is, that among the other Attributes of God giuen him by the Philosophers (as Primus, In­finitus, Optimus, Omnipotens &c.) he is stiled by them also to be Vnus. Now, as he is Vnus, in respect of all Incomposition; so is he Vnus in re­gard, that he is but One, and not Many. Which point appeareth de­monsttatiuely from hence▪ for seeing that God is infinite (for otherwise he can haue no true Diuinity) we cannot conceaue, how there can be many Gods, and consequently many Infinities, without preiudice, or impeachment of one Infinitie in respect of another. perfect) in God, then in a Body; so it should seeme to be no lesse deuided, or distracted in it selfe in God, then in a Body, through his being in diuersitie of places. Thus we see, how this difficulty of being in di­uers [Page 48] places, so often vrged, and reinforced by our Ad­uersaries is auoyded euen by the iudgement of all, ex­cept of those (if any such be) who will not confesse, that they can find him, who is in euery place; nor see him, who is in euery thing they see.

And thus much of these few Instances; the nature, and deliberate consideration whereof may seeme iustly to extenuate the obiected difficulties in the blessed Sacra­ment. And howsoeuer the learned Deuines haue la­boured much in the explicating of these points; yet it is obserued, that hitherto they could neuer be brought to allow any one Mans Illustration of them: A Document to teach vs, that the wit of Man is too weake an In­terpreter of Gods Power; and withall to admonish vs (for the more humbling of those high witts and con­ceipts, who haue eyes to see difficulties, but not iudge­ments to vnfold them) that in things once made que­stionable, in regard of the probable impugning of either part, and the vncertainty of what side the truth is (it not being matter of Faith) much Learning, is but much artificiall, and paynfull Ignorance.

To these former might be adioyned many other Philosophicall Philosophicall Speculations.] Besides such difficulties in Philosophy (as are heerafter set downe in their particuler References) which may seeme to transcend Mans capacity, there are many other. As for example, The least mote in the Sunne, or other smallest thing that the Eye can hardly discerne, to haue in it selfe, truly, and really infinite parts; which thing the nature of quantitas continua conuin­ceth; which is defined to be semper diuisibilis in indiuisibilia: which if o­therwise it should be, then might a [...]ody euen by naturall reason in the end become to be nothing, or annihilated, which can only be ef­fected by Gods power. In like sort, Mans vnderstanding cannot conceaue, how a true, solide, and firme body should be carried with that rapidity, or swiftnesse, as the Heauens are carried in their courses: for the highest Heauen (going his whole course in 24. houres) by the iudgment of Mathematicians & Philosophers, is really moued at least twenty thou­sand miles in the twinkling of an Eye; which thing what vnderstan­ding can conceaue? when the swiftest thing, that is in this world (whe­ther it be the flying of a Swallow, or a bullet shot out of a Gun) if it should continue it motion for the space of an whole houre, would not go at the most, past fifty, or threescore miles, within the same time. Speculations, which cannot be con­fined, and (as I may say) circumscribed within the compasse of Mans wit; as that the least Quantity should be diuisible into infinite parts; That the highest Heauens being a true Body, should be carried with such a rapidity, and swiftnes of motion, as we see it is; That a That a Vapour.] A Vapour is essentially water, for we see it being resolued, turneth againe into the same water, [...]amdem nume­ro, which afore it was. It is therfore altered only accidentally, to wit, in these three qualities, in Heate, in Tenuity or thinnesse, and in L [...] ­uity; so that a Vapour is the same water, which afore it was, but more hoat, more thinne or attenuated, and more light. Vapour (how familiar, and obuious soeuer this obseruation seemeth) being only but water rarified, should possesse a greater place, then when it was elementall water; and seeing that before it was attenuated, there were as many [Page 49] puncta, or partes of it, as when it is become a Vapour, euery Punctum, or part therof hauing afore it due circum­scription. Now then, it doth seeme as much repugnant to a determinate, and limitable substance, to exact a greater circumscription of Space, then afore it had, still remaining without any addition (eadem substantia nume­ro) as for a substance to require a lesser, or none at all as we affirme of the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacra­ment.

And finally (to omit many others) that the The Loadstone, or a peice of Iron, after it is but touched ther­with.] I will not heere insist so much in the difficulty, how a Load­stone doth draw Iron to it, to wit, whether it be through a Sympathy of Nature betweene these two bodies, or through the proper forme of the Loadstone; or if through the proper forme thereof (which is the more generall Opinion) whether immediately of it selfe, or by the inte [...]uention of some Instrument; or if by the mediation of some In­strument (which is also the more neceaded coniecture) whether this Instrument is a sending forth of certaine corporeall A [...]omi, or spirits of the Loadstone, or only a transfusion of an incorporeall quality, or vertue thereof▪ and finally if it be a transfusion of an immateriall ver­tue (which is in like sort more commonly said to be) whether this vertue commeth out of the Loadstone, and so is really carried to the Iron, or only propagated by the medium thereto, so as the vertue still remayning in the stone, doth only beget, or multiply the like vertue through the ayre, till it come to the Iron, no otherwise, then when the heate of the fire by being multiplied in the aire, doth affect with heat, bodyes in good distance from the fire; which later sentence is also more approoued. In refelling of these, I will not insist, for seeing, they are meerely speculatiue, and by the vrging of seuerall reasons in defence of euery opinion, (as being most remote from sense) may all be made coniecturally probable; Therefore I will chiefly rest in the other point, that is, in maintayning, that no true, nor certaine reason can be giuen, why the Loadstone it selfe hanging in the aire by a thred, or being put in a vessell of water, doth at all tymes tend with one, and the same point thereof in the same place, towards one, and the same point of the North (for it being placed after either of these two wayes, is free from all letts of it naturall motion) or that a needle touched therewith, will in like sort direct the one end, still towards the North. Many reasons hereof I find alledged, but all are insuffici­ent, and conuinced as false, euen by the Eye, and experience it selfe. The first Reason, is giuen by those, which doe assigne the cause hereof to be some Northern part of the Heauen, to which the Load­stone, or Needle euer tendeth, though in setting downe, which this part should be, they dissent. Some doe maintaine, that the Northern Pole of the world, in the Point▪ whereunto the stone is directed, as Petrus Peregrinus in tract. de Magnete. But this sentence is thus ouer­throwne, First, because then there should be no variation of the Needle, but that in all places it should directly tend towards the North Pole, which is found by experience, that it doth not. Now, heereby the variation of the Needle is vnderstood, when the Needle tendeth either Eastwardly, or Westwardly from the Pole, which in seuerall Countries is found more, or lesse to do. Secondly, if the Pole it selfe, were the Point, then the Northern end of the Needle should eleuate it selfe towards the Pole with vs heere in England (much more in other more Boreall Clymates) because to all such places the Pole is eleuated many degrees; but we see iust contrary hereto, that euen in all these Coūtries, the Northern part of the Needle doth depresse it selfe down­wards to the earth, bending to some poynt many degrees vnder the Horizon, and consequently bearing it selfe more low, then the Sou­therne part thereof. And this depression, of that part is commonly called, the Declination of the Pole of the Loadstone, or Needle. Others doe teach, the Pole starre to be the point, as Franciscus Lopez▪ lib. 1. hist. Occidental. [...]nd. c. [...]. and Cardinus de subtilitate l. 7. This also is false. First by the former reason of the afore alledged de­clination of the Needle, seeing that euen with vs, the Pole starre is euer many degrees aboue our Horizon. Secondly, because the Pole starre is euer in motion, and reuolution about the Pole of the world, and maketh it diurnall circle ech way distant more then two degrees from the Pole; therefore if this Starre were the cause hereof, then should the Needle follow the motion of that starre, and so euery houre of the day be in changing it course in any one place; which we find, that it doth not at all. Thirdly, because we find, that the Needle in some Countries doth vary it motion aboue thirty degrees from the Pole of the world, whereas the furthest distance of the Pole starre from the Pole it selfe (as is said aboue) is not three degrees. Fourthly, because it would follow, that in those Southerne parts, where the Pole starre doth not rise, the Loadstone should not turne towards the North, by reason that this influence, and vertue of the Pole starre could not penetrate through the earth, and yet in those Australl Countries, the Needle retaineth it former quality: for euen in Freto Ma­gellani [...]o it is obserued to tend directly towards the Pole of the world. There are also some, who assigne the cause hereofto other starres, and constellations neere vnto the Pole, and not to the Pole starre, as Petrus Gregorius art. intrab. l. 36. c. 7. and Collegium Conimbricense ad 7. Physic. 2. but this their error is refuted by all these former Argumēts, which prooue that the Pole starre is no cause thereof. Finally, some others will haue some point aboue, but extra Caelum, to be the reason heerof; for they say, it cannot be referred to any point of Heauen it selfe, seeing that euery part therof (the Pole ex­cepted) is mouable, and yet the needle in any one place, or Countrey neuer changeth it certaine site, and resting. Of this opinion is Cortes part. 3. art. nauig. c. 5. But this is refelled (besides by some of the for­mer alledged Arguments) euen from Philosophy it selfe; for seeing there is no Body or Subiect extra Caelum, there can no vertue, or in­fluence proceed from thence, since other wise there should be Accident originally fine Subiecto, which cannot be. Againe that supposed point should be either moueable, or not moueable if moueable, then should not the Needle in the same place alwaies looke, & tend one way if im­moueable, then should the Needle in all places respect one and the same point, but both these are false. And thus much of the first ge­nerall opinion which ascribeth the difficulty hereof to some part of the Heauens, or point beyond the Heauens. The Second maine opinion, is of those, who allot the vertue of the Loadstone to a Mountaine of Loadstone, or a great Myne therof vnder the North Pole. Of this opinion are Olaus lib. 12. c. 1. Franco­stor. de Sympath. & Antipath. Seuert. lib. 1. in s [...]hol. definition▪ [...]. to which place (say these men) that by reason of the attractiue for [...] of this great Mountaine, the Loadstone, or a needle touched therwith, tends vnto. This opiniō is also refelled: First because it would follow from Hence, that a Loadstone, or Needle swimming freely, and without hinderance in the water, should be mouing with change of place euer­more forward towards the North, and should not lye still vpon the water, only bearing one end towardes the North : but this it doth not. Secondly, in that it is found by experience, that in a Port of the [...]and Elba in Italy, not distant more then a mile from a great Rocke of Loadstone, the Needle touched with a Loadstone doth not turne towards that Rocke, but towards the North: if then that great Rock in Elba hath not the vertue to draw the needle to it, being so neere, how can it be thought probable, that the other Rock vnder the Pole can send it vertue so far to Needles touched with the Loadstone in Countreys remote, and distant from it? Thirdly, because as Scaliger well noteth, Exercit. 132. the at­tractiue force, and vertue of that mountaine of Loadstone vnder the Pole, should be intercepted, and broken by reason of the swelling, & roundnesse of the earth, afore it could could come to other places farre distant from this mountaine▪ and it is most improbable to say, that this vertue doth penetrate through the earth to Countreys far distant; Or if it did, then it would follow, that in Countreys, more or lesse Sou­thren, the Northren end of the needle should more, or lesse tend down­wards into the earth, and vnder the Horizon: but no such change of declination is obserued to be. Fourthly, because that whersoeuer any one do put the Pole of the Loadstone in respect of that Rocke, yet it would follow, that a Needle being placed in the same Paralell of this Pole yet distant farre from it, should tend directly to the East, and in other places of the same Paralell to the West, but not at all to the North. But experience to the contrary hereto is made, since in those places it euer tendeth to­wards the North. And thus much of this second opinion. The third, and last is of those, who attribute this vertue of the Loadstone only to the Specifica & int [...]rna forma therof, wherby it selfe should euer bend one way, or a needle touched therwith: Euen as the earth out of it specificall nature, & forme tendeth towards the Center. This Reason is assigned, not because it can be demonstrated (for it is meerly in speculation) but only as for their last refuge, in that all other supposed causes therof are found defectiue; which though it be ouer generall, and little better, then Petitio princi [...]ij, and not much more, then to say, The Loadstone tendeth towards the North, because it ten­deth towards the North : yet it is otherwise euidently confuted. And first, seeing there is but one internall, & specificall forme of all Loadstones, and seeing it is obserued, that, that very part of the Loadstone doth beare euer towards the North, which was found to lye towards the North in the Mine, or ground, and that all Loadstones do not lye after one, and the same manner in the Mine, the veines, or graine of seuerall Loadstones lying in the Myne seuerall wayes; it ther­fore followeth, that this peculiar direction towards the North, can­not be assigned to the internall forme of the Loadstone. Secondly, the forme of the Loadstone (as the formes of all o­ther compounded bodyes) doth proceed from the mixture of the Ele­ments, but we find this vertue, or propension of mouing not to be in any of the Elements; How then can they impart it to the Loadstone? Thirdly, if the forme should be the cause of it direction, then should it (in all probability) be performed by the mediation of some vertue or quality of the forme. Now, all qualities caused by the mix­ture of Elements, originally proceed à pain is qualitatibus, and conse­quently they are sensible: but this qualitie (if there be any such) is in­sensible. Fourthly, the Loadstone being Corpus graue, hath a propen­sion euen from it forme to descend downward (as we see it doth) ther­fore it cannot receaue from the same forme any other kind of motion, for so one, and the same forme should affoard two different motions; which is absurd to affirme. Fiftly, if the proper forme should thus moue it selfe, then should the stone be a liuing creature, for it is only peculiar to a liuing creature locally to moue it selfe. Sixtly, and lastly; If there were no variation of the Loadstone turning it selfe towards the North, the cause of this motion might with more probability be assigned to the forme of the stone; but the variation thereof (according to the diuersity of Countries) is most diuers : for in some places it hath no variation at all; but directly ten­deth to the Pole of the world : in other partes, to wit, in all the Occi­dentall Maritime places of Europe, and Africke, from Norway to the Cape of Buona Speranza, it bendeth more, or lesse towards the East from the North Pole: and in all the Orientall Maritime places of the North Parts of America from Terra Florida, to Virginia, nuoua Fran­cia &c. the Needle turneth it end towards the West from the Pole. Now then, seeing this irregularity, and diuersity of variation is such, and so great, in so much, that in some Countries the needle turneth from the Pole thirty degrees, and in other Countries more, or lesse Eastward, or Westward: how can it proceed from the internall, and specificall forme of the Loadstone, since the forme of euery body af­foardes a certainty, and immutability of that motion, which it giueth thereto. And heere now I will end : All which I haue produced only to this purpose, to shew, that the cause of the motion of the Loadstone (though the effect therof be subiect to each mans eye) cannot possi­bly be apprehended by Man & that it is Gods pleasure, either to be the immediate cause thereof himselfe; or at least resolued to conceale the same from vs. Now, if Mans vnderstanding be not able to penetrate into the causes of things sensible, materiall, and of what we haue dayly triall; can it be able in the mysterie of the Eucharist (being a point supernaturall, and altogeather remoued from sense) to sound all the difficulties thereof? Or shall it presume to confine Gods power within those limitts, and bounds, which shall be assigned as answera­ble to the weake proportion, and measure of it selfe, concluding thus: Mans vnderstanding cannot conceaue how all those seeming impos­sibilityes in the Eucharist can be salued : Therefore God cannot effect them. An Illation fitting to proceed from an Atheist, or an Heathen Philosopher, not from a Christian. Loadstone, or a piece of Iron, after it is but touched ther­with, should euer haue their ends turned one way; The experience whereof, in that it falleth vnder euery vulgar eye, & the reason most inexplicable, I will therefore the more laboriously insist (in the reference hereto appro­priated) in refuting all the most probable coniectures giuen thereof by the Learned: which is not vndertaken impertinently out of any venditation, or vaunt of rea­ding, for this were idle, and a foule blot of a Schollers Pen; but only to this end, to manifest, that all the Learning, and wit of Man is not able to set downe any sufficient, and satisfiable cause thereof, and that conse­quently it is perhaps to be referred only to the immediate will, and pleasure of God; who as in this (though ex­perimentally subiect to ech Mans sense) so much more in the Mystery of the Eucharist (being a sublyme and supernaturall point of fayth) is able to accomplish that, which Mans capacity, and iudgement is not able to conceaue, or find the reason thereof. And therefore I admonish my Reader, that as heere the Needle, before it be touched, is ready to turne it selfe indifferently to­wards any quarter, or part of the world, but after, still [Page 50] tends to one only coast; euen so it should fall out in our Iudgment, which though naturally without respect it may propend to any opinion in matters in Religion, yet after it hath enioyed that Magneticall, and Attractiue touch of the Churches Authority, it ought then to di­rect it course only to that Faith (how intricate and per­plexed soeuer it seemes) whereunto God by his said Church perswadeth.

THE DIFFICVLTIES OF A Body wanting Circumscription of Place, AND Of an Accident without a Subiect, are explained by the difficulties discouered in the Power of Seeing, and in the Circumstances thereof. CHAP. IX.

AMONG other Elementary grounds and Principles of the Mathematikes, this is one; Maximus Circulus.] Apud Euclidem. Those Circles are called Maiores Circuli, whose Center is the same Cēter with the Sphere wherof they are Circles. And this is the demonstration, why the Sunne being in the Equinoctiall, the day, and night is of an equall length in all places, to wit, because the Horizon, and the Equinoctiall are Circuli Maiores, hauing their Center the same with the Center of the world, and therfore intersecting themselues, they cut one the other into two equall parts; and consequently so much of that Circle which the Sunne then runneth, is vnder our Horizon, as is aboue our Horizon. Maximus Circulus, ma­ximum Circulum secans, secant se inuicem in duas aequales partes; secus autem de Mi­noribus: A great Circle cutting a great Circle, they euer deuide the one the other into two equal parts. The like may we say (by allusion) of the two [Page 58] vast Circumferences of Gods Power, and Wisdome, both which meeting togeather in the Center of euery thing created, and in the Creation therof mutually intersecting themselues, they appeare of one, and the same Propor­tion, I meane, both discouering themselues to be infinite, and surpassing all humane capacity. Now these being in­deed of the very essence of God (for that Axiome is true, Quicquid Quicquid in Deo &c.] The reason hereof is (as is aboue touched) because to haue Proprietyes as Qualities, and Accidents, implyes composition, and imperfection▪ from which God is most free, as being Maximè Vnus, & Simplex. in Deo est, Dei est) do with most admirati­on manifest themselues, among all his Creatures, chief­ly in those which enioy life. Among those which en­ioy life, chiefly in Man; among all the corporeall parts of Man, chiefly in that small great organ of the Eye. For who will not be astonished, and burst our with the Psal­mist, The Psalmist.] Psalm. 103. Quam magnificata sunt opera tua Domine, in cō ­templating the fabricke therof! First to behould the pro­minency, and bearing out of the Forehead and Nose, which serues as certaine fortresses to bea [...]e backe all sud­daine attempts endangering the same: Then the hayres of the Eyelids standing in most precise māner, & order, as pales, or pikes to repell, and keep of the entrance of any noysome thing: Next to obserue the Lyddes them­selues, which (as Portcullisses lifted vp and downe by the help of the synewy chaines) do let in all pleasing ob­iects to the Eye, and forbiddeth entrance to all things do­mageable. After these are presēted to vs the many Tunicles.] There are six Tunicae, or Skinnes, of which the Eye consisteth, to wit, 1. Adnata (otherwise called Alba) 2. Innominata. 3. [...], or Cornea. 4. Vuea (cal­led also Secundina.) 5. Amphiblistroides, or Retina. 6. [...], or Arauea. Tu­nicles, and Skins, which serue (as certaine walls, or Coun­termures) to incompasse, strengthen, and fortify this litle (yet rich) Citty of the Eye. And lastly (besides the The Veynes &c.] It is a Principle in A­natomy, that all Veines proceed from the Lyuer, and giue nou­rishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and giue life; all Sy­newes from the Braine, and giue Motion and Sense: I meane, that the grosse bloud in the Veines doth giue nourishment; the spirituall Bloud in the Arteries, life; and the Animall Spirits in the Nerues, or Synewes, Sense and Motion. veines giuing nourishment, the The Veynes &c.] It is a Principle in A­natomy, that all Veines proceed from the Lyuer, and giue nou­rishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and giue life; all Sy­newes from the Braine, and giue Motion and Sense: I meane, that the grosse bloud in the Veines doth giue nourishment; the spirituall Bloud in the Arteries, life; and the Animall Spirits in the Nerues, or Synewes, Sense and Motion. Arreties life, and the The Veynes &c.] It is a Principle in A­natomy, that all Veines proceed from the Lyuer, and giue nou­rishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and giue life; all Sy­newes from the Braine, and giue Motion and Sense: I meane, that the grosse bloud in the Veines doth giue nourishment; the spirituall Bloud in the Arteries, life; and the Animall Spirits in the Nerues, or Synewes, Sense and Motion. Synewes, motion to the same) as also, besides the two Opticke Opticke Synewes.] These two Opticke Synewes are ter­med Nerui visibiles: by these the Species, or formes of all Obiects are carried from the Eyes to the common Sense. Synewes, which serue (as the Porters betweene the common Sense, and the Eye) to consider the [Page 59] diuers Diuers Humors.] There are three Humors in the Eye. 1. Aqueus, which is in the vttermost part of the Eye. 2. Chrystallinus, whose place is almost in the middle of the Eye; this Humor is almost the chiefest Instrument of seeing, and therefore it is called Idolum, or Simulacrum Visionis. 3. Vitreus, which is seated in the inmost part of the Eye; so as the Christalline Humor is placed betweene the Vitreus Humor, and the Aqueus. Humors, which are to the Eye, as so many Ri­uers, by means wherof sufficient prouision Prouision.] For these Humors giue nourishment to some of the Tunicles, as also the Eye pur­geth it selfe by the meanes of them. is brought in for the maintayning of the seuerall Partes thereof; as also all Ordure.] For these Humors giue nourishment to some of the Tunicles, as also the Eye pur­geth it selfe by the meanes of them. ordures (whose stay, and putrefaction would much offend it) are conuayed away.

And thus much of the compacture, and frame of the Eye; where (if we remember) that all those parcells (most different one from another in substance, forme, vse, and operation) are made by Gods power of one, & the same part of a little slimy matter; and by his Wisdome, and Prouidence are become thus subordinate one part to another, and all seruiceable to the faculty of Seeing; how can we rest doubtfull, that the same Power, and Wisdome are not able to effect the greatest difficultyes appearing in the Mysterie of the Eucharist? But to proceed further herein; all this curious structure of the Eye is framed, that this Instrument may performe the operation of See­ing, and so we find it doth. But if we should enter into the manner, how it absolueth this it faculty, we enter into a Labyrinth of intricate speculatiōs, in regard of the different Different Opinions.] There are two chiefe Opinions touching the manner of seeing; The one, they call Extramittendo, that is, That the Eye doth send forth certayne Spiritus visibiles to the Ob­iect which the Eye seeth, and doe returne backe againe to the Eye with the true forme of the said Obiect. The other is Intromittendo, that is, That the Species, or formes of the Obiect are spherically multi­plied in the Aire, or water, and are receaued in at the Eye per medium Conoidis, viz. in a Pyramidall manner. opinions deliuered hereof. Thus, that we see, it is cleare: but how we see (if we belieue diuers) no Man yet cleerly seeth.

And now to come to that point which may seeme in some sort to patterne one of the greatest obscurities in the Eucharist: we find heere (following the most ap­proued iudgment of the best The best Learned.] The most Learned doe for the most part hold, that the Eye seeth after this second manner, to wit, Intro­mittendo. Learned) that the Eye being small in Quantity, is able to containe in it the true proportion of things most great, since the formes therof multiplyed in the ayre, and still retayning the figure of the true Quantity, are at the last receaued in at the Eye, there appearing in those perfect dimensions of breadth, [Page 60] and length, which their subiects doe truely enioy. And which is more: we see by experience, that the Eye is a­ble to discerne the true proportion of a great body in a small glasse, or in a point of a Diamond, where it is more wonderfull, because the forme of the said Body entreth into the glasse or diamond in a Pyramidall, or Spyre-like point, and yet being multiplied from the glasse, to the Eye, recouereth againe (as I may say) it former Quan­tity, and so is presented from the glasse to the Eye, as it was first from the subiect to the glasse: An obseruati­on most strange, were it not, that the daily, and fami­liar sight of any thing is euer the greatest Enemy to Ad­miration.

Now, out of all this I thus inferre; That if naturally the formes of things so great, can truly appeare in their owne bignes, in the small compasse of a glasse, or the Eye; cannot a Body really be in a lesser place, then natu­rally is answerable to the externall coextension of all it parts? And where it may be heere replied, that the formes, which are receaued into the Eye are only imma­teriall; we graunt this to be true, and therfore we vrge this Example not to paralell it exactly in all circum­stances with the other, but to proue thus farre (since there seemes to be in some sort the like touch of the doubt) that if the one be daily performed by the ordinary course of Nature, why may not the other be also accom­plished by the Omnipotency of that one (yet Vntuersall:) Nature, who gaue the first being to this secondarie Nature.

A Second Point, wherein I will heere insist, is, that these Species visibiles, or formes of Subiects, being multiplied in the Ayre, as they come to the Eye, if the [Page 61] Ayre be changed, either by any wynd, or suddaine alte­ration, yet (as the chiefest Chief [...]st Philosophers.] Many great Philosophers of our tyme doe teach, that such Accidences, which doe naturally continue their Inherence in that Body from which they first proceed, cannot naturally remoue from this their Subiect into another; such is the whitenesse in the Swanne, and the Blacknesse in a Crow &c. But their Iudgement is otherwise in those Accidences which haue their In­herence in another Subiect, then that, from which they originally proceeded; Such is the beames of the Sunne inhering in the Aire, and the formes of Obiects multiplied in the Aire: In these they hould, that the Beames of the Sunne, and the formes of the Obiects (being the same numero) may, and actually doe remoue from one part of the Aire into another, if so the Aire it selfe be changed: And their Reason hereof is this : For (say these Men) the beames of the Sunne, or the formes of Obiects, and the like, haue no affinity with the Aire in res­pect of their originall proceeding, but only by reason of existency. But any one part of the ayre is as indifferent, and ready to affoard them existence, as another part; Therefore (say they) there can be no reason assigned, why such an Accident may not remoue from Aire to Aire, rather then through the chang only of the firster part of the Aire to be extinct. Philosophers of this time, both Catholikes, and Protestants doe hould) the said formes (euen eaedem numero) are not extinct, but that they inhere in the next succeeding Aire, and so doe re­moue from one Subiect to another Subiect. Now this consideration moueth vs thus to conclude; That if the same Accidences doe naturally remoue from Subiect to Subiect, without any destruction of them, cannot God supernaturally preserue an Accident without a Subiect? as we Catholikes doe belieue, that he doth so preserue the formes of Bread and Wine in the most holy Mysterie of the Eucharist. And thus farre concerning these diffi­culties.

But now seeing we haue begun to intreate of the Eye, I will end this Chapter with certayne pertinent animaduersions drawne from this Instrument, and ap­plyed to our vnderstanding, the Eye of our soule.

First then we know, that Nature hath giuen to Man two eyes, either of which, though they see a thing, as one thing, seuerally by themselues, yet both of them looking vpon the same thing, do behold it, but But as one.] The Reason hereof is, in that the sight of any thing is not perfectly performed, vntill the forme thereof be con­uayed to the common Sense. Now this Conueyance is made by the meanes of Neruus Opticus, which Neruus doth deuide it selfe into two parts from the Forehead to either Eye: But from the Forehead to the common Sense it is but one; and therefore the forme of any Obiect being carried through this Neruus Opticus, doth represent the Obiect but as one (not as two) to the common Sense. as one, not as two : whereby we may learne, that the Naturall light of our vnderstanding ought to conspire, and ioyne with the supernaturall light of faith in appre­hending one, and the same thing: And so in the My­sterie of the Eucharist, our Vnderstanding, and Reason ought not in seeing the difficulties thereof to vary from our Faith; but to subordinate, and subiect it selfe to that heauenly, and infused Power.

Againe, that very part of the Eye (to wit, Pupilla Oculi) where with we properly see, is depriued of all [Page 62] Colours, to the end, that it may indifferently see all Colours: So should his vnderstanding (who eyther in this Mysterie of the Eucharist, or in any other, would sincerely behould the grounds, and reasons both of Ca­tholikes, and Protestants) be voyded of all preiudice of iudgment, wherwith the Intellectuall faculty is other­wise discoloured, and blemished: for so shall he more clearly, and indifferently weigh, and consider the force of the seuerall Reasons, and Arguments produced on ech side.

Lastly (to omit many other resemblances, and Pro­portions heerein) the Optickes doe teach.] So we see, that the different falling of the beames of the Sunne vpon the Cloude, which causeth the Iris, or Rainbow, doth cause to the eye the different representation of seuerall Colours; for as the Beames doe more, or lesse fall vpon the Cloud, so accordingly the Colours appeare varied to the Eye. Optickes do teach, that one, and the same Colour doth appeare, as diuers, eyther to the same Eye, 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 Vn­derstāding 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 [Page 63] 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 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.

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, [Page 68] 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 VVhich Tyme serued.] According to that, Omnia ei [...] 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 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 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 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, Cy [...]il, and Chrysostome in c. 6. Ioannis. [Page 69] 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 Sa­crament but bread, and wine, it is not It is not better.] That these Figures are not inferior (if not superior) to the Eucharist (if nothing be there, but Bread, and Wine) either for substance, or signification, it is most cleare. And first touching the Paschall Lambe, If we consider a Lambe, and Bread, as things naturall, the Lamb (as being a Creature endued with sense) is more noble. And if we consider them as Sacraments, that is, as ex­ternall signes, the Lamb also excelleth Bread; for the Flesh of Christ is better represented by the flesh of the Lamb, then by Bread. Againe, the death of Christ is more liuely figured by the killing of the Lambe, then by breaking of Bread. Finally, the Innocēcy, & other Proprieties of Christ are better signified by a Lamb without any spot (for such the Law commaunded to be sacrificed) then by Bread. In like sort, the effect of the Sacramēt is better obtained by the eating of the Lamb, then by eating of bread▪ for if the effect therof be a spirituall nutrition, we know, that flesh nourisheth better then bread; and if it be only a stirring vp of a Mans faith, then doth the killing of the Lambe per­forme it better, in that it more liuely setteth forth the death of Christ. Concerning the Bloud of the Testament, the same former Rea­sons, which did proue the Lambe to be more noble then Bread, do al­so serue to proue, that bloud is better (both for substance & significa­tion) then the Eucharist, if nothing be there but Wine; for Bloud is a more noble substance, then Wine, & the Bloud of Christ is better re­presented by bloud, then by wine. Touching the Manna, It is in like sort most cleare, that supposing the Eucharist to containe in it only bread, it is inferiour to the Māna. And first considering their natures, and essences, the Manna it most excellent, as being made by the hands of the Angells, descending from heauen, and hauing in it all kind of tastes, or so tasting, as euery one eating therof would desire. And ac­cording to these points, we find it called Panis Angelorum, Psal 77. and Panis de Caelo, Ioan. 6. wheras bread is made by the hands of a Ba­ker, comming out of an Ouen, and hauing only but the tast of bread. In like sort if Manna, and bread be considered as externall Symboles, and signes, Manna representeth, or signifieth Christ better then bread, in that it came from heauen, was indued with all kinds of tastes, and was receaued of euery one in a like measure. Thus we see, that the Fi­gures in the old Law, do euery way excel the Eucharist (they being but Types of the same) if so nothing be therin, but bread. Now it is euident euen in reason, that Figures ought to be inferiour to those things wher­of they are Figures; which point also appeareth out of the Apostle Co­los. 2. who there compareth the Figures of the old Testament to the shaddowes, and the fulfilling of the said figures to the body. Now, wheras our Aduersaries do answere to our Argument, in saying, that our Sacraments (and consequently the Eucharist) do ex­cell the Sacraments of the old Law (euen with reference had only to the externall signes) because (say they) our Sacraments are more firme, as neuer againe to be altered; and because they shew, and figure out a thing already done, and not heerafter only to be done, and be­cause they are more simple, and belong to a greater multitude of peo­ple; and lastly, in that they are more cleere then the other, not so much in regard of externall representation, as for the euidency, and cleernesse of the words there spoken. This is the answere of our Ad­uersaries, and particulerly of Peter Martyr in sua defens. de Eucharist. part. 3. pag. 692. But this taketh not away the force of our Argument▪ for all these Prerogatiues of our Sacraments, ascribed by him, are ex­trinsecall, and accidentary to Sacraments, as they are Symboles, and Signes; seeing that they altogeather depend of the bare will of him, who did first institute, & ordaine them; & therfore they bring small, or no dignity of signes, as they are signs; but the comparison is to be made in the signification it selfe, in seeking the internall dignity, and worth of signes, for those signes are better, which better do signify; but signes do signify better, or worse in regard only of their externall significa­tion. Adde hereto, that when our Sauiour did first institute the Eu­charist, his death was to come, and consequently it did then figure a thing to come. Lastly adde, that the Scripture, and the Fathers do not teach, that our Sacraments do not excell the old Sacraments, because they better signify, but because they were but as figures, and the Eucharist the thing figured, so as the comparison made both in Scriptures, and by the Fathers, is the comparison of the things absolutely in them­selues, without any reference had of the signification of them. better if not inferior to those Legall Figures, either in regard of their naturall substances, or their signification implied by them: Yea, let vs tell them, that they debase ouermuch the Iewish Sacraments, as teaching, that they did but adumbrate shaddowes, and represent Representations, since they account them no better, then Types of Types, and Figures of Figures; yet cannot this at all sway the iudgements of our Aduersaries, which is carried away violently with the streame of preiudice, and partiality.

Let vs bring forth the Ancient Ancient Rabbins.] Among the Rabbins, which haue prophesied hereof, we find, that Rabbi Symeon, lib. Reuelat. Secretorū. thus saith, The Sacrifice, which after the Messias his comming Priests shall make &c. they shall make i [...] of bread, and wine &c. and that Sacrifice, which shall be so celebrated vpon euery Altar, shall be turned into the body of the Missias.] Rabbi Cabana, ad cap. 46. Genes. writeth, That the Sacrifices which shalbe offered of wine, shall not only be changed into the substance of the Bloud of the Messias, but also into the substance of his Body. The Sacrifice, which shall be of Bread, notwithstanding it be white as milke, it shall be conuerted into the Body of the Messias.] Rabbi Barachias, in Ecclesiast. af­firmeth, That, at the comming of the Messias, food shall come from heauen like a little ea [...]e.] Finally, Rabbi Hadarsan, in Psal. 1 [...]6. (to omit the testimonyes of others) writeth : Tast, and see, how good is God; for the bread, which he giueth to all, is his Flesh, and whilest it is tasted, it is con­uerted into his Flesh.] So cleare these Iewes were in this point, that Ga­latinus (who vrgeth these their sayings) writeth of them, That they may be thought not so much to haue fore [...]ould things to come▪ as to haue reported Euangelist-like things already done.]. Rabbins, most of them (if not all) liuing before our Sauiours Incarnation, who in a Propheticall spirit (directed no doubt by him, with whom their is no distinction of Tymes, though himselfe first distinguished Tymes) tell vs, that in the after dayes, the Messias himselfe shall offer vp his owne body, and bloud for sacrifice, vnder the formes of Bread, and Wyne; yet they proceed against them (and this is an ordinary disease, and distemperature of Heresy in other like cases) with a Lordly, and peremptorie Arrest, pronouncing, that such their writings are Suppositious Suppositious and Forged.] All these testimonies of the Rabbins (besides many moe) are recorded by Galatinus, de arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 10. c. 5. 6. 7. &c. Yet Doctor VVhitaker absolute­ly reiecteth them l. 9. contra Duraeum, pag. 818. And yet the sayings of the said Iewes in other points (recorded by the former Galatinus) are of such weight in the iudgements of other learned Protestants, as that we do find them vrged in their bookes against their Aduersaries. Thus we find them produced by Parkes against VVillet pag. 170. by Philip Mornay in his booke Touching the truenesse of Christian Religion, and englished Anno 1592. pag. 434. 436. and in diuers pages follo­wing. In like sort by Pau [...]us Phagius a Protestant, touching Traditions deliuered by word of mouth; and finally by the silenced Ministers in their defense of their Reasons for their refusall of subscription, pag. 188. If then the authorities be of force to be alledged by the Protestants for proofe of other points, shall they not be of the like weight being pro­duced for iustifying of our Catholike doctrine in this Controuersy? Now, whereas some of our Aduersaries to maintaine, that these, and other like sayings for iustifying of Christian Religion, were first forged by Galatinus, or some of his time, and fathered vpon the Iewes for their greater credit; this is most false: for we find, that one Hieronymus de sancta Fide, being a Iew, and conuerted to Chri­stianity in the time of Pope Benedict the 13. (which was a good time before Galatinus) whose Phisitian he was, wrote a booke entituling it, Hebraeo-mastyx, or Vindex Impietatis, ac Perfidiae Iudaicae: wherein he proueth diuers points of Christianity from the three alledged Te­stimonyes, and Sentences of the said former Iewes mentioned by Galatinus. This booke of his is printed at Franckford Anno 1602. and Forged.

Let vs come to the Tyme of Grace, when we Gen­tiles first became Antipodes (as it were) to the Iewes; since our heauenly Sunne then setting to them, did in­stantly rise vnto vs, and lay downe Christs owne words, wherin he ordayned this most Reuerend, & high Myste­rie, to wit, Hoc Hoc est Corpus meum.] The Reall Presence is euidently proued out of these words of the Institution, recorded by all the Euangelists. And first to giue a short Exposition of euery such word therein, which may inforce the true Presence of Christs body, we say, and teach thus. The Pronowne HOC, must be taken heere, either Adiectiue­ly, or Substantiuely; if it be to be taken Adiectiuely, then it is to agree with some Substantiue, and consequently it must demonstrate Corpus, and not Panis, because the word Panis (being in Greeke [...]) is in both tongues of the masculine Gender. And yet this Pronowne being in Greeke [...], vsed heere by the Euangelists, and in Latin Hoc, is in both the said Tongues of the Neuter Gender: so in the other sen­tence following, Hic est Sanguis meus, the Pronowne Hic, cannot de­monstrate Vinum, because Vinum is of the Neuter Gender. Now if the particle Hoc, be taken substantiuely, then Hoc must heere signifie Haec Res, but that this word Hoc, or Haec res, should predicate of the bread there present, were ridiculous and absurd, for we doe not v­sually say Hoc, signifying Haec res, if the thing be present, and knowne, except the said thing be of the Neuter Gender; and the reason hereof is, in that seeing the Subiectum ought to be more knowne, then the Pradica [...]um, if therefore the Subiectum be knowne to the hearers in particuler, it ought not to be deliuered by an vniuersall Name, but only then it is so vniuersally to be deliuered, when it is only knowne in generall. Therefore seeing the Apostles did at the Last Supper see bread in our Sauiours hands, and knew it to be bread, it had beene an absurd kind of speach, if our Sauiour had said of the bread, Hoc est. Corpus meum, since he ought to haue said, Hic Panis est Corpus meuin. This point is also made more euident out of the Greeke Text : for if Hoc should haue demonstrated Bread, then by the same reason, the Pronowne Hic, in these words, Hic est Sanguis meus, should de­monstrate Vinum, and not Sanguis. But S. Luke is manifestly a­gainst this second point, who cap. 22. thus saith : [...]. viz. Hic Calix no­uum Testamentum in Sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, where the words in Greeke signifying, qui effunditur, are not ioyned in con­struction with those words, in Sanguine meo, but with the other words Hic Calix. Therefore whereas S. Luke saith, that the Cup was shed for vs (but the Cup it selfe, or the wine in the Cup is not shed for vs but the bloud of Christ) it followeth that Calix heere doth not signi­fie a Cup of wine, but a Cup of bloud; Therefore it remaineth by force of inference of the former premises, that the Pronowne Hoc in the words of the Institution doth demonstrate not Bread, but that which is conteyned vnder the species, and forme of bread, the which thing, though afore it was bread, yet after the words ended, and per­fected by our Lord, it was the body of Christ. Touching the Verbe (EST) in the said words of the Institution, which word our Aduersaries doe striue to prooue, that it is heere taken for Significat, whereas the Catholikes doe teach, that the word Est implyeth heere no other signification, then it owne naturall signifi­cation. Now this is proued; First, because we find not Tropes, or Fi­gures to be placed in Verbes, but by reason of some peculiar thing, or nature, which is implyed in one Verbe, and not in another; but the Verbe [...]st signifieth nothing else, then a Coniunction of one thing with another, or a common being incident to all things. Againe, this Verb Est, ca [...] neuer leaue it owne signification, in that it is the Copula of all Propositions. Therfore since of necessity it is in euery Proposition, it cannot leaue it owne signification, and receaue another. Lastly, and chiefly, this Verbe hath the most simple, and most common si­gnification, so as all other Verbes may be resolued into it, and some­thing besides; Thus were solues Plato legit, id est, Est l [...]ge [...]; hence it followeth, that this verbe Est (because it being the most simple of all Verbes, cannot be resolued into it selfe, and something besides) cannot be drawne to receaue the signification of any other Verb. Now against this doctrine, the example of words obiected, when Est in ta­ken ordinarily for Significat, preuayleth nothing : As for example, [...]raecari; est Ora [...]e, the reason heer of being, in that the essence of a signe is signification, therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est, i [...] vnderstood the essence of the same signe. Now then, seing in those said former examples, and propositions one signe doth predicate of another (for words are nothing else but signes) it followeth, that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat, and yet without any Trope therin. Touching the word CORPVS, in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure, then in the former Verbe Est: Now, that this word Corpus cannot signifie figura [...] Corpo­ris (as our Aduersaries pretend) is most euident. And, first this is proued out of the words following, to wit, Quod pro vobis d [...]tur; in Greeke being for the word datur, [...] ▪ as also out of these other following touching the Cup, Qui pro vobis effunditur; in Greeke [...]. Now, these two Greeke Participles, being put in the Nomi­natiue case, ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case, therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which [...] called Corpus, and Sanguis, and not with any words put in other cases, as Corporis, and Sanguinis; Therfore either the true Body, & Bloud is in the Eucharist, or his Body by way of representation, and signifi­cation only, to wit, the Bread, and Wine were giuen for vs, and shed for vs, which is absurd to affirme. Secondly, the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc, for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate. Bread, there is nothing left, of which these word [...] [...]ig [...] Corporis, should predicate, except they will say, that the t [...]ue▪ and na­turall Body of Christ is a signe, and figure of it selfe. Lastly, the Body of Christ, wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture, is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body, to wit, the Church, or for his true, and naturall Body: but for a signe, and figure of his body, we neuer find it to be taken. Therfore the Construction of the Sacramen­taries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced, & without any example, or president of that kind throughout the whole Scri­pture. But the more euidētly to proue, that the words of the Instituti­on cānot be taken figuratiuely, I do further present (besides what hath bene already alledged) to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations. First, that this Pronowne Hoc, designing some particuler thing, pr [...]uents all Figuratiue constructions; And therfore we find, that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe, the Pronowne Hoc is wanting, as in these, Ego sum Ostium, Ego sum Vit [...] &c. Secondly, In all Metaphoricall speaches, that are vsed by way of Explication, it is not accustomed, that one thing do predicate, or be affirmed of another thing, except the Praedicatum be some such thing, in the which the propriety (according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended) is more knowne and euident, then it is in the other thing, of the which the said Metaphor is affir­med. And this is the reason, that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another, for the most part in genere, or in spe­cie at least; But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution. For heere (according to our Aduersaries) the Body, and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread, and Wine, and yet the vertue of nourishing (which they heere assigne to be the ground of the sup­posed figuratiue speach) is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ, then in the Bread and Wine, which before his pro­nouncing of the words, Christ did hould in his hands. Thirdly, It is to be obserued, that in the words of the Institu­tion, the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate, or are affirmed of Bread and Wine, but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing, but with confusion and vncertainty, to wit, of the Pronowne Hoc. And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature, doth predicate of another thing of a dif­ferent nature, as Christus erat petra &c. Fourthly, we are heere to note the words following; to wit, quod pro vobis datur, qui pro vobis effunditur &c. Which are added to de­monstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation. But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded, but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing, from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne. Thus one may say : Caesar was a Lion, by reason of his courage & fortitude, which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the na­ture of the Metaphor. But now if the addition of words following, doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor, but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed, then doth such an Addi­tion manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation: as in these words : That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse, who was borne of a Virgin, where we find, that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor, do intimate a Propriety and literall accep­tion of the former words concerning Christ. In like sort we say, that those words : Quod pro vobis tradetur, &, Qui pro vobis fundetur &c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you &c. and, VVhich shall be shed for you &c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing, which they should haue done, if the Propositions (to which they are adioyned) had bene Metaphoricall; but they do signify, that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption, which point hath no ne­cessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing. And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution. est Corpus meum, &, Hic est Sanguis meus [Page 70] &c. A text in respect of a A Sacrament instituted heerin.] Sacraments are accusto­med to be instituted by God in most plaine words, least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof, as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law, and of Baptisme. Sacrament instituted here­in, of a Testament A Testament left therby.] That the Eucharist contey­neth in it selfe a Testament, appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine. But nothing is accu­stomed to be expressed in more plaine, and litterall words, then a VVill or Testament, that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention, as touching the Will of the Testator. And this appea­reth by the example of the old Testament, which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper, and familiar words. The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men. left therby, and of a Precept, A Precept, or Law.] That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist, appeareth out of those words, Acci­pite, Edite, hoc facite. But the words of Lawes, and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous, and cleere, since otherwise occasion of erring would presently arise: Hence is it, that not only the Decaloge, but also other Passages of the old Law, wherein certaine rites are ordained, are set downe in very plaine, and proper words. In like sort we say, that seing the Institution of the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe (in the iudgements of all) one of the chiefest dogmaticall points of Christian Religion, it therefore ought to be deliuered without any Tropes, or Figures: for we find that all such principle Articles of Religion, and Faith are deliuered in Scripture in a most facile, and easy phrase of speach. and Position of faith contayned therin (euer to continue in the Church) necessarily challenging a literall, plaine, and obuious Interpretation: Yet our Tropicall, and Fi­guratiue Sectaries are not heere affraid (o monstrous im­piety!) euen to force, and violate with their strained Glosses the true sense therof.

Let vs examine the former words, by recurring to the Greeke, wherin the Euangelists (our Lords true Hi­storians) did first write, to wit, [...] [...] &c.] This point is explicated aboue at the letter (h) in the explication of the Pronowne Hoc. [...]; where the words do by all naturall Construction signifie, that the Cup was shed for vs, and consequently that Wyne was not in the Cup. They reply, that the words (heere making for vs) are meere Surreptitious.] So saith Beza, as not being able to an­swere to the argument of the Catholikes, drawne from the Greeke Text. surreptitious, and in tyme by negligence crept out of the margent into the text; thus daring in a superci­lious, and impudent manner, to expunge out of the ho­ly Writ it selfe, what may seeme to eneruate, and destroy their Typicall Communion.

Let vs passe on further to such Texts of the Apostle, which do imply an vse, and practice of the Eucharist; as, Calix Calix Benedictionis.] 1. Cor. c. 10. In English thus: The Chalice of benediction, which we do blesse, is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ? And the Bread, which we breake, is it not the parti­cipation of the Body of Christ? Now this place affoards diuers Argu­ments in proofe of our Catholike doctrine. And First from those first words, Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus. Out of which words we deduce, that Consecration is necessary to the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but it were not necessary, if the Eucharist were but only a Figure of our Sauiours Body, since for the effecting of thus much, the first in­stitution of Christ, and his will manifested in the Holy Scriptures were sufficient; for the Paschall Lambe, and Manna were figures of Christs Body, & Sacraments (according to our Aduersaries doctrine) and yet there was not required any consecration for the making of those figures. In like sort we find, that no Consecration is vsed to the water of Baptisme, to make it thereby a Sacrament. Another Argument may be taken from the words, Panis, quem frangimus. In which place the word Fractio, is as much as Immolatio, or Oblatio, according to that of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur: For all these are the words of the same Apostle in the same Epistle, and intreating of the same matter. Be­sides the Apostle heere describeth the Cup, not by words of distribu­tion, but of Consecration: Therefore it is most probable, that he did in like sort describe the Bread by way of Consecration, not of distri­bution. Now then, if in this place Frangere, doth signify Immolare, to immolate, or offer vp in Sacrifice; then it ineuitably followeth, that the word Panis, doth not here signify naturall wheaten bread, but the very Body of Christ, which is supersubstantiall, & celestiall Bread; for no man will say, that we doe immolate, and offer vp to God plaine naturall Bread. benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio Sanguinis Christi est? Et Panis quem frangimus, nonne cōmu­nicatio Corporis Christi est? As also the said Apostle in ano­ther place, Qui Qui manducat.] 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth, and drinketh vnworthily, eateth, and drinketh iudgement to himselfe, not discorning the Body of our Lord.] Now out of this Text, thus we argue: Heere certaine are repre­hended for the receauing of the body of Christ vnworthili [...], and of such it is said, that they eate, and drinke iudgement, and not life to them­selues. But of these it cannot be said, that they receaue the body of Christ in spirit, and Faith (because in so doing they should receaue it profitably) therefore they receaue it in Body alone, and consequently the Body of Christ is really, and truly in the Eucharist, since the Body of Christ, [...]s it is in heauen, cannot be taken with our bodily mouth. It cannot be replyed heerto (as some of our Aduersaries haue written) that such persons are said by the Apostle to eate iudgment to themselues, because they do not receaue truely the Body of Christ, which God doth offer to them in those signes, which is as much, as if they should cast it vpon the ground, and betrample it. This refuge auayleth nothing, the reason therof being, in that the Apostle in this place faith not, that such offend in not receauing, but in receauing vn­worthily; so as their sinne consisteth in the taking of it, not in the o­mission therof, and not taking. Neither will that other answere of Caluin, lib 4. Instit. c. 17. [...]. 3 [...]. & of Peter Martyr in comment huiu [...] loci, aduantage them any thing a [...] all, who teach; That the meaning of the Apostle in this former place is, that the wicked are said to eate, & drinke to their owne dam­nation, in that by taking of the Eucharist, they wrong the Symboles, or Signes of Christs Body : Now (say they) the iniury offered to a Signe, or Image, redoundeth to that of which it is a Signe, or Image. This answere ouerthroweth themselues, in that it inforceth them to ac­knowledge, that they wrong the Catholikes, against whom they at other times inueigh so much (euen charging them with idolatry ther­in) for giuing acertaine honour to the Images of Christ, & the Saints, and teaching that the reuerence giuen to them is transferred from thē to Christ, and his Saints. As in like sort, the wrong, or iniury done to the Images (in which point the Sectaries of this Age do exceed) re­sults to Christ, and his Saints. Againe, if this were the only reason of S. Paules words, then he which receaueth the Eucharist in mortall sinne (so that he come not with an intention of violating, or disho­nouring the Symboles of Christs Body) should not be guilty of Christs Body, nor eate Iudgment to himselfe, and yet in so doing, he is most guilty therof. The reason of this Inference is, in that, if an Image be destroyed, or defaced by any meanes, so that it be not done with an intention of dishonouring the Saint (wherof it is an Image) there is no offence committed against the Saint. Lastly, by force of this Answere, it should not be lawfull for a sinner, to looke vpō the picture of Christ, nor to heare the word of God, since both these do represent, and offer Christ vnto vs. Hence then we may conclude, that it was not the A­postles meaning, that therfore they did sinne, who did receaue the Eucharist vn worthily, because it doth represent Christ. manducat, & bibit indignè, iudicium sibi manducat, & bibit, non dijudicans Corpus Domini. And againe he there faith, that such an one, reus erit Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini: In all which words the often, and reuerent ingemination of flesh, of bloud, of the Body of Christ, of the most dreadfull comminations, and threats to the vnworthy receauers therof, may seeme well to Pa­raphrase, [Page 71] and comment our Sauiours owne words, and to free them frō all ambiguous acceptation : Yet do they most pertinaciously persist in their former Allegoricall Constructions, abastarding therby the natiue, and ge­nuine sense therof.

Let vs not only fortify our doctrine with the war­rant of Gods word, but also repell all weake assaults, & forces, gathered out of certaine wrested Texts of the said Word, for the impugning of this our faith; for thus do our Aduersaries bandie Scripture against Scripture, as if the Pennes of the Euangelists, and the Apostles had at vnawares made some blots, or blurres of contra­dictions or mistakings.

Now to this their drift many Passages are vrged by them; As first, diuers Diuers examples.] Many examples of this kind are alledged by the Sacramentaries; as Agnus est Pascha, id est Transitus, Exod. 1 [...]. Petra erat Christus, 1. Cor. c. 10. Baptis [...]s est lauacrum regenerationis, Tit. 3. Septem boues sunt septem anni, Gen. 14. Ego sum ostium, Ioan. 20. and diuers other such like. To these I answere, First, that most of these places are s [...]lfly ex­pounded. And, first as touching that, Petra erat Christus, These words (according to the exposition of Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others v­pon this place) are not to be vnderstood of the materiall Rock, which signified Christ, for that followed not the Iewes, but of the spirituall, and inuisible Rock, which prouided all necessary thing [...] for the Iewes, which Rock was properly, and truly Christ as God. Now, though the Trope be, that Christ is there called the Rock, ye [...] by the addition of the word Spiritualis, the Trope is explaned, and therfore this Propo­sition, Spiritualis petra erat Christus, is taken properly and not figu­ratiuely. To that other, Baptis [...] est lauacrum regenerationis, I say, that Baptisme doth not signify only here the Lauacre of Regeneration, but it truly washeth the soule of Man from sinne, if the effect therof be no [...] hindered by our indisposition. To that, Agnus est Pascha, we reply, that Agnus Paschal [...]s, the Paschall Lambe is not heere Tropically called the Pascha, because it signified Transitum, but it was called the Pascha, properly, no other­wise then as the Festiuall Day was called Pascha, from the word de­riued à Transitu Domini; because the Lamb was then sacrificed, and that Day was made Festiuall in remēbrance of that Transitus, or Pass [...] ­ouer. To that, Septem boues sunt septem anni.] we say it is a Par [...]ble, and in such Parables, Similitudes, and V [...]ions, the verbe Est is [...]ken for Significat, and yet without any Trope; the reason heerof being, because (as is aboue touched) th [...] whole essence of all such things i [...] pl [...] ­ced in signification; And therfore the sense of these words is no [...], that the seauen Oxen did signifie the seauen yeares, but that the Oxen ap­peared in vision to signify those yeares. Secondly we answere, that in all examples [...]lledged by our Ad­uersaries, there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope, & Figure: but of the words of the Institution there followeth no expli­cation. Thirdly, in most of the examples alledged by our Aduersaries (for there are diuers others produced by them) euer▪ pr [...]dicat [...] dispa­tatum de disparato, that is, that which is of a most different nature, is said of another thing of a like different nature, [...] in those, Bo­ues sunt Anni, Christus est Ostium &c. for seeing that in these, and such like, the Propositions cannot be by any meanes properly, and literally true, we are forced to expound the same by▪ Tropes, and Fi­gures; But in these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, there is no such kind of strange and vnnaturall predication, at least in the appearance of the words themselues. Lastly, if we should admit that in the examples produced, Est is taken for Significat, yet seing this verbe is more often taken in it owne naturall signification, then otherwise, it followeth, that it should be so taken in the words of the Institution, rather then without sufficient reason to the contrary, to be expounded figuratiuely. Examples (to countermaund the naturall construction of the words of the Institution) wherin by the word Est, is vnderstood Significat. In like sort they obiect, where it is said, That the Eucharist is to be taken in In Remembrance of Christ.] Hoc facite in meam commemo­rationem: Doe this in Remembrance of mee.] From hence it followeth not, that because we are commaunded to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ, that therefore Christs Body is not there re­ally present. For the meaning of these words is set downe by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. saying, Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat: you shall shew the death of our Lord, v [...]till he shall come.] Therefore we are cōmanded to take the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lords death, and Passion, which is not present, but absent, or rather it is not, but was. Remembrance of Christ; That, Christ shall not leaue Not leaue Heauen.] Act. 3. Oportet illum Caelum suscipere vs (que) ad tempus restitutionis omnium. VVhom (meaning Christ) Heauen must receaue, vntill the tyme of the restitution of all things.] It followeth not from hence, that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen: Ergo his Body is not in the Eucharist; for we teach, that Christ ought not to leaue Heauen, or to descend with a Locall Motion, when he is in the Eu­charist, for heere no question i [...] made of the Article of Ascension, but rather of Christs Omnipotency; to wit, whether Christ by his Diuine Power may place himselfe in seuerall places at one Tyme; of which Point it is sufficiently treated aboue in the first Part of this Treatise. Heauen, till the consummation of the world; That Christ to shew himselfe to haue a true Body consisting of flesh, and bones &c. would haue it touched Haue it touched.] P [...]lpate, & videte, quia Spiritus car­nem, & ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere. Handle, and feele, for a Spirit hath not slesh, and bones, as you see mee to haue. Luc. 24.] To ar­gue thus: It is felt, and seene, Ergo, It is a body, is a good consequence▪ and this is the force of our Sauiours words. But it is no good sequele to argue thus negatiuely (as our 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 s [...]nsi [...]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 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 The same spirituall meate.] 1. Cor. 10. Patres nostri eamdem [...]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 Entreth in at the Mouth.] Matth. 15. Omne quod intrat in [...]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 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, [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] or forcedly applyed by them, as that they appeare hereby (to vse the Prophets Idiome) 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 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, wherein he immediately speaketh to Man, persuading him without words, and instructing him without Letters, or Characters) where­by his Diuine Godnesse hath vouchsafed to seale vp the truth of this high Mysterie (for heere we may break forth with the Psalmist, Mirabilia testimonia tua.] Psal. 120. Mirabilia testimonia tua) and these not borrowed out of any fabulous Legend, nor grounded vpon vncertaine hear-sayes, but on the graue testimo­nies of most ancient, and learned Authors, and circum­stanced with tyme, place, persons, and other particulers of Morall Certaintie.

Examples hereof are diuers: As that the B. Sacra­ment, in proofe of our Catholike doctrine, hath cured Possessed persons] In vita S. Bernard. l. 2. c. 3. Where it is recorded, that a woman being a long time most dangerously pos­sessed with a Diuell, S. Bernard bringing the Blessed Sacrament, and houlding it ouer the head the of possessed person, dispossessed the Di­uell. possessed persons. That it hath (to the same end) appeared sometimes in the forme of a Humane shape.] Paschasius, lib. de Corpore Domini. c. 14. mentioneth, that a certaine godly Priest prayed denoutly vnto God, that he would vouchsafe to let him see that Body, which he ve­rily belieued did lye vnder the formes of Bread, and Wine, who at the length obteyned his desire, and saw the Body of our Sauiour in the shape of a yong child. true humane shape. That the misbelieuers, or doubters therein haue beene Punished by God.] S. Bernard in the life of S. Malachias reporteth, that a Clergy-man denying the Body of Christ to be re­ally in the Sacrament, was oftentimes admonished by Malachias, but he not acknowledging his Heresie, Malachias prayed to God in these words: Dominus faciat te veritatem confiteri, vel ex necessitate.] to which words the Heretike said Amen. Whereupon presently he was taken with a mortall disease, acknowledged his Heresie, was reconci­led to the Church, and instantly after dyed. In like sort Tilmannus Bredenbach [...]us, l. 6. Sacrarum collationū. c. 60. reporteth, that in a Citty of Geldria Anno 1561. die 8. Aprilis, the Parish Priest of the Towne did carry (after the custome of Catho­likes) the Blessed Sacrament to a sick woman, and passing through a a streete, where two yong youths were wagering, whether of them could soonest swallow downe their Easter Egge, the one of them be­ing an Heretike, said, that he could sooner swallow downe his egge, then the Woman could swallow her God; wherupon he putting the Egge into his mouth, the Egge did sticke in the middest of his throat, and he perceauing the same, did take a white candle (which was neere to him) and with it endeauoured to thrust the Egge downe, but he fainting, instantly dyed, his face growing most black, and vgly to behould; And after he being opened, the Egge was found not in the throate, but in the other part called aspera Arteria, or Wind­pipe. punished by God, euen with death.

Lastly (to omit some of other kinds) that the truth [Page 73] hereof hath beene confirmed by the testimonies (such as they could giue) euen of Bruite Beastes.] Antoninus in summa historiali, part. 3. titul. 24. c. 3. relateth, that S. Antony disputing with a certaine He­retike (who denyed the Reall Presence) in the Countrey of To [...]osa, the Heretike demaunded, that the truth therof might be confirmed by S. Antony, by some Miracle, and said, that he without some such proofe would not belieue the Reall Presence. It was concluded be­tweene thē, that the Heretike hauing an Oxe, or some such beast, he should forbeare to giue him any meate at all for the space of three dayes, and then after S. Antony should bring the Blessed Sacrament where the Beast was, and the Heretike should set before him some corne, if then the Beast should not touch the corne, but prostrate himselfe (in such sort as he could) before the Blessed Sacrament, that then the Heretike would be content to belieue the Catholike doctrine therin; All which being thus far prepared in the presence of infinite people, S. Antony houlding the Eucharist in his hands, spake to the Beast certaine words, whereupon the Beast hauing Corne before him, did eate no part thereof, but with bowing downe his head, and body, did prostrate himselfe before the Blessed Sacrament to the great wonder, and confirmation of the faithfull. Another Example heere happened in our Coūtry in the Church of S. Paul in London, as VValdensis reporteth (who was there pre­sent) tom. 2. c. 63. A certaine Mechanicall fellow, not belieuing the Reall Presence, was conuented in the Church before the Arch-Bishop; and obstinately answered the Bishop, that he would rather worship a spider, then the Eucharist; at the speaking wherof, instant­ly there came downe a huge Spyder by his threed, or Web from the top of the Church, hastning to enter into the Heretickes mouth, which was preuented, but by much difficulty of the standers by. brute Beasts (for it is said, Glorificabit me bestia Agri.] Esay 43. Glorificabit me Bestia agri:) Thus Creatures, which want Reason, haue heere exceeded in vse thereof Men, who only enioy Reason: Yet doe they hould all such narrations but as forged wonders, and condemne with a censorious temeritie the belieuers of such, of a meere doting Doting credulity.] So doe most of the Sacramentaries answere, as thinking all such reportes to be meere fictions. credulity; or at the most repute them, as prestigious Sleights of the Diuell.] So answereth Peter Martyr to these Miracles lib. contra Gardinerum, confirming this his answere from the Examples of Marcus, and Magus, who both being Arch­heretickes wrought appearing Miracles by the power of the Diuell. But I would demand of Martyr, what comparison is there betweene those Hereticks, and these other holy Men? Againe, I say, that this his Answere cannot be applied to those Miracles heere alledged, which consist in the death of Men, for their deaths were true deaths, and not counterfaite, or forged. sleights of the Diuell. But heere by the way, we are to aduertise them, that if indeed, there were euer any such Miracles exhibited for the confirma­tion of the Catholike faith herein, then is their Sacra­mentarian Heresy to be vtterly abolished; If none such were euer performed, then what greater Miracle, then that an Article of Faith mainly impugning all sense, and yet not warranted by any Miracle, should for so many ages generally be belieued? Or what stronger Reason in defence thereof, then for it to be vnanimously imbraced, and receaued, being aboue Reason?

Let vs shew, That as God was before the Diuell, so Truth (which receaueth her emanation, and flowing from God, the first Truth) is more ancient then falshood, the attendant of those Apostating, & reuolted spirits.

Thus is Antiquity the badge of Truth, and Noueltie of Errour. Now, that the Catholike Faith of the Eucharist is more ancient, then the Sacramentarian Heresy, we proue euen from the Nature of the Conception, Birth, and Growth of euery Innouation of Faith. Of our Faith there can be no instance pretended, when first it VVhen first it beganne.] I know well that most of the vulgar Sacramentaries diuulge in their writings, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation first came in, in the Lateran Councell holden vn­der Innocentius the 3. yea Doctor VVhitaker himselfe is not ashamed to teach so much lib. 7. contra Duraeum. pag. 480. The falshood of which common error is by seuerall meanes discouered. First, because that Councell was gathered chiefely to condemne the contrary doctrine of Berengarius, then first broaching this Heresy; so as this Councell did then suppresse, and disallow all innouation of doctrine; which very point is acknowledged by Fox himselfe, Acts, and Monurn. pag. 1121. who thus there writeth: About the yeare of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be ac­counted Heresy, and in that number was first Berengarius, who liued about Ann. Dom. 1060. Secondly, It is most improbable, that a Councell gathered out of all the most distant Nations of Christendome, should vpon a pre­sent so conspiringly imbrace an innouation of doctrine so contrary to Sense, as the Catholike doctrine herein is. Thirdly, and Lastly, The Protestants themselues doe acquite this Councell from bringing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, since they doe charge diuers Fathers therewith, lyuing long before this Councell of Lateran. As for Example (to omit those confessions of the Protestants, which hereafter vpon another occasion shall be alled­ged) we find, that Doctor Humfrey in Iesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5. thus writeth : In Ecclesiam quid inuexerumt Gregorius, & Augustinus? Intu­lerunt onus cerimoniarum &c. Transubstantiationem &c.] In like sort we find, that Vrsinus Commonefact. cuiusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Caena, pag. 211. reprehendeth Theophylact, and Damascene for the do­ctrine of Transubstantiation in these words: Theophylactus, & Dama­scenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem.] Yea Damascene was so full in this doctrine, that he is charged therewith by diuers other Pro­testants, to wit, Doctor Fulke against Heskins pag. 217. & 204. Oeco­lampadius l. epist. Oecolampad. & Zuing. l. 3. pag. 66 [...]. so true is that confession of Antony de Adamo (a famous Protestant) who thus wri­teth hereof in his Anatomie of the Masse, pag. 236. I haue not hitherto beene able to know, when this opinion of the Reall, and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne.] And thus far of this point; where only it can be obiected, that as the former Councell inuented only the word Transubstantiation, but not the doctrine; so the Councell of Nice inuented the word [...], though the doctrine thereof were afore. be­ganne, and entered into the Church; whereas of the other, we are able to note the Author who first did dis­seminate it, to wit, Berengarius Berengarius Archdeacon.] This appeareth out of Paschasiui lib. de verbis Instit. Sacramenti. Archdeacon of An­giers. [Page 74] The Tyme when: Anno 1051. The place where: France. The paucity (at the first beginning) of his followers; some few schollers first allured to him by gifts. The astonishment of the Church hereat, as won­dering at so strange a Paradoxe (like men gazing at a new appearing Comet :) And lastly the Contradiction, and Opposition.] For he was written a­gainst by Lanfrancus, Guitmunaus, and Algerus. Contradictiō, Opposition, & Censure of the Church giuen against his doctrine in ten Tenseuerall Councells.] To wit, in Concilio Romano, Vercellensi, Turonenfi, Romano vnder Nicolas the 2. Romano vnder Gregorie the seauenth, Romano vnder Innocentius the 3. Viennensi, Romano vnder Iohn the thirtenth, Constantiensi, Tridentino. seuerall Councells, his Heresie being condemned in them all, and himselfe personally Ana­thematized in some of them: So deseruedly was he de­priued of the Communion of the Holy Church, since he laboured to depriue the Church of her Holy Communion.

Adde hereto, for the greater accession of reasons herein, that he was so irresolute in this his Opinion, as that he did abiure it three seuerall tymes; so forsaking his faith twice (for so often he reuolted after his Oath taken) with breach of Faith, though finally he dyed therein Catholike. And thus much of the first origen of the Sa­cramentarian Heresie, from whence it appeareth, that it is of a far later Date, then our Catholike Faith; the dis­couery of all which particulers doth sufficiently argue the falshood therof; since it is true, that to reduce an He­resie to the beginning therof, is a confutation of the said Heresie: Let vs (I say) alledge all this, yet will our Ad­uersaries maintayne the former Innouator, though not as an Inuentor of any New Heresie, but as a Restorer (forsooth) of a former more ancient Faith: wheras in­deed it is most certaine, that before the reuolt of Beren­garius, this rare Vtopian Nouelist, iumping in doctrine with Berengarius, and our Sacramentaries, was Neuer heard of.] For though Ignatius in epist. ad Smyr­nenses maketh mention of some, who denyed the Reall Presence in the Eucharist; yet those Heretickes were not properly, and formally Heretickes in this point, but chiefely in the Article of the Incarnation; for seeing they denyed, that our Sauiour tooke vpon him true flesh, they consequently, and by way of inference only, denyed that his flesh was in the Eucharist. ne­uer heard of in any place or tyme.

And as touching so many Councells condemning [Page 75] Berengarius, they reiect, and traduce them all most vn­worthily, affirming them either to be Schismaticall, or at the most but Men, and therin subiect to Errour. Fye of this Iewish obstinacy of our Sectarie, who spurnes at the alledged Testimonies of whole Councells (the high­est Tribunalls in Gods Church) because they are but Men, and yet himselfe expecteth (for Heresie cannot subsist without Pride) that others should sweare fealtie to his Iudgment, being but the seely weening of one Man.

Lastly, let vs demaund of thē (that seeing they cā ­not be induced to admit our Interpretation of Scripture, nor any other afore alledged Authorities or Reasons; and seeing it is against the custome of al Schooles, & against Reason it selfe, that the Parties should become their own Iudges, & that they relying only vpon Scripture, them­selues only should expound Scripture) whether they will be pleased to acknowledge for Vmpiers in this point the most ancient and learned Fathers; Men in their life time, though much disterminated by Sea, and Land, yet all breathing one, and the same Faith; And though Neu­tralls to our present factions, yet parties (no doubt) to the causes of the said factions: Finally such, as we (who now liue in these Autumnall, and decaying dayes of the Church) may in their writings be able to glasse the face, and beauty of Christs intemerate Spouse, I meane, the purity, and integrity of the faith of Christians, during the Period of the Primitiue Church. But heere euen at the sound, and name of the Primitiue Church, our Ad­uersaries grow pale, and yet they blush; they are affraid to accept of these conditions, as men guilty to themselues of their future ouerthrow; and yet they are ashamed, [Page 77] that the world should at length discerne, that they refuse so reasonable an offer, and that they must needes breake with that Illustrious and Famous Church, the rayes and beames whereof being sent so farre off, doe reflect a grea­ter heate of admiration and reuerence, then such, as are neerer at hand can performe.

In these straights, present shame preponderating, and waighing downe with them all after-dangers, they accept of this our proffer, and so (like Bank-rupts vaun­ting most of their riches, before their neere approaching breach) they pretend great Great confidence &c.] Answerably heerto did M. Iewell make his acclamation at Paules Crosse. O Gregory, O Austen, O Hie­rome &c. If we be deceiued, you haue deceaued vs: this you taught vs. And then further saith in the said Sermon. As I said before, so I say againe, I am content to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Aduersaries, or if all the learned Men that be alyue, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholike Doctour, or Father, or out of any old Generall Councell, or for the space of six hundred yeares after Christ. Which gene­rall Challenge M. Iewell did make concerning 27. seuerall Articles of faith. And which Challenge was afterward iterated by D. VVhita­ker in respons. ad rationes Campiani rat. 5. in these words: Audi Campi­ane, quamea die Iuellus vocem verissimam ac constantissimam emifit, quando ad sexcentorum annorum antiquitatem prouocauit, vobis (que) obtulit, vt si vel vnicam ex aliquo Patre, aut Concilio, claram & dilucidam sententiam afferetis, non recusaret, quin vobis palmam concederet▪ ea est nostrum o­mnium Professio; idem omnes pollicimur, fidem non fallemus. In like sort M. VVillet in his Antilog. pag. 263. writeth: I take God to witnes, be­fore whom I must render account &c. that the same faith and Religion, which I defend, is taught and confirmed in the more substantiall Points by those Histories, Councells, Fathers, that liued within fiue or six hundred yeares after Christ. Finally, M. Sutcliffe in his Examination of Do­ctor Kellisons Suruey saith: The Fathers in all points are for vs, and not for the Pope. Confidence in the Fa­thers (poore men, well knowing, that they are woun­ded almost with euery splinter, and little passage of their writings:) And which is ridiculous, some of them giue out (such is the Serpentine malice of Heresie) that we eyther in this Controuersy, or any other, are vnwilling to submit our selues to the sentence & finall determina­tion of the Fathers, and dare not endure the touch of such a proofe. From which vnworthie recrimination we all so farre disclaime, as that euen in this question heere controuerted we will be content, indisputably to resigne our Iudgements to the Iudgements of the Fathers; so willingly we remember, that it is said Interroga de diebus.] Deuteron. 4. Interroga de die­bus antiquis.

Therefore in the subsequent Chapters, I will set downe such materiall, and weightie Testimonies of them, as we produce in defence of our Faith herein; and will satisfy such their obscure sayings; wherein our Ad­uersaries doe chiefly insist for the impugning of the same : and lastly I will proue by the confessions euen of their owne Brethren that the writings of the Fathers, do altogeather fortify, and confirme the Catholike, [Page 78] Faith in this high Mysterie: So shall the impartiall Rea­der perceaue, that falshood is euer supported with fal­shood, and Heresy begun with lyes, doth finally end with lyes, like vnto warrie Meteors, which still resolue into that, of which they were first engendred.

THAT THE ANCIENT FATHERS taught the Reall Presence. AND First of such their Testimonies, as concerne their Ap­pellation, and Naming of the Eucharist. CHAP. II.

SVCH was the confidence of Confidence of Samnel.] 1. Reg. c. 10. Sa­muel in God, that after he had annoin­ted Saul King of Israel, he was con­tent, that Saul for the time should re­linquish all former right obtained by law full Inauguration, and should ad­uenture his regayning therof by triall of Lots, not doubting, but that God would infallibly tē ­per, and dispose the Lots for Saules aduantage.

And such is the assurance, which we now shew herein: For wheras we haue already drawne our chiefest forces from the holy Scriptures, and other most conuin­cing proofes, for the aduancing, & warranting of our Ca­tholike faith in this weighty Controuersy; Neuerthelesse (as prouoked thereunto through the circular tergiuersa­tion of our Aduersaryes) we are pleased (for the pre­sent) as supposing our selues to be disimpatronized of our best Forts, to suffer the matter to be definitiuely deci­ded by the voices, and suffrages of the ancient Fathers, as by so many Lotts; being acertained, that God hath altogeather directed their pennes (through a prenotion, and foreknowledge of these lamentable times) for the iustifying, and maintaining of this our doctrine; for Dominus Deus.] 2. Machab. 7. Dominus Deus aspiciet veritatem.

This proofe made by the Fathers, we cannot but wil­lingly imbrace, in that we doe acknowledge them to haue beene most shining Lamps in the Church of God; and therefore we will heere vse the light of their Testi­monyes, as a meanes to find out the light of the Truth, imitating therin the three Magi, of whom the Church saith: Lumen requirunt lumine, since a Starre did guide them to their Sunne.

And heere (for the greater satisfaction of our Ad­uesaries) I will restraine my selfe to those Fathers, which liued within the first fiue hundred yeares, both because they doe but scorne with an vnaccustomed insolency (the very eye, and countenance of Heresy) all Doctors of later tymes; as also in that they set downe the Circle of these Ages, as the Horizon, which terminates, and ends our sight betweene the first supposed light of their Ghospell, and the Babylonian, and Cymerian darknesse (to [Page 97] speake in their language) of Romish superstition.

But heare it will not be amisse to instruct the Rea­der aforehand, in what Age or Century uery Father (whose Authority shall heerafter be alledged) did lyue, that thereby he may know how neere or remote in tyme euery one of them was to our Sauiour, and his Apostles.

In the fifth age or hundred yeares from Christ, did liue Gaudentius, Chrysostome, Hierome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Porclus Constantinopolitanus, Theodoret, Gela­sus, Leo, Hilarius Pope, Eusebius Emyssenus.

In the fourth Century, the first Councell of Nyce was celebrated; in the same age liued Athanasius, Hilarius, Cyryl of Ierusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Optatus, Gregorius Nyssenus, and Nazianzenus, Ephrem, Epiphanius.

In the third Age, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian.

In the second, Iustinus Martyr, Pius Pope, Irenaeus.

In the first, euen in the tyme and dayes of the Apo­stles, the disciples of S. Andrew, Ignatius, Dionysius A­reopagita: where we are to remember, that a Father (as for example Iustinus Martyr) may be said to liue in the second age, and yet to haue beene but a hundred and some very few yeares distant from Christ; And the like proportionably may be said of diuers Fathers of the o­ther succeeding Ages.

With these then (and no others) at this tyme will I hold intelligence, whose Iudgements, and sentences (as so many pointed weapons) shall euery way endanger our Sacramentary; since the admitting of their Autho­rities proclaymes his certaine Ouerthrow; the reiecting, his most dishonorable retyring, and giuing backe.

Now, in the handling of this point for the more per­spicuitie, and clearnesse, I will reduce such testimonies [Page 98] of the Fathers, as I intend to alledge, to certaine princi­pall Heads.

The first wherof shall be taken from the different appellations of this great Mysterie, giuen by the Prote­stants, and by the Fathers: where we are to remember, that since Mans immanent Thought (which is an in­ward progression of the Mind) is best become Transient, or externally manifested by the Mediation of wordes; Therfore Nature (Gods obsequious Agent) hath impar­ted to him the vse of Speach, which Speach ought among men to be a true & sincere Interpreter of the Soules men­tall Language, for we find those to haue bene greatly re­prehended, Qui Qui linguis.] Rom. 3. linguis suis dolos [...] agebant. Hence is it, that as long as Man conformes himselfe to Gods inten­ded vse herein, his conceipt, iudgment, & opinion had of any thing, is best discouered by his words deliuered vpon the same.

Now then let vs see, how the Fathers in words en­title this Sacrament. First we find, that they call it, the Body, and Bloud of Christ; againe they further proceed, and call it, The precious Body of Christ, Mans Price, The pledge of Mans health, The most dreadfull Mysteries, and the like. But what? Is this the Dialect of our Aduersa­ries? Or, are they accustomed to speake in this manner of language? No. For when they speake of the Eucha­rist, their naturall and mother tongue, is to tearme it on­ly the Symboles, and signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ, Quantum distat.] Psalm. 103. Quantum [...]stat ortus ab occasu? If then our Aduersaries can in no case brooke to speake hereof, as the Fathers did, how can it probably be presumed, that they belieued therin, as the Fathers did? Since words are the true Counterpane of the Mind, written with the pen of [Page 99] it owne Tongue.

But now to come to these Testimonies, wherin the Eucharist is thus termed, and to beginne with the latter part of the fifth Age, that so ascending vp by degrees to higher tymes, we may consequently ascend in force, & weight of Argument, drawn from such their Authorities. And heere because many testimonies wil occur far more pregnant, & cleare for vs Catholikes, then the Protestāt Reader (not conuersant in the Fathers works) will per­haps expect, and therupon might coniecture some sleight, & imposture to be vsed in the Englishing of them, I haue therfore thought good to set downe in euery passage, & head of their authorities, six testimonies ech of them at large in Latin of seuerall Fathers (for to obserue this Me­thod all were needlesse, as tending only to fill vp paper.) The places that in this sort I make choice of, are such, as seeme more conuincing, & euident then the rest, so that if the Reader do see, that the more forcible authorities are free from all suspected corruption in the translating of them, he may the more probably assure himselfe, that the rest are in no sort wrested from their true, and natu­rall meaning; for who in this sort corrupteth, is presumed to vse his art in those passages, as make most for his aduā ­tage. Thus shal the Reader discerne the Catholiks integri­tie, candor, & confidence in this weighty Controuersie.

First then occurreth S. Leo, who thus writeth Serm. 6. de Ieiunio septimi mensis. Sie sacrae mensae communicare de­betis, vt nihil prorsus de veritate Corporis Christi, & San­guinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, & frustra ab illis, Amen, respondetur, à quibus contra id quod accipitur, disputatur.] So you ought to communicate of the holy Table, as that you doubt not at all of the Body & [Page 100] Bloud of Christ. For this is taken by the mouth, which is be­lieued by faith, and in vaine they do answere, Amen, who dispute against that which is taken.]

S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who was President of the Generall Councell of Ephesus, against Nestorius the Heretike, epist. ad Nestorium saith: Sic etiam ad mysticas be­nedictiones &c. Thus do we come to the mysticall blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the holy Body, and precious Bloud of Christ, who is the Redeemer of vs all; we take it not, as common flesh (God forbid) nor as the flesh of a man sanctified, but the proper flesh of the Word himself.] Which te­stimony was approued by the Generall Ephesine Coūcell.

S. Augustine expounding those words of the Psalme 21. Manducauerunt, & adorauerant omnes diuites plebis, in epist. 1 [...]0. c. 17. ad Honoratum, thus writeth : Et ipsi adducti sunt &c. And they are brought to the Table of Christ, and they take of his body, and bloud; they worship only, but they are not fed therewith, because they doe not imitate: for they eating him who is poore, do not brooke, that them­selues should be poore.] Heere for further explication we may adde, that proud and wicked men doe take from the Table of our Lord the body, and bloud of Christ, and that they doe adore it; from the which it followeth, that (according to S. Augustines Iudgement) by the bo­dy of our Lord, is not vnderstood the signe of the body, to wit, Bread, because Bread it not adored, neither is vnderstood the body of Christ, as it is in heauen, and not vpon the Altar, because S. Augustine saith, it is taken from the Table of our Lord, and by they wicked.

The same S. Augustine also in lib. 2. contra Aduersa­rium Legis, & Prophetarum, c. 9. thus writeth: Mediatorē Dei & hominū, hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis [Page 101] manducandam, bibendum (que) sanguinem dantem fideli corde, at (que) ore suscipimus: quamuis horribiliùs videatur humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humanum Sanguinem potar [...], quàm fundere. We take with a faithfull heart, and mouth the Mediator of God, and Man, to wit Iesus Christ being Man, who giues his flesh to vs to be eaten, and his bloud to be drunken; though it may seeme a more horrible matter to eate Mans flesh, then to destroy Mans flesh, and to drinke bloud, then to shed bloud.] Where he saith that Christs flesh is not taken only with the heart, but with the mouth : Againe it is not more horrible to eate Mans flesh, and drinke Mans bloud only in figure, & representation, then to kill a Man, or shed his bloud.

He also lib. 9. Confess. c. 13. speaking of his Mother saith: Adcuius pretij nostri &c. To the Sacrament of our pryce (meaning the Eucharist) thy handmayd did bind her soule with the band of faith.]

Againe Tomo nono tract. 11. in Ioan. explicating that, Iesus non se credebat ijs, saith, 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 [Page 102] 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 ver [...]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 Sacramēt 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, at (que) dicat de Pa­ne, [Page 103] Hoc est Corpus meum, quis deinc [...]ps aude [...]t dubitare? Ac eod [...]m quo (que) 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 La [...]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 cā ­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 [Page 104] 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, illud (que) 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 [Page 105] 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 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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 108] 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 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 Non minus est.] Ambros. de mysterijs initiand. c. 9. minus est nouas rebus dare quàm 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 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 [Page 109] 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 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 [Page 110] 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 therof remayning, or superfluously redoūding; 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 [Page 111] 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 Mē ­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 Sacramēt. 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, [Page 112] 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? maiorem (que) vim esse benedictionis, quàm 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 depon [...]r [...]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, quàm 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 [Page 113] 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 Cōsecration 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, ne [...] ex gustu rem iudices &c. Hoc sciens, & pro [Page 114] certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis, non esse panem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse Cor­pus Christi: Et vinum quod à notis conspicitur, ta [...]tsi sen­sui gustus vinum esse videatur, non tam [...] vinum, sed San­guin in Christi esse: which latter words are afore related. Doe not then consider it as bare Bread, or bare Wine; for it is the Body, and Bloud of Christ according to the word of our Sauiour himselfe. For though sense may suggest this to thee, yet let thy faith so confirme this, as that thou iudge not the matter from thy tast.] And againe after. Hoc sciens &c. This knowing, and accoun­ting it as most certaine, that this Bread, which we see, is not Bread, though our Tast do tell vs that it is Bread, but it is the Body of Christ; and the Wine, which we behould, though it seemeth wine to our sense of Tast, yet it is not Wine, but the Bloud of Christ.] And can any Catholike at this time speake more plainly, then are the sayings of this Father? One, who is most ancient, learned, and of whose booke (from whence these testimonies are produced) there was neuer any doubt made.

S. Cyprian serm. de Coena Dom. Panis iste, quē Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, Omni­potentia Verbi factus est Caro, & sicut in persona Christi Hu­manitas apparebat, & latebat Diuinitas; ita Sacramento visi­bili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit Essentia. This Bread, the which our Lord gaue to his Disciples, is changed not in outward appearance, but in substance, and by the Omni­potency of the Word it is made Flesh. And as in the Per­son of Christ the Humanity did appeare, and the Diui­nity did lye hid; so in the visible Sacrament, the diuine Essence hath ineffably infused it selfe.] But what O­mnipotency is required to giue a signification to any sub­stance? [Page 115] Or if the Change be only by adding a new si­gnification, how can the Bread be said to be changed, non effigie, sed natura? Lastly, the Diuinity was truly, and really latent in Christs Humanity, therfore the Bo­dy, and Bloud must be truly and really latent vnder the formes of Bread, and Wine; which to be Cyprians mea­ning appeareth euen by the word Ineffabiliter, there ad­ded by him; but what difficulty, or mysterie is it, that Bread should signify Christ?

Tertullian l. 2. ad Vxorem: where speaking of Chri­stian Women that are married to Gentiles, and shew­ing that such marriages are hurtfull to the receauing of the Blessed Sacrament, thus saith: Non s [...]iet Maritus &c. The Husband shall not know, what thou doest tast before all other meates; and if he did, he belieueth not the Bread to be him, whom it is said to be.] Which wordes do euident­ly imply a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ.

Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haereses. cap. 34. disputing against such Heretikes, as denyed Christ to be the Sonne of the Creatour, thus disputeth : Quomodo autem constabit ijs &c. How shall it be made euident to such men, that Bread (wherupon thankes are giuen) to be the Body of Christ, and the Cup, the Bloud of him, if they will not acknowledge him to be the Sonne of the Maker of the World? That is, the Word of him, by the which Word, the Wood doth fructifie, the Springs do flow; who first giueth a kind of grasse, then an Eare of corne, lastly the Eare full of wheate.] Heere we are to obserue, that Irenaeu [...] proueth Christ to be the Cre­atour from this, that Bread by force of Consecration is made the Body of Christ; therfore he belieued that Bread was really, and truly changed into the Body of Christ, and not only in signification; for it is not an imposition [Page 116] of a new signification, but a true, and reall chang which necessarily requireth Gods Omnipotency.

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONTEYNING The Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Great Mysteries. CHAP. IIII.

A THIRD point (which indeed is the Cēter wherin the Lines of diuers such passages doe meet) manifesting the Fa­thers beliefe heerein, may be the Ob­seruation of their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other things. Thus they compare it with the Paschal Lambe, with the Manna, with Panis Propositions; teaching, that it doth transcend all these, as much as a Diuine, and in­consumptible substance excells a terrene, and corrupti­ble, the Body the shaddow, and the Truth the Figure. But if Christs Body be heere only by representation, then is the Eucharist a thing corruptible, a shadow, and a [Page 118] meere Figure; and then may our Sauiour worthily vse to­wards them the expostulation in Esay, Cui Cui comparastis me?] Esa. 46. compara­stis me.

Others also in regard of the sublimity therof, com­pare it with the Creation (as I touched before) where (not to insist in other points) we find, that by force of the Creation, all Creatures are conteyned in the Crea­tour (for in ipso viuimus &c.) and by force of this Sacra­ment, the Creatour is conteyned (after a peculiar man­ner) vnder the formes of some of his meanest Crea­tures.

Some likewise do teach (besides other such compa­risons) that Christ in the Sacrament is to the eye of the soule, as when Angells by assuming bodyes appeared to Men, though these being spirituall, seemed corporall, and Christ being Corporall appeareth heere only as spi­rituall.

Finally, diuers of them seeme to equall it with the Mysterie of the Incarnation; and one Father resembleth the difficulty herein to that, where Christ (being as well God as Man) was borne of a Woman, and a Virgin. Now, if the chiefest obscuritie in the Eucharist doth rest in Types, Representations, and Resemblances, how cold, disproportionable, dissorting, yea absurd and false are the comparisons heere made with those former stu­pendious Mysteries of Christianity, and particulerly of the Incarnation? Where (to omit all other passages ther­of aboue our capacity) we find the Vine to bud out of the Branch; the Ocean to flow from a shallow Riuer; and the Sunne to borrow it light from a small Starre.

First then occurreth S. Leo serm. 7. de Passione Dom. who thus saith: Vt ergo Vinbrae &c. That therfore the Shad­dowes [Page 119] might giue place to the Body, and Images, or Resemblā ­ces to the presence of the Truth, the ancient obseruation is ta­ken away by a new Sacrament; the Hoast is changed into an Hoast, bloud excludeth bloud, and the Legall Solemnity whiles it is changed, is fulfilled, and accomplished.

S. Augustine l. 3. Trinit. c. 10. Illas etiam Nubes &c. What man knoweth, how those Clouds, and Fires were made, which the Angells assumed, and tooke on to signify, what they were to deliuer or speake, yea though our Lord, or the Holy Ghost appeared in these formes? Euen as Infants knew not that, which is placed vpon the Altar, and consumed after the celebration of Piety is finished, how it is made, and by what meanes it is vsed in Religion. And if they neuer learned, ei­ther by their owne experience, or of others, and should neuer see the formes of those things, but in the celebration of Sacra­ments, when it is offered, & giuen, and said to them by most graue authority, 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 [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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 quo (que) in Caelis regium Corpus, quod nunc in Terra videndum tibi proponitur; ne (que) enim Angelos, ne (que) 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, [Page 123] 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 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 [Page 125] 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 [Page 126] 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 [Page 127] 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 : Pr [...]h Scel [...]l [Page 128] 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 Eucharistiā, 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 alteratiō 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 [Page 131] 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 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 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 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 [Page 132] 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 d [...]part from thee, since [...]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 sub [...]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, [Page 133] 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, [Page 134] 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 vbi (que) 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 quo (que) tenentes: nam verbis illius defraudari non possumus: Sensus noster deceptu facillimus est, quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc [Page 135] 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, id est, ani­mam &c. He that laid downe a greater thing for thee (to wit his soule) why should he disdayne to deliuer to thee his Bo­dy? Therfore let vs Priestes, as well as others heare how ad­mirable a thing is graunted to vs; Let vs heare (I beseech you) and let vs tremble therat, for he hath deliuered his Flesh to vs he hath laid downe himselfe to be sacrificed.]

And the same Father l. 3. de Sacerdotio. O miraculum! ô Dei benignitate! &c. O the Miracle! ô the goodnesse of God! He that sitteth aboue with his Father, euen in the very same instant of tyme is handled with the hands of all, and deliue­reth himselfe to such, as are willing to entertaine, and imbrace him.]

Gaudentius tract. 2. in Exod. saith: Quod annuntiatum est credas &c. Thou maist belieue that, which is shewed thee, for that, which thou takest is the body of that Heauenly Bread, and the bloud of that sacred Vine, for when he deliuered conse­erated Bread, and Wine to his Disciples, he said: Hoc est Corpus meum. Hic est Sanguis meus. Let vs belieue him, whom heretofore we haue belieued, for Truth knoweth not to lye.]

S. Ephrem lib. De Natura Dei minimè scrutanda. c. 5. [Page 136] thus writeth : Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia? Si ista curiosè ri­maris, iam non fidelis, sed curiosus vocaberis. Esto fidelis, at (que) innocens, participa immaculato corpori Domini tui fide plenissi­ma, certus quòd agnum ipsum integrum comedis. Why doest thou search things which are inscrutable? If thou doest weigh these things curiously, then thou shalt be called not faithfull, but curious. Be thou Faithfull, and Inno­cent; participate thou of the immaculate Body of thy Lord, being assured through a most strong faith, that thou doest eate the very whole Lambe it selfe.]

And the same Father after in the said booke: Hoc sa­nè excedit omnem admirationem &c. This verily exceedeth all Wonder, all Thought, and all Speach, which the only Begot­ten Sonne of God Christ our Sauiour hath performed to vs. He hath giuen to vs fire, and the spirit to eate, and drinke, to wit his Body, and Bloud.] Heere the Myracle exceeding Mans capacity, the difficulty of belieuing it, and the inscruta­blenesse therof do proue, that the Eucharist in his Iudg­ment, was not only materiall bread signifying the body of Christ.

S. Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 2. de Paschate, thus writeth: Abs (que) confusione, & dubio come de corpus, & sangui­nem bibe, si saltem vitae desiderio teneris: ne (que) sermonibus, qui de carne habentur, fidem deneges, ne (que) ob passionem offen­daris. Constans esto, firmus, & stabilis, in nulla re propter Aduersariorum sermones fluctues. Eate his body, and drinke his bloud without any confusion, or doubt, if at least thou haue any desire of health: neither deny thy faith herein for any speaches, which may proceed of flesh, nei­ther be thou scandalized by reason of his Passion. Be thou constant, firme, and stable, neither fluctuate, nor doubt thou by reason of any speaches of the Aduersaries.] [Page 137] where we are to note, that he persuadeth his Reader to this so great a Mystery, though the Aduersaries (to wit, the Gentile Philosophers) doe scoffe thereat, meaning in that the Christians belieued, that they did eate the Flesh of Christ; which cohortation of Nazianzene were needlesse, if only we doe eate the flesh of Christ in signe, and Figure.

S. Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechetica. c. 36. & 37. thus writeth : Considerandum est, quomodo fieri queat, vt cùm vnum illud corpus assiduè per totum orbem terrarum, tot fidelium millibus impertiatur, totum cuius (que) perpartem euadat, & in seipso totum permaneat. It is to be considered, how it can be effected, that, that very one same Body can dayly throughout the whole world be distributed to so many thousands of the faithfull, it notwithstanding re­mayning whole in it selfe, and whole, or entyre in euery part.] But this were idely demanded, if the Body of Christ were eaten only in signe, since there is no diffi­culty in apprehending the eating of it in signe, and figure.

S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 5. saith: Deinde ipse Dominus Iesus testificatur nobis, quòd corpus suum accipiamus, & sanguinem, numquid debemus de eius fide, & t [...]st [...]ficatione dubitare? Et infra: Dicit tibi Sacerdos, Corpus Christi, tu dicis, Amen. Hoc est verum. Quod confitetur lingua, teneat affectus.] Furthermore euen our Lord himselfe doth testify vnto vs, that we take his Body, and Bloud. What ought we to doubt of his credit, and testimony? And afterwards. The Priest sayth to thee, The Body of Christ, thou sayst, Amen. This is true: therefore let thy affection hold that, which thy tongue confesseth.]

The first Councell of Nyce (as it appeareth in the [Page 138] Acts of the said Councell) thus saith: Item etiam hic in diuina Mensa &c. Furthermore in this diuine Table, let vs not only with humility consider the Bread, & the Cup, but lifting vp our mind in faith, let vs vnderstand, that, in that sacred Ta­ble, there is placed that Lambe of God, who taketh away the sinns of the world, & that he is vnbloudily sacrificed by Priests: and we truly taking his precious Body, & Bloud, do belieue the taking therof to be a signe of our Resurrection, and therfore we take not in a great quantitie, but in a small, that therby we may know it to be taken not for society, but for sanctification.] In these words the Coūcell perswades vs that we should not rest in the formes of Bread, & Wine (as if nothing were there else) but that we are to consider, that there is the true Body, and Bloud of Christ, though to our Eye it see­meth otherwise.

Now that this is the meaning of the Coūcell, appea­reth: First, because it there teacheth, that we do take Pre­ciosum Corpus eius verè, his precious Body truly: where the word Verè doth beare an opposition to that, which is in Figure. Secondly, in that the Councell saith: that the Lambe of God is sacrificed by Priests vpon the holy Ta­ble, which wordes cannot extend to Christ, as he is in heauen only. Thirdly, in that the Councell saith, that we are to apprehend by faith, that the Lambe of God is pla­ced vpon that holy Table, therfore the Councell did teach, that Christ himselfe was vpon the Altar, and not only in Heauen, as our Aduersaries do hould. So forci­ble and strong is this graue Testimony of so Ancient, and Reuerend a Councell in defence of our Catholike do­ctrine heerin.

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES EXPRESSING The effect of the Eucharist, and the veneration exhibited to the same. CHAP. VI.

THE fifth Mount of the Fathers Au­thorities in this Controuersie is ga­thered, or heaped togeather out of such their Sentences, cōteyning the Effect, Vertue, and Energy of the Eucharist, as also their care, reuerence, and ve­neration exhibited to the same. Con­cerning the first point, they teach, that it is the Pledge of our Resurrection, and Saluation; that by it (to vse the Apostles phrase) we are made diuinae Diuinae &c.] 2. Pet. 1. consortes Naturae, that Christ is therby inwardly, and corporally vnited with vs. Which corporall vnion (being most precious) serues as a meanes to procure our coniunction (caused [Page 140] thereby) with him, in all vertues flowing from him, as from our Sauiour, and Redeemer; And therefore we are not only armed by force hereof against the assaults of all future temptations, but also Grace is deriued to vs, to haue a true loathing, and contrition of our former Im­pieties, & withall to receaue a full remission of the same; for we hold, that this Holy Mysterie is not only a Com­memoration, but also an application of Christs death to vs, and we willingly acknowledge, that touching the expiation of our Sinnes, the fire of the Fathers wrath is only quenched in the Bloud of the Sonnes Passion.

All which Celestiall Operations, as streaming from the Blessed Eucharist, he may more easily belieue, who will consider, that Christ is the proper Sphere, wherein the soule reposeth her selfe; His grace being the spirituall Ayre that she anhales, and drawes in, the which she no sooner ceaseth to Breath, then she ceaseth to lyue; for it is written, She, who She who liueth.] 1. Tim. 5. liueth in sinne, dyeth while she liueth.

Now as for the second Point; we gather out of their Writings, first that they were most sollicitous, & carefull, that no part of the Consecrated Hoast should fall vpon the ground; and if casually it did, then was that place scraped, and the small parcells thereof put in the fire. Se­condly, that they did adore the Sacrament; which A­ction how can it be giuen by them without manifest danger of Idolatry, if nothing but Bread, and Wyne be there? Thirdly, that they taught, that the Eucharist was to be inuoked, according to that of S. Basil: Verba Inuocationis, dum ostenditur Panis Eucharistiae &c. quis San­ctorum nobis in Scripto reliquit?

Finally, that euen Angells (capitibus inclinatis) did [Page 141] attend vpon the Altar, whilest the most dreadfull Sacri­fice of Christs Body, and Bloud was offered vp in the formes of Bread, and Wyne: Hostia in manibus (sayth one One Father.] Chrysost. homil. 21. in Act Apostol. Father) adsunt Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest filius Dei; cum tanto horrore astant omnes. Which Harmo­ny, and Concent of doctrine in the monuments of so many of the Fathers, if it seeme harsh, and distunable to our nice Sectaryes, we meruayle not, since they haue vowed, that their eares shall receaue no other intelli­gence herein, then from their Neighbours, their Eyes. But we Catholikes, who cannot brooke to haue the hu­manity of Christ (which we assure our selues to be in the Eucharist) diuorced from the Diuinity, doe easily belieue, that in this most holy Oblation, his Godhead is there wayted on with millions of Angells: No lesse hap­py then are those most blessed Spirits for enioyning the honor of such an Attendance, then are those men, in whom he vouchsafeth for the time to Inne, that in him themselues may hope for euer after to dwell.

First then S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. thus writeth : Sicut scintilla ignis &c. Euen as a sparke of fyre lyghting vpon hay, or straw, doth presently inflame it all; euen so the word of God ioyned to our corruptible nature by meanes of the Eucharist, doth make it all to rise immortall, & glorious.

And, l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. Non negamus recta nos fide &c. We do not deny, that we are ioyned with Christ spiritually in true faith, and sincere charity, but we altogeather deny, that we are not in no sort conioyned with him according to the flesh, and we affirme it to be altogeather contrary to the diuine Scri­ptures. And a little after, he thus enlargeth himselfe: An fortassis putat &c. What is it to be thought, that we know not [Page 142] the vertue of the mysticall Benediction? The which being in vs, doth it not make through the communication of the Flesh of Christ, Christ himselfe corporally to dwell in vs?] Where we see, that he teacheth, that we receaue Christ not only by Faith (as our Aduersaries do teach) but also corporally, so making an Antithesis, or opposition between these two manners of receauing him.

S. Augustine l. 9. Confess. c. 13. speaking of his Mo­ther Monica, thus writeth : Tantummodo memoriam sui &c. Only she desired, that she might be remembred at thy Altar, where she knew that Holy Sacrifice to be dispensed, by the which that Hand-writing, which was contrary to vs, is cancelled.] But here this Victima or Sacrifice cannot be any thing, but the Flesh of Christ, for the Bread was not sacrificed for vs, and where he saith, that this sacrifice is dispensed, or ministred, at, or from the Altar, he sheweth that he mea­neth not Christ, as he is taken by faith only, but bodily by mouth.

And, Epist. 118. c. 3. he teacheth great Reuerence to be giuen to the Eucharist, saying, that such as do fre­quent the Sacrament daily out of deuotion, or forbeare it sometime for deuotion also, may be compared to Za­chaeus, or the Centurion, wherof the one said, Lord I am not worthy, that thou spouldest enter into my house, the other receaued him into his house. Which comparison had bene most disproportionable, if we take nothing but Bread, as the signe of Christs Body.

And, in Psal. 98. expounding those words, Adora­te scabellum pedum eius, saith : That the Footstoole of our Lords feete is the Earth, according to that of Esay 66. Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum. Now S. Augustine expounding how the Earth may be adored without sinne, thus wri­teth : [Page 143] Fluctuans conuerto me ad Christū, quia ipsum quaro hi [...], & inuenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, adoretur Scabellum pedum eius; Suscepit enim de terra terram, quia Ca­ro de terra est, & de carne Mariae, carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulau [...]t, & ipsam carnem manducandam no­bis dedit ad salutem: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, ni­si priùs adorauerit. I nuentum est quemadmodum adoretur tale Scabellum pedum Domini, vt non solùm non peccemus adorādo, sedpeccemus non adorando. I doubting herein do turne my selfe to Christ, because I seeke him heere, and do find, how without a [...]y impiety the Earth may be adored, the footstoole of his feet may be adored; for he did take earth from earth, because flesh commeth of the earth, and he tooke flesh of the flesh of Mary. And because he did heere walke in that flesh, and gaue that flesh to be eaten by vs for our health: now no man doth eate that flesh, except he adore it before. Heere then it is found, how such a Footstoole of the feete of our Lord may be adored, so as that heere not only we do not sinne in adoring, but we sinne in not adoring.] Now heere it cannot be replyed, that the meaning of this Father is, that the faithfull doe eate the Body of Christ existing only in Heauē with the mouth of faith, because the Faithfull do only adore it. This is false, for euen according to the iudgment of S. Augustine, the wicked do adore the Body of Christ, and eate his Body from the Altar. For, epist. 120. ad Honora­tum c. 27. where speaking of the wicked, he saith : Addu­cti sunt ad Mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore, & san­guine cius, sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur, quia non imitantur.

Finally, S. Augustine l. 50. Homil. 26. warneth most earnestly, that Men should be carefull, that no part of [Page 144] the Hoast should fall vpon the ground.

Chrysostome homil. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. Et tu ad salu­turem hanc hostiam &c. And thou art ready to come to this healthfull hoast, which euen the Angells do behold with feare.] And, Homil. de Eucharist. in Encaenijs. Agnus Dei immolatur &c. The Lamb of God is offered vp in Sacrifice. The Seraphims are present couering their faces with wings.] But how phan­tastical and imaginary a conceipt were it to thinke that these places can be applyed to Bread, and Wine, signi­fying only the Body, and Bloud of Christ?

Againe, Homil. 60. ad Populum Antiochenum, he saith: Cogita quali sis insignitus honore &c. Bethinke thy selfe, with what honour thou art heere graced, what Table thou enioyest. We feed of that, and are vnited therewith, the which the An­gells beholding are afraid, and dare not looke vpon the same in regard of the illustrious splendor thereof.] And in the like sort, Homil. 61. Huic & supernae potestates &c. The higher powers doe asist, and waite hercupon, because they behold the vertue of the things there placed, more then we doe, and doe admire the inaccesible splendour, and lightnesse thereof.] And that these places of this Father are to be taken lite­rally, appeareth out of another place of his wrytings, to wit l. 6. de Sacerdotio in these words : Ego verò & comme­morantem quemdam audiui &c. I did ouer heare one reporting, who tould, that a certayne old and venerable Man (to whom many Mysteryes had afore bene reuealed) was vouchsafed by God to be made worthy of a Vision, and that during this tyme (viz. of celebrating the sacrifice of the Altar) he did see whole multitudes of Angells to descend suddenly downe (as much as the sight of Man could endure) being clothed with shyning vestements, and standing round about the Altar; and bowing downe their heads in such sort, as if one should behould [Page 145] shoulders bearing thēselues in the presence of their King. Thus farre S. Chrysostome. The truth of which narration I do not so much vrge (since I presume our Aduersaries will esteme it as fabulous) but I vrge, that S. Chrysostome thought it to be true (since otherwise he would neuer haue recorded it) and consequently, that he belieued, that Angells were truly, and really present at the Altar during the tyme of the celebration of the Eucharist.

In like sort, Homil. 41. in priorem ad Corinth. Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus, aut accedimus, pro istis Agnum illum iacentem, & peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes. We do not in vayne celebrate the memory of the dead at the Diuine Mysteries; neither doe we in vayne approach, beseeching that Lambe there lying for them, & taking away the sinnes of the World.] which wordes imply manifestly, that the Eucharist was in his tyme inuoked.

The same Father, Homil. 60. ad Pop. Antiochenum. Non sufficit &c. He could not be contented to become Man, to be beaten in the meane while with wands, but he doth bring vs into one masse (as I may say) with himselfe: Neither fide solùm, sed reipsa, by faith only, but in very deed, he hath made vs his Body.] In which place, we find the very distinction inuented by our Aduersaries to be ex­cluded by S. Chrysostome.

In like manner, Homil. 61. ad Popul. Antiochenum, he affirmeth, that Christs Flesh by meanes of this Sacrament is mingled with ours, not only by Charity, but reipsa, in very deed. See him also Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. where he saith, that we are so vnited to the Body of Christ by the Eucharist, as his Body was vnited to the word by the Incarnation, to wit, truly, and really, and [Page 146] not figuratiuely; but all these sayings of Chrysostome were very idle, if we receaued Christ only in a signe, and by representation.

S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae Sororis eius, thus writeth: Ad altare cum fide procumbit, cum, qui superillud colitur, magno cum clamore obtestans. She (viz. Gorgonia) did prostrate herselfe before the Altar with faith, praying to him with great clamour, who is wor­shipped vpon the said Altar. But Gorgoma prayed not to Bread, or Wine. Which action of hers (as she acknow­ledging therby the true presence of Christs Body, and Bloud vpon the Altar) is much reprehended by Peter Martyr l. contra Gardinerum, obiect. 38. saying: that she was not well instructed in Christian Religion; so far different was his iudgment from the iudgment of S. Gregory heer­in: but of this place more heerafter.

S. Gregory Nyssene, Orat. Catechetica c. 36. & 37. a­mong other things thus writeth: Quemadmodum parum fermenti &c. Euen as a little Leauen doth make the whole masse like to it selfe; so that body which is made immortall by God, entring into our Body, doth transferre, and change it in­to it selfe.] And after: Fidelium corporibus &c. That Body is ioyned with the bodyes of the faithfull, that by that coniun­ction with the Immortall Body, Man may be made partaker of Immortality.

S. Ambrose, l. 1. in Lucam, expounding those words, Apparuit ill [...] Angelus, thus writeth: Non dubites assistere Angelum, quando Christus assistit, Christus immolatur. Do not doubt, but that an Angell is there present, when Christ is there present, when Christ is sacrificed.]

The same Father l. 3. de Spiritu sancto c. 12. expoun­ding those wordes of the Psalm. 98. Adorate scabellum pe­dum [Page 147] cius, thus writeth : Ita (que) per scabellum terra &c. Ther­fore by the Footstoole the Earth is vnderstood, & by the earth, the Flesh of Christ, which we now do adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus, as we haue said before.] Where he saith, that the Flesh of Christ (be­ing vnited with the Word) is adored by vs in the Myste­ries, that is, in the Eucharist.

S. Cyril of Ierusalem thus writeth : Sic Christophori e­rimus, id est, Christum ferentes &c. So shall we be Christo­phori, that is Men bearing Christ, when we shall receaue his Body, and Bloud into our Members, and as S. Peter saith: We shall be made Partakers of the diuine Nature.]

S. Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate: Sienim verè verbum &c. For if the Word be 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 [Page 148] 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; nostros (que) spirituales oculos singulari, & aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple. O most Diuine, and most holy Sacament, vouchsafe to remooue from thee the veyles, or couerings [Page 149] 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, [Page 150] 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 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 One Father.] viz. Chrysostome homil. 35. in Genes. Father with reference therunto saith: Videns [Page 152] 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 : 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 of Sequeles, and will tye my selfe only to such their sayings, wherein we find the Eucharist to be called Sacrificium, Victima &c. or where the words, Immolare, Offerre, and the like, are said of the Eucharist; or finally where the word, Altare, is expressely mentioned, which word (euen by the confession of Doctour Doctor Reynolds.] viz. in his Conference with M. Hart. pag. 552. Reynolds) neces­sarily implyeth a true Sacrifice. Which point being once cleared, we shall thereby more easily discouer the malice of our Sectaryes against Gods Church, since they labour to wound her in the Maister-veyne of Christian Reli­gion, by depriuing her of the most auayleable, & health­full Oblation of Christs Body, and Bloud, left for the better expiating of Mans sinnes. Which Mysterie of our Catholike Faith these new Brethren are loth to acknow­ledge, in that (besides other Reasons) it comprehen­deth, as being a Sacrifice, no small difficulties. For it [Page 153] is a Sacrifice remitting our Sinnes, where no Bloud No Blould is shed.] Christs Bloud was to be shed in a bloudy manner but once, in that he was but once to dye, according to that Heb. 9. Christ was offered once to take away the sinnes of many. And from his Passion the Sacrifice of the Eucharist receaues it vertue, and force. And therefore in this sense Sins may be said to be remitted in the Eucharist by sheding of bloud. Besides Christs bloud is truly shed (though in an vnbloudy manner) in the Sacrifice of the Masse, through the worth wherof our Sinns are remitted. is shed, and yet without VVithout shedding of bloud.] Heb c. 9. shedding of Bloud there is no remission: or if bloud be heere shed, yet in an in­cruent, and vnbloudy manner. Where what is heere sa­crificed remaines Remaynes incons [...]mptible.] Christs Body in the Sacri­fice of the Masse remaines inconsumptible, in that it being glorified, is impatible, and not capable of any such alteration, or change. And yet his Body, as it is a Sacrifice may be said in some sense to be con­sumptible, in that by the reason of the receauing, and eating of it, it ceaseth to be vnder the formes of Bread, and Wyne, and consequent­ly ceaseth to be that (to wit, to lye vnder those formes) which afore it was. Now that there should be a Transmutation, and chang of the thing sacrificed, is apparent, in that it is one particle in the definition of a true Sacrifice, as also the same appeareth by the example of all the Sacrifices in the Old Law. in consumptible, and yet euery such true Litation necessarily implyes a consumption, and destroying of the thing sacrificed. Where Innocency assayles Iniquity; and to preuent the punishment of God for the sinne of Man, both God God and Man.] In that Christs Body is vpon the Altar, and that his Humanity is neuer more to be seuered from his Diuinity; therfore it followeth that his Diuinity is there present with his Humanity, as in the first Tract is fully demonstrated. & Man are vpon the Altar: Where the holy thing was but once to be immola­ted Once to be immolated.] To wit, in a bloudy manner, and this was performed but once, viz. at the time of his Passion: And yet he is often to be sacrificed in the Eucharist, in that himselfe faith, Hoc facite., and yet was commaunded to be often immola­ted: Where being a true Sacrifice, is yet (according to the According to the Apostle.] Viz. 1. Cor. 11. in these words : Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec veni [...]t. Apostle) a Commemoration of a true Sacrifice : Where that, which descended from Descended from God to man.] The Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, that is, an externall signe of an inuisible Grace, and re­fection, which is conferred to vs, whilest we take the Eucharist aright; so it proceedeth from God (as all Sacraments doe) but as the Body of Christ is there sacrificed vp by the Priest, so according to the nature of a Sacrifice, it is offered by him to God. God to Man, is offered vp by Man to God: Where the The Creatour.] In that the Priest receauing the Body of Christ, his body is there accompanied with the Diuinity of Christ, as is said aboue. Creator by meanes thereof vouchsafeth to be contayned within his Creature; and the Supreme Agent within his Myniste­riall Agent: Where (as one Father saith, Idem est Conuiua &c.] S. Hierome Epist. ad Hedibiam quast. 2. Idem est Con­uiua, & Conuiuium; idem comedens, & qui comeditur. And (as another teacheth) where one and the same body is borne vp by the hands of the said body; Ferebatur Perebatur Christus.] So writeth S. Augustine in Psal. 33. concion. 1. Christus in manibus suis: So the hands became the Altar, whereupon the Body was sacrificed: Finally, where the Priest is become the Sacrifice, according to that Father: Caro sacrificij nostri corpus est effectum Sacerdotis nostri.

But to leaue these subtilties; Heere we are to aduer­tise the Reader, that the Fathers teaching the Eucharist to comprehend in it selfe a true Sacrifice : This their do­ctrine cannot be applyed to Bread, and Wine. First, be­cause the Sacrifice of Bread, and Wine either in respect of the naturall Substances of the things themselues, or their significations, and representations, is inferiour to [Page 154] the Sacrifice of the Old Law (as appeareth aboue in the Figures of the Eucharist.) And secondly, in that the Fa­thers do ascribe an infinite vertue to the Sacrifice heere made (of the power wherof we haue entreated in the for­mer precedent Chapter) but no such imputatiue efficacy can with any probability be assigned (especially now in the time of Grace) to the sacrificing of a little Bread, & Wine: Thus according to the Fathers, what to a vulgar Eye heere seemes to be offered vp, is not: and what is, seemes not.

And now to proceed to these their Testimonies : First we read (besides those few places already alleaged, though ranged to some one of the former heads, in re­gard of the particuler respect there specified) in S. Leo, serm. 8. de Passione, and in S. Cyril l. de Adoratione in spiri­tu, & veritate: That the Body of our Sauiour is offered vp as a sacrifice in the Mysterie of the Eucharist.

S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitate, c. 14. Quid gratius of­feri, aut suscipi posset, quàm Caro Sacrificij nostri Corpus effe­ctum Sacerdotis nostri? What can be offered vp, or accep­ted more thankfully, then that the Flesh of our Sacrifice should become the Body of our Priest?]

The same Father l. 2. quaest. Euangel. q. 3. shewing, why Christ commaunded the Leprous Man to offer vp Sacrifice for his clensing, thus writeth : Quia nondum in­stitutum erat &c. Because as yet this Sacrifice (being the Ho­ly of Holies) which is his Body, was not as yet ordayned.] The said Father lib. de Ciuit. Dei 8. c. vlt. & l. 22. c. 8. maketh frequent mention of Altars.

S. Chrysostome l. 6. De Sacerdotio. Per id tempus, & Angeli Sacerdoti assident, & caelestium potestatum vniuersus ordo clamores excitat, & locus Altari vicinus in illius honorem, [Page 155] qui immolatur, Angelorum choris plenus est; id quod credere abundè licet, vel ex tanto illo Sacrificio, quod tunc peragitur: At that time the Angells draw neere to the Priest, & the whole Order of the Heauenly Powers causeth great voy­ces, and the place neere to the Altar, by reason of the ho­nour of him (who is there immolated) is full of Angells; which thing we may fully belieue in regard of so great a sacrifice there performed.]

Againe, Homil. 17. in Epist. ad Hebraeos. In multis locis &c. In many places are offered not diuers Christs, but one only Christ euery where, remayning entire both here, & there, being but one Body, not many Bodyes.] And, Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. he saith : Pro victimarum &c. He hath commaunded himselfe to be offered vp in place of the slaughter of sheep, and such like Sacrifices.] And, Homil. 53. ad Popu­lum: Si quis vellet &c. If any should endeauour to destroy this Altar, would not you destroy, and kill him with stones?] And, Homil. 20. in 2. epist. ad Corinth. Tu Altare honoras &c. Thou doest honour the Altar, which receaueth vpō it the Body of Christ.]

S. Gregory Nyssene, Orat. de Resurrect. Dominus prae­occupans impetum Iudaeorum &c. Our Lord preuenting the violence of the Iewes (being both Priest, and Lambe) made himselfe a Sacrifice. But thou demaundest of me, when this did happen? Euen then, when he gaue to his Disciples his Body to eate, and his Bloud to drinke.

S. Ambrose in cap. 1. Lucae. Cùm sacrificamus &c. When we do sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is immolated.] And, in Psalm. 38. Etsi nunc Christus non videatur offerre, ipse tamē offertur in terris, cùm corpus cius offertur. Although Christ may be thought now not to offer, notwithstan­ding he is offered heere vpon Earth, when his Body is of­fered.]

Optatus Mileuitanus l. 6. contra Parmenianum, thus writeth : Quid est enim tam sa [...]rilegum, quàm Altaria Dei, (in quibus aliquando vos obtulistis) frangere, radere, & re­mouere? in quibus vota populi, & membra Christi portata sunt? quo Deus Omnipotens sit? quo postulatus descendit spiritus San­ctus? vnde à multis [...] ignus aeternae salutis, & tutela fidei, & spes resurrectionis accepta est? What is more sacrilegious, then to breake, to scrape, to remoue the Altars of God vpon the which your selues sometymes haue offered? In the which the Vowes of the People, and the Members of Christ are borne? where God (who is Omnipotent) is called vpon? whereupon the Holy Ghost (being prayed vnto) descendeth? from whence the Pledge of eternall Saluation, and the defence of fayth, and hope of the Resurrection is taken.] And a little after: Quid est Altare &c. What is the Altar, but the seate of the Body, and Bloud of Christ?] And againe: Quid vos offenderat Christus &c. In what hath Christ offended you, whose Body, and Bloud doth there stay by certaine tymes?] And againe after, Hoc tamen immane &c. Notwithstanding this cruell, and heynous offence is performed, whensoeuer you haue broken the Chalices, which are the Porters, or Carryers of the bloud of Christ.] Eusebius l 1. demon. Euang. c. 6. writeth much concerning Altars in the time of the Ghospell.

S. Cyprian l. 1. [...]p. 9. speaking of a certaine Priest de­ceased, who for leauing of a temporall, and worldly prohibited businesse to be performed by another Priest, deserued not (according to Cyprians Iudgement) to haue the sacrifice offered for him, because (saith he) he did withdraw the Priest of God from the Altar.

Tertullian lib. de Poenitentia mentioneth kneeling be­fore [Page 157] the Altars of God.

Dionysius Areopagita c. 3. Eccles. Hierarch. makes mention of Altars.

Hippolytus Martyr Orat. de Antichristo, bringeth in Christ thus speaking: Venite Pontifices, & Sacerdotes, qui preci [...]sum corpus, & Sanguinem meum quotidie immolastis.] Come hither yee High Priests, and other Priests, who dayly doe sacrifice my precious body, and bloud.]

In the Canons of the Apostles (viz. 3. & 4.) there is frequent speach touching Altars.

Lastly S. Andrew the Apostle (as his Disciples do write in his Passion) thus saith : Ego Omnipotenti Deo im­maculatum Agnum quotidie sacrifico &c. Qui cùm sit verè sacrificatus, & verè à popi [...]o carnes eius manducatae, integer perseuerat, & vinus.] I doe dayly sacrifice vnto Almigh­ty God the immaculate Lambe. Who, when he is truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten of the People, doth neuerthelesse perseuere whole, and aliue.]

Thus haue I gone ouer certaine principall Heads, carrying in themselues a naturall dependency ( [...]rke the foure Beasts in Ezechiel, which were ioyned one to ano­ther by their wings) wherin is conteyned, a short Compē ­dium of the Fathers writings in this Point; out of which abstract, we may easily extract their Faith, and Beliefe had in this high Mysterie, and withall conclude, that the Sacramentaries are no more distant, & remote from the Times, wherin the Fathers liued then from the Doctrine maintayned in the said Tymes. For (as we haue shewed) the Fathers not contenting themselues with ordinary, po­sitiue, and measured speaches deliuered of the Eucharist, do vse high, and superlatiue Titles of the dignity, and worth therof: The Sacramentaries only affoard such ap­pellations, [Page 158] as Nature hath already giuen to the same. The Fathers acknowledging heerin a true, and reall Change, haue paralelled it with the greatest supernaturall Chāges whatsoeuer: The Sacramentaries can find no other alte­ration, but that afore it being common Bread, & Wine, is now only reserued (a strange, and stupendious Mutati­on) for the vse of their Winy Communion.

The Fathers postpose the Types of the Old Law to it, yea compare it with the chiefest Articles of Christian Faith: The Sacramentaries as long as they teach, that it but Typically represēteth the Body, & Bloud of Christ, can at the most but prize it at the equall valew of those Legall Figures.

The Fathers ascribed the Cōuersion there made, on­ly to the Omnipotency of God, affirming, that not sense, but only Faith is able to conceaue the Mysteries therin: The Sacramentaries (for the more coūtenancing of their Bread, and Wine) verbally somtymes acknowledge, that a liuely Faith only is of force to apprehend the difficul­ties of these their representing Elements. O the penetra­ting Faith of our Sectaries! the worke (no doubt) of the Holy Ghost! the seed of Abraham, able (according to the Apostle) to moue Mountaines, transcending the nar­row, and niggard Limits of Sense, and Reason, since it is of power (most supernaturally) to apprehend, how one thing may represent, and signify another thing! But to passe on.

The Fathers do attribute euen most diuine, and ce­lestiall effects to this Sacrament: The Sacramentaries, what efficacy they assigne therunto (to wit, the appre­hending of Christ by Faith) do teach, that it riseth on­ly from the signification, and remembrance of Christ [Page 159] implyed in the externall Signes, the which may as auaila­bly (euen by their owne Principles) be performed by a­ny of their ten-shilling-Sermons.

The Fathers exhibited with great humility all due re­uerēce, & adoratiō to Christs Body there present: The Sa­cramentaries cannot be induced to giue any such respect at all. Finally, the Fathers do maintayne, that the Eucha­rist is a true, and Propitiatory Oblation: The Sacramen­taries acknowledge no other Oblation in the Church, then only a spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer, and Thanksgi­uing.

Thus we see, what Alienaton there is betweene the Writings of the Fathers, and of our Nouellists. But we are not to meruaile, that the Sacramentaries doe neuer speake in one, and the same Catholike Idiome with those Primitiue Doctours, since they are deafe heerin, and will not be brought to heare, what the Church of God, either in those ancient Tymes, or in these latter dayes do teach concerning the same; And we know, it is a Conclusion in Philosophy, that, He who neuer heareth, neuer speaketh.

But before I conclude this Point, I will put the Rea­der in remembrance of some other Obseruations contay­ned in the Testimonyes of the Fathers, which may at least morally assure him, that they maintayned our Ca­tholike doctrine of the Eucharist: Most of which Obser­uations (though different from the foresaid heads) are to be found in their former alleaged Authorities: Others of them in other their Sentences: Of both which for aduan­taging the Readers memory, and for auoyding a weari­some prolixity, I will only referre him to the places, where such their Sentences may be read.

As first we find, that the Fathers resting vpon the [Page 160] doctrine of the Reall Presence, as a confessed Article of Christian Faith, did from thence, as from an acknow­ledged Principle refell diuers Heresyes. Thus did Irenaeus.] l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus against the Valentinians, proue from this Myste­ry, that Christ was the Sonne of God the Father; which Doctour also proueth from the same ground the resurre­ction of the flesh, giuing a reason thereof in these words: Quoniam Quoniam corpore.] Irenaeus ibidem. corpore & sanguine Domini alitur. In lyke sort he proueth against the Gnostici.] l. 5 c. 2. Gnostici, that Christ came in true flesh, euen from the former dogmaticall point of the Eucharist. After the same manner Hilarius.] l. 8. de Trinitate. Hilarius pro­ueth, that Christ had a true Body and Bloud, in that his true flesh and bloud was in this Sacrament. Finally Cyril of Alexandria Cyrillus.] l. to in Ioan. c. 13. teacheth against the Arian, that Christ both according to his Diuinity, and Humanity did exercise his influence vpon vs, in that his Body and Bloud was taken in the Eucharist to nourish in vs a spirituall lyfe.

Secondly they acknowledge a great miracle to rest, that Christ as being in the Eucharist, is in diuers seuerall places at one and the same tyme. Thus doth Chrysostome.] l. 3. de Sacerdot. Chryso­stome, Basil.] in Liturgia. Basil, and Gregory Nyssenus.] Orat. de Paschate. Nyssene.

Thirdly they assigne a reason, why Christ would latently be vnder the formes of bread and wyne, to wit, lest otherwise the Communicants should receaue his body with horrour and feare: So Ambrose.] l. 4. de Sacramentis. Ambrose, Cyril.] apud D. Thomam, in Catena, circa caput 2 [...]. Lucae. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophilact.] in c. 26. Matthai. Theophilact doe teach.

Fourthly they affirme, that Christ, as he is taken in the Eucahrist, is neither corrupted nor diminished, pla­cing a great difficulty therin, as we find out of S. Andrew.] In his Passion written by his Disciples. S. Andrew. The lyke we read in Cyprian.] Sermone de Coena Domini. Cyprian Augustine.) Serm. 2 de verbis Apostoli., Augustine, and Cyril Cyril.] Catech. 5. Myst. of Ierusalem. But this difficulty were idly suggested, if Christ were in the Sacrament only in re­presentation.

Fifthly, they teach, that the Vnion of Christ with vs in the Sacrament is not only spirituall, and fide tantum, but reipsa, in very deed and truely. This is affirmed by Hilarius.] l. 8. de Trinitate. Hilarius, and Chrysostome.] homil. 45. in Ioan. & 83. in Matth. Chrysostome. Yea they further proceed, writing, that this spirituall Vnion which is made through fayth and grace, doth ryse from the corporall Vnion of Christ with vs, as the Effect procedeth from the Cause; so Cyril.] l. 4. in Ioan. c. 14. & 15. Cyril, and Tertullian.] I de resurrect Carnis. Tertullian.

Sixtly, they mantayne, that the Body of Christ is truly taken, aswell by the wicked, as the vertuous and godly, meere contrary to the doctrine of the Sacramen­taries, who affirme, that Christs Body (because it is in the Sacrament only Typically) is only taken by the faithfull. Yea the Fathers are not affraid to say, that his Body is receaued by the wicked ore sacrilego, with a sacrilegious mouth, so distinguishing this kind of receauing, from a spirituall and fruitfull receauing. See heerof Augustine.] tract. 27. in Ioan. & l. 5. de Baptismo con­tra Donat. c. 8. Augu­stine, Chrysostome.] homil. 83. in Matthaeum. Chrysostome, Origen.] in Psal. 37. Origen, Cyprian.] l. 3. epist. 15. Cyprian, and Basil.] l. 2. de Baptismo c. 3. Ba­sil.

Seauenthly they do teach, that Christ at his last Sup­per did eate his owne Body. Thus Chrysostome.] Homil. 83. in Matth. Chrysostome, and Hierome.] In Hedibiam. Hierome. But this cannot probably be vnderstood according to the Caluinian participation through Grace and faith, since no new accession, or increase of Grace came to Christ after the very first moment of his Incar­nation. Besides it is most absurd to say, that the Flesh of Christ is the instrumentall cause of the Grace giuen to Christ.

Eightly, and lastly, they intimate diuers things tou­ching the Praxis, and vse of the Blessed Eucharist, which are altogeather incompetent to a Typicall and figuratiue [Page 162] Presence. As first (to omit the Adoration and Inuocation of the Eucharist, already entreated of) they did place a great religious act in taking this Sacrament fasting : as Augustine.] epist. 118. Augustine, and Chrysostome do witnes: yea Chrysostome.] Epist. 3. ad Ciriacum. Chryso­stome affirmeth it to be a sinne to take it not fasting. They also affirmed that a most diligent examining of our Con­science ought to precede the participation therof : So Chrysostome.] l. 6. de Sacerdotio. Chrysostome. They cōmaunded that it should not be seene of such as were Infidels: So Dionysius.] Cap. 7. Eccles. Hierarch. Dionysius; and which is more that it should not be seene of the faithfull yet vn­baptized, as appeareth out of Augustine.] Tract. 11. in Ioan. Augustine. Hence it is that in the presence of the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases, speaking of the Eucha­rist, as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles: So Augustine.] Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol. Augu­stine. And, Norunt, qui mysterijs imbuti sunt. So 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 Councell of Nyce.] Canon. 12. Nyce, Eusebius.] l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius, and 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 Hierome.] Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith, propter consorti­um corporis & sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur. And 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 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 [Page 163] Priesthood: Of which point entreates Nazianzen.] Apolog. 1. & Oratione ad Iulianum. Nazianzen, Chrysostome.] Lib. de Sacerdot. Chrysostome, and others; as also of their vowed 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 Sacramētaries, 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 thē 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 cōmonly to all Te­stimonies [Page 167] 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 cānot 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 [...]. 25. & hom. 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij. Cyril Catech. 4. My­stagog. Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet. c. 36. & 37. Ephrē lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda. Gaudentius Tract. 2. [Page 168] de Exodo. Chrysostome H [...]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 receau [...] 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 [Page 169] 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. [Page 172] 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 [Page 173] 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 Bread, and Wyne remaine euen after Consecration; seeing then, say they, that these words are not to be taken literally, but figuratiuely, therefore the whole sentence aforegoing is also to be taken figura­tiuely, and not literally. And thus they seeke to euade this most pregnant Testimony; whereby the Word Mysteria is vnderstood, that the Substance only of the Bread, and Wyne are consumed.

A third Branch of their Euasiōs, shootes out to such Authorityes of the Fathers, as refer the effectuating of this Mystery to Gods sole Omnipotency, marshalling it (in regard of the difficulties discouered therein) with the abstrusest points of Christianity, and ranging it (by reason of the great Miracle there exhibited) with the greatest Miracles euer performed by God.

Now their Answere heerto is, that the Eucharist is wrought by the Omnipotency of God; for seeing it is a Sacrament, not Man, but God only (and consequently his Omnipotency is heere necessarily exacted) is able to institute the same. How rouing, and wandring this is from the scope, and drift of the Fathers shall heere ap­peare. First from the words of the Fathers themselues, which doe euen depose a contrary meaning in them; for they in those places alledged of this nature, doe not as­signe the Omnipotency of God to the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament (for hereof they intimate for the most part, [Page 174] not the least touch) but to it, as therein one Substance by force of certaine words, is truly turned into another Substance.

Secondly, the weaknesse of the former Answere ap­peareth, in that we graunt, that an Omnipotency indeed is required to the Institution of any Sacrament, wherby it should iustifie a Man: but our Aduersaries will not be­lieue, that the Sacraments (as Instruments of Christ, & where due preparation is) do confer immediately Grace (for this were in them an ouer-vnkind relinquishing of Sense, and too straite an Entercourse, & Cōmerce with their vnderstanding) but they teach, that the Sacraments do iustify vs, only by signifying, and representation; because (say they) they are made things to vs, in the si­gnification wherof we apprehend Christ by Faith. And so their Omnipotency heere formally resteth in creating a new signification of a thing; to wit, that the naturall substance of the Sacraments should represent, & signify Christ, whom (afore his Institution therof) they did not signify. Now, if Omnipotency must necessarily con­curre to the making, that one thing may signify another thing, then by the said ground euery seely Ale-wife is Omnipotent, in that her red Lattice, or Bush at the doore (things of themselues indifferent, as not carry­ing any reference to her profession) are made by her to be a sufficient Type, Signe, or Representation to the Passengers, of the Ale which she hath to sell; so cleare it is, that a Reall change, not an Imposition of a new si­gnification requireth an Omnipotency. Now (as in the former I haue done) I will instance this answere in some one authority.

S. Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. (of which place I haue [Page 175] entreated aboue) thus writeth: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, Omni­potentia Verbi factus est Caro &c. This Bread, which our Lord gaue to his Disciples, being changed not in outward shew, but in nature, is by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh.] Now, what intimation is heere made to ascribe the Omnipotency of God heere expressed, to the Eucharist, only in that it is a Sacrament? Or with what tecture, or pretext of Reason can any such exorbitant cō ­struction be heere forged? since (as is already proued) an Omnipotency is required in the Institution of Sacra­ments, that they may truely performe that, which they do signify, to wit, that they do iustify Man (but this ef­ficacy of them, our Sacramentaries do altogeather reiect) but no Omnipotency is exacted to make, that a thing may signify what afore it did not, for this not only God, but Man is able to performe.

Their fourth Answere belongeth to such places, which preferre the Eucharist before the Iewish Types, and Figures (wherin Christ was as perfectly shaddowed and signified as in the Eucharist, if there be nothing else there, but Bread, and Wine.) The insufficiency of the Sacramentaries Answere heerto made, is fully, and at large displayed in the Marginall References touching the diuersity of the Types of the Eucharist, and the Eucha­rist it selfe: to which To which place.] Viz. the first Chapter of this second Tract. place I referre the Reader, part­ly as affecting heere expedition, & breuity; and partly as being loath, wearisomely to cloy with a needlesse iteration of one, & the same thing, the fastidious eares of our curious Age.

Another forme of their shuffling Answeres is that, wherwith they labour to breake through all such Passa­ges [Page 176] of the Fathers, which do assigne any reuerence what­soeuer to the Eucharist eyther of Adoration, Inuocation, or in any other sort. To all which they giue vs this yaw­ning, heedlesse, and doubtfull solution: That if any such reuerence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist, it was not terminated in the Eucharist it selfe, but dire­cted to Christ (signified therein) and so by the media­tion of those earthly Elements, transferred to him, who is in Heauen; no otherwise then when the Papists (for thus do they particulerly instance) praying before I­mages, direct not their prayers to the Image, but to Christ, or the Saint represented therein. But heere I would aske them what secret Intelligence they (now comming so long after) can haue of the Fathers minds, and intentions heerin? If they insist in the words, we find no appearance of the least glance thereof; if they call to mind the practise of the Church of those Ages (the securest Scholie, or Paraphrase of the Fathers wri­tings) it seales vp the Truth in our behalfe.

Furthermore I say, that the Sacramentary is of a Lethargious, and forgetfull constitution (a point, accor­ding to the old Oportet &c. very disaduantagious to his profession;) or if not so, then is he so Serpentinely affe­cted against the Catholikes, as that, so he may be op­posite to them, he is content to be vnfaithfull to himselfe. For at other times he ryots both in Pulpit, and by Pen with great profusion of Words, and Tyme, telling such as will belieue him, that the Catholikes doe pray to Pi­ctures, and place in them a kind of Diuinity; whereas now, he is content (courteously) to acknowledge the lawfull, and religious practise of the Catholikes therein; since he cannot cast any aspersion of Idolatry, or super­stition [Page 177] vpon vs, but he is forced (except he will receaue a more dangerous Wound) to insimulate the Fathers within the said Errour.

Heere then I demand of them (for they are most fugitiue, and vncertaine in answering heereunto) will they acknowledge the Fathers Reuerence, Adoration, and praying to the Eucharist it selfe? why then do they longer so pertinaciously persist in defending their Sacra­mentarian doctrine? Will they seeke by inflexions, and wyndings to diuert the honor done to the Sacrament, to Christ only (represented therein) as he is in Heauen? If so, why doe these Anti-Saints, and Enemyes of Gods Seruants at other times spend themselues out in such estuation, and heate of rayling inuectiues (the scumne of base malice, and proper Scene of too many of our Se­ctaryes) against the Catholikes for performing that, which now for their owne aduantage in a different ex­ample, though like reason, they willingly (yet falsly) obtrude vpon the Fathers; thus if the Sacramentary do escape the sword of Iehu, yet shall the sword of Elisaeus slay him; and thus we see, how weake this his answere is, wherein his gayne heere made, is like to the gayne of ground, which a running Water causeth, getting no more on the one side of the Banke, then it looseth on the other.

This their Answere shalbe exemplified in that Te­stimony of S. Dionysius, who lib. de Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3. part. 3. thus writeth: O Diuinissimum, & Sacrosanctum Sacramentum! obducta tibi significantium signorum operimen­ta dignanter aperi, & perspicuè nobis fac appareas; nostros (que) spirituales oculos singulari, & aperto tuae Lucis fulgore imple. O most diuine, and holy Sacrament! vouchsafe to open [Page 178] (or remoue) the couerings of thy signifying signes, and make thy selfe to appeare clearly to vs, and fill our spiri­tuall Eyes with the open Fulgor of thy Light.] Wherto Peter Martyr lib. contra Garainer. part. 1. obiect. 150. an­swereth according to the tenour of the former Euasion. Where we see (besides what is already said) that Diony­sius doth not heere inuoke Christ only before the Sacra­ment (as the Catholikes do before his Image) but he doth inuoke the Sacrament it self, & desireth such things of it, as are required only of God; from whence it follow­eth, that Dionysius thought, that Christ being God, and Man, was contained truly in the Sacrament, or rather, that Christ with the externall Symbols togeather was the Sacrament.

The sixt, and last Ward, wherwith our Aduersaries seeke to put by the dāgerously pointed Sentences of the Fathers, is appropriated only to such their Authorities, wherin it is affirmed, that in the celebratiō of the Eucha­rist, there is a true, & Reall Sacrifice performed, meaning the offering vp by the words, and hands of the Priest the very Body, & Bloud of Christ to his Father. Now, to these Authorities they frame an answere wouen of seuerall threeds, either of ignorant, or wilfull mistakings. For, they say that the Eucharist might be termed by the Fa­thers a Sacrifice for diuers reasons. And first, by reason of the Oblation of the Faithfull, who in the Supper of our Lord do consecrate themselues to God. Or, of the Prea­ching of the death of our Lord. Or of the diuers exercises of Piety (as of Faith, Hope, Penitency, Charity &c.) or of Prayers, or of Thanksgiuing to God, or finally of the Almes: all which seuerall points, were particulerly performed (say they) in those former ancient Tymes in [Page 179] the Celebration of the Eucharist, & which may be right­ly termed Spirituall Sacrifices.

Now, that these Actions (supposing that in a Meta­phoricall construction they might be so styled, and were vsed then) are not vnderstood in the former passages of the Fathers, I thus proue, in that those Doctours plain­ly teach, that the Body, and Bloud of Christ is the Sacri­fice, which is offered vp in the Church, but those for­mer Actions cannot be meant, and signified, (by any kind of speach euer heard of) by the Body, and Bloud of Christ. As for example, S. Ambrose writeth in Psal. 38. Etsi Christus nunc non videatur offerre, ipse tamen offertur in terris, cùm corpus eius offertur. Though Christ now may be thought not to offer vp (or sacrifice) yet he himselfe is heere offered vp vpon earth, when his body is offered vp.] Which wordes can in no sort be applyed to those former actions specified to be in the Administration of the Eucharist. Againe, the Fathers teach, that onely Priests, and no others can offer vp this Sacrifice. Thus doth S. Hierome epist. ad Euagrium, yea the Councell of Nyce it selfe exempteth Deacons from offering vp the Sacrifice: and Tertullian l. de velandis Virginum, Women in generall; and Epiphanius haeres. 79. particulerly the Vir­gin Mary; but it is manifest, that Prayers, Almes, Laudes, giuing of Thanks, an internall offering vp of the Soule (of all which points the former answere is aggregated) are offered vp, and performed by the whole People, much more then they may be by Deacons.

A second Branch of their Euasions to the said Au­thorities is deduced from the Etymologies of the word Sacrificium, or Sacrificare, which is but Sacra facere, ther­fore say they, because the Consecration, or Distribution [Page 180] of the Eucharist is Sacra actio, the Action, or Celebratiō of it, is called Sacrificium, and the Minister, who perfor­meth the same, may be said Sacrificare. which Gram­maticall, or Dictionary Answere (vnworthy indeed the learned Eares of the Iudicious) is thus refelled. First, because in all Etymologies we are to respect non tam àquo quàm ad quid; not so much the Primatiues, or Originalls from whence they are deriued, as the applications, wher­unto by vse, and custome they are particulerly tied. And thus answerably hereto, we graunt that Baptisme is Sacra actio (since it is Lauacrum Regenerationis) and yet we cannot read in any place of their Writings, where Baptisme is called Sacrificium, or he who baptizeth, is said Sacrificare. Againe, though euery sacred Action might [...], and abusiuè be called a Sacrifice, yet this would aduantage our Aduersaries nothing; since in the former testimonies of the Fathers, not the transient Action of celebrating the Eucharist, but the permanent thing, which is sacrificed (to wit the Body, and Bloud of Christ) is called by them the Sacrifice.

Lastly, though by this sleight the Sacramentaries might seeme to wrench the ordinary, and naturall con­struction of all such places, where the word Sacrificium, or Sacrificare is found, yet this is impertinent to diuers passages of the Fathers aboue cited, wherein the words Oblatio, or Offerre are. As that (besides many others) of S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitat. c. 14. Quid gratiùs offerri, aut suscipi possit, quàm caro Sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacer­dotis nostri?]

The third, and last kynd of their expounding the former Authorities, is, that the Supper of our Lord is called a Sacrifice, or an Oblation, because it includeth [Page 181] in it selfe a certaine Commemoration, or Representation of a true Sacrifice, viz. of the death of Christ.

To this we reply, that it is true, that the Action of the Eucharist is a Similitude, or Memoriall of the Sacri­fice of the Crosse: yet hence it followeth not, that the Fathers therefore thought not, that a true, and proper sa­crifice was offered vp in the celebration of the Eucharist. Now, that the Fathers did belieue the Eucharist to be a true Sacrifice, and not only a representatiue Sacrifice, is clearely euicted out of these ensuing obseruations. First, because Baptisme is a Sacrament representing the death of Christ; for the Apostle Rom. 6. teacheth, that the im­mersion of the partie baptized representeth the death of Christ, and the taking him out of the Water, the resur­rection of Christ, and yet no one of the Fathers doe terme Baptisme a Sacrifice.

Againe, the Fathers do often adioyne certaine Epi­thets, which are peculiar only to a true Sacrifice: Thus S. Cyprian l. 2. epist. 3. calls the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Plenum, & Verum Sacrificium: and S. Chrysostome, Sa­crificium terribile, & plenum horroris. Which Adiuncts are most fondly giuen to a meere representatiue Sacrifice.

Thirdly, the Fathers diuers times doe vse the words Victima, and Sacrificium, in the plurall number (so doth S. Cyprian l. 1. epist. 2. &. l. 2. epist. 3. &c.) but this phrase were most improper if it should be vnderstood of the Eucharist, as it is only a commemoration of the death of Christ; for since only one thing is heere represented, therefore the name therof is to be deliuered only in the singular number.

Fourthly, and lastly if this consequence were of weight: The Eucharist is a Representation of the Sacrifice of [Page 182] the Crosse, Ergo, it is no true, and proper Sacrifice: then this Illation should also be necessary (for both are wrought vpon one, and the selfe same frame) The Sacrifices of the old Law were representations of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, Ergo, they were no true (but only representatine) Sacri­fices. For as the Eucharist is a Remembrance, & Repre­sentation of the sacrifice of the Crosse already accompli­shed: so they were Representations of the said Sacrifice then to come.

And thus far concerning the Sacramentaries Eua­sions in generall, wherwith they labour to corrupt the most forcible, and conuincing places of the Fathers (so the Harpyes euer defiled the purest meates.) Indeed they preuayle with some of the vulgar sort, whose Iudgments are so aëry, vaporous, and light, as that they are not a­ble to descend into the depth of any exquisite enquiry of things; and so by these sleights our Sectaries (rather then they will acknowledge the Fathers true meaning) do re­tayne for the tyme their honour, & credit with such their followers; but whē this their Sophistry comes to be exa­mined by the cleare, and impartiall iudgment of the lear­ned, either Catholike, or Protestant: then are their an­swers found to be attended with such violent, and forced constructions of the Fathers writings, necessarily exha­ling forth strange improbabilities, mistakings, and ab­surdities; as that they being once scanned, are the cause of their greater, and more shamefull future ouerthrow. And thus their fortune heerin may seeme to partake of the misfortune of the poore Hare, which for a time by the help of her feet, auoyds the danger of the Hūters, but yet after, her said feet betray her a new to her enemies, to her greater perill.

Now, I will close vp this Chapter with one weighty consideration : It is this. Wheras the Fathers haue writ­ten of the Eucharist most reuerently in all fulnes, and transcendency of stile (as appeareth out of their places alledged) so as if their sayings be not to be disuested of their litterall sense, then they irrefragably (euen by our Aduersaries confessions) do warrant our Catholike do­ctrine. How chanceth, that not one Father (among so many) would neuer giue some caution, nor the least in­sinuation, that either his owne Sentences, or those of the rest of them (as being powred out in great aboun­dance, all magnifying, and aduancing the dignity of this Mysterie) were not to be taken litterally, but that they were Hyperbolical speaches deliuered by them, only by way of Rhetoricall amplifications? What can our Ad­uersaries reply heerunto? Shall we charge all the Fathers with forgetfulnes in such a point? But that is most im­probable, considering the weight of the matter, & their accustomed sollicitude in things of lesser cōsequence? Or shal we think, that being maliciously bent against all po­sterity, they determinately did leaue behind them such sayings, therby to disseminate Idolatry (for no lesse a fault can it be esteemed in them, if purposely they did write heerin otherwise, then they thought) in the minds of all Readers? But what Christian is so voyd of Charity, and Sense, as to traduce so many holy Fathers liuing in those purer tymes with so heathenish, and hellish an Im­piety? Nay I will proceed further in this Point: It is most cleare that the Fathers were so far from giuing any such caution for the sensing of their writings, that some of thē haue left a caution iust to the contrary, I meane, that their sayings touching the Eucharist are not to be peruer­ted [Page 184] by any Figuratiue, or Allegoricall constructions, but as the words doe lye, are so to be taken.

The president of Hilarius (a very ancient, and Learned Father) shall heere serue in place of many, who as it were through a Prenotion, and foresight of this our Schismaticall Age (guided by him, with whom there is no Priority or Laternesse of Tyme) hath set downe his Syntax, or Grammar for the construction both of him­selfe, and the rest of the Fathers in all passages touching the Eucharist. Thus then he saith c. 8. de Trinitate. Non est humano, aut Saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum, ne (que) per violentam, aut impudentem praedicationem caelestium di­ctorum sanitati, alienae, at (que) impiae intelligentiae extorquenda peruersitas est. Quae scripta sunt legamus, & quae legimus in­telligamus, & tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur. De naturali enim in nobis Christi vnitate &c. We are not to speake in an humane, or secular sense of the things concerning God, neither through a violent, & impudent forme of speach, any peruersity of a strang, and wicked construction is to be extorted out of the wholesomnesse of those hea­uenly sentences. What are written, let vs read, and what we read, let vs vnderstand, and then we shall enioy the office of a prefect faith. For what we speake of the natur­all Vnity of Christ in vs, except we learne it of him, we speake foolishly, and wickedly, for he saith, Caro mea verè est esca.] Thus farre S. Hilarie: So much estranged was he, and the rest of those venerable Wryters from willing, that their Testimonyes herein should be cast in the mould of a forced, and figuratiue Interpretation.

THAT ALL THE CHIEFEST OBIECTED Authorities of the Fathers vrged by the Prote­stants are impertinent. CHAP. IX.

I KNOVV well that Nature, and Art (Natures Counterpane) do instruct vs, that in euery perfect discourse of any subiect, we ought in the Front, and be­ginning to plant the state of the Que­stion proposed, circumstancing it with all such due restrictious, and other cau­tionary explications, as the mainteiners, and patrons doe willingly acknowledge. For by so doing, the very entrance of the worke (like vnto the skill vsed in the Perspectiues) will cast light vpon the ensuing parts, and withall the Reader may (as it were) optically glasse [Page 190] [...] [Page 191] [...] [Page 184] [...] [Page 185] [...] [Page 186] therin a contracted, and epitomized sight of the whole Treatise. Notwithstanding (contrary heerto) I haue thought good in this Question of the Eucharist, thus far to deferre the placing of the state therof (except what is scatteringly touched, as occasion sometimes hath serued) Which dislocation (I hope) is iustly excusable, since we are not alwayes seruily to tye our selues to other Mens precepts, for in the best Writers somtimes, Art hath ouer­ruled Art, & Method lyed in breach of Method. My reasō heerin is, to preuent a tedious, and needlesse repetition of one, & the same thing, for seeing in this Chapter we vn­dertake to shew, that the doubtful, & obscure places, bor­rowed out of the Fathers writings for the impugning of our Catholike faith, do not in any sort disable the same; it is certaine, that this point will be best cleared, by setting downe, what the Catholikes do hould in this sacred My­sterie: since in a true vnfoulding, & explication therof, we shall find virtually included the solutions of the chief obiected Passages; thus shall we discouer, that the Sacra­mentaries greatest Peeces of this nature, wherwith in vaine they play vpon the impregnable Fort of Christs owne words, are but charged with certaine rouing, and hurtlesse paper bullets of wrested Authorityes.

Well then, first we teach, that notwithstanding the true, and reall being of Christs Body, and Bloud vnder the externall formes of Bread, and Wine, the Eucharist may be termed a signe in two respects.

First it is a Signe, since it representeth the Body of Christ dying vpon the Crosse, and his Bloud shed vpon the same, answerably to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mor­tem Domini annunciabitis, donec veniat: You shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come.] Which wordes doe [Page 187] truly paraphrase that saying of our Sauiour, Hoc facite in meā comemorationem: hauing therin relation to his Passiō. Now in this reference we hould, that the Eucharist is di­stinguished from his Body, and Bloud, since it is not heere in the same manner, as it was vpon the Crosse; the Sa­crament being therof but a representation, or comme­moration. And in this sense of the Eucharist being ter­med a signe doth Ignatius Epist. ad Philadelph. distinguish the Eucharist from Christs Body, and Bloud.

In this sense also S. Ambrose Coment. in c. 11. in 1. ad Cor. writeth, that the Body, and Bloud, which were offered for vs vpon the Crosse, are signifyed in the Eucharist; as also he there saith, that the mysticall Cup is a Type of our Lords Body, & Bloud. The same construction doth Basil receaue, who in his Liturgy calles the Eucharist [...], that is the Figure of Christs Body.

Hitherto also are referred those words of S. Chryso­stome Homil. 83. in Matth. there calling the Eucharist Symbolum Passionis Christi. And the same construction is to be giuen to that so often obiected place of S. Augustine epist. 23. ad Bonifacium, where he teacheth, that the Sa­craments haue a similitude, or likenesse of the thinges, wherof they are Sacraments; and that the Sacrament of the Body, and Bloud of Christ is, secundum quemdam mo­dum, the Body, and Bloud of Christ, meaning thereby, that though the Body, and Bloud of Christ be in the Eu­charist, according to it true substance; yet it is not there as it was vpon the Crosse, but only in similitude; for e­uen in this place S. Augustine speakes of the Passion, and Death of Christ. And this very explication doth that o­ther testimony of S. Augustine admit lib. contra Adiman­tum. c. 12. where he saith, that our Sauiour in giuing his [Page 188] Body, did giue the signe of his body, which will cleerely appeare to any one, who with deliberation will consider the place.

The second Respect, wherein the Eucharist may be called a signe, is because it is a Sacrament, and euery Sacrament (according to part of it definition) is Signum rei Sacrae. For we hold that those externall species of bread, and wyne doe signify the true Body, and Bloud of Christ lying vnder them. And in this reference of the externall formes to the body, and bloud veyled vnder them, are to be vnderstood Origen in c. 15. Matth. where he calles the Eucharist a Typicall Body. Ambrose l. de my­sterijs initiandis c. 9. where he saith, that after the conse­cration, the Body of Christ is signified.

Now out of these Premisses we may collect, that it is a dissolute, and loose kynd of reasoning thus to inferre; The Fathers doe call the Eucharist a signe, or Type of Christs Body, and Bloud: Ergo, they taught, that his body, and bloud were not really in the Eucharist. For these two poynts (as we haue shewed aboue) are not incompatible, but may stand togeather; for euen in hu­mane matters we find, that one, and the same thing may be a signe of a thing, and the thing signified: thus the wares stalled forth in a shop (as silke, cloth &c.) are signes of merchandize to be sould, & are themselues mer­chandize to be sould. Therefore if our Aduersaries will produce any auaileable authority touching this point, they must alledge the Fathers, teaching, that the Eucharist is only a signe of Christs Body, or that it is a meere represē ­tation of a thing being absent : but such Fatherlesse Posi­tions, as these, cannot yet be found in the wrytings of the Fathers.

And seeing, that the Eucharist is (as we teach) a representation of Christs Body, and Bloud in some pe­culiar senses. I will add (as an appendix hereto) an An­notation of certaine places of the Fathers, wherein the Word Repraesento is vsed; the places be, Tertullian l. 1. contra Marcionem. S. Hierome in c. 26. Matth. These Te­stimonyes our Aduersaries doe obiect, in that, it is there said, that the Eucharist doth represent Christ, or the body, and bloud of Christ, or the like. For the true meaning of which testimonyes, we are to obserue, that the Verbe Repraesento, is ambiguous, for it signifieth to make a thing present, either truly, and really, or else only in signe, and figure. Now we say, that these Fa­thers did vse this word in the firster signification, to wit, that Christ did truly, and really exhibite his Body, in that, which was bread afore. Which point we proue be­cause these Fathers haue else where writen most cleerely, and euidently in behalfe of the Reall Presence, and ther­fore if these their Authorities were otherwise to be vn­derstood, then should they either retract their former doctrine (whereof there is no signe) or else should main­ly crosse, & contradict themselues; wherewith to charge them were most absurd.

That the Verbe Repraesento, is sometimes taken to exhibite, or make a thing present truly, and really, I will content my selfe with the testimony euen of Tertullian himselfe. For he lib. contra Praxeam, calleth Christ the Sonne, the Representation of the Father, and yet the Father is truly in the Sonne. In like sort, when God the Father said in Mount Thabor: Hic est filius meus &c. Ter­tullian l. 4. in Marcionem saith : Ita (que) iam repraesentans eum: Hic est filius meus; meaning, that, God the Father, who [Page 190] sometimes had promised his Sonne, did 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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 Fathers workes vpon this matter, they find it [Page 194] 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, [Page 195] 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 cō ­ceaue, 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 [Page 196] 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, Quicum (que) 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 [Page 197] 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 more obscure writings of the Fathers herein without dā ­ger; The which obseruations, in that they shall not be meerely aëry, and speculatiue, or like Accidences with­out [Page 198] Substances, I will make choyce of S. Augustine, i [...] whome they shall (as I may terme it) inhere; exempli­fying them in him (rather then in any other) because our Aduersaries in this Controuersie with great vendication, and shew of confidence, seeme to rely vpon this Father.

First then, he is to know, that the Fathers omitting sometimes the literall sense of the words of the Euange­lists, or Apostles (as confessed) do giue some other Tro­picall, or Mysticall interpretation of them (which course they often vse in exposition of other parcells of Scri­pture.) After this manner S. Augustine passing ouer the immediate, literall, and acknowledged sense of eating Christs Body, thus saith, in 26. in Ioan. Credere in eum, hoc est, manducare carnem eius.

Another Animaduersion may be, diligently to con­ferre the more cleare places of a Father touching the Eu­charist, with the more doubtfull of the same Father; for it is true, that their Writings do affoard some darke say­ings touching this Mysterie; but it as is true, that they do minister vs most pregnant, and vnanswerable proofes for our Catholike doctrine heerin; Thus do we find, that diuers passages alleaged out of S. Augustine, as particu­lerly, in Psal. 33. concion. 1. vpon the words, Et ferebatur manibus suis: and l. 3. de Trinit. c. 10. disputing vpon the formes, wherin the Angells appeared, and, in Psal. 98. vpon the words, Adorate scabellum pedum eius; do more strongly proue, and fortifie this our Catholike doctrine, then any other Countertexts obiected out of him, do weaken it. Seeing then, that Augustine vnretracted, doth not impugne Augustine, is followeth euen in reason, that the more obscure passages are to be illustrated by the more perspicuous, and euident, and not the contrary; [Page 199] since Darkenesse cannot giue Light to light: nor Vncer­tainty become a Rule of Certainty.

A third Caution is, to remember that some of the ancient Fathers are so full, and resolute in this point, as that euen by the acknowledgment of all, they are not ca­pable of any solutions, but confessed (and therfore reie­cted) to confirme the Reall Presence. Now, seeing that such Fathers so writing are not cōtradicted by any other Fathers; it is therfore from hence necessarily inferred, that those other Fathers, that write more obscurely ther­of, did neuerthelesse conspire, and agree with the for­mer in doctrine heerin: which contradiction of any No­uelisme in Religion, we find to haue bene in all ages; as appeareth (to omit the examples of Tertullian, Origen, & Cypriā) by the many registred Heresies by Irenaeus, Epipha­nius, & Augustine. If then S. Augustine had written heer­in contrary to the plaine testimonies of his age, or the immediate tymes after him, is it probable, that none of them would haue taxed him, as swaruing in this point from the vnity of Faith? Or if the Fathers of his dayes, & other precedent tymes, had in such their perspicuous sayings of the Eucharist broached a new Heresie in the Church, can we suppose, that S. Augustine (who pur­posely, & elaborately wrot of other mens heresies) would haue bene silent in so important a matter?

A fourth Caution, which partly conspireth with the former, is: That we are to obserue, what Fathers in any age, haue liued in any strait enter course of friendship to­geather, eyther by writing, or otherwise. For we are to presume, that the Faith of one of such (if the contrary appeare not by wryting of eyther side) was agreable to the faith of the other. Seeing then, that S. Augustine was [Page 200] tyed most firmly in freindship with S. Ambrose (whose Testimonyes touching the Eucharist, are acknowled­ged for vs, euen by the Sacramentaries) how can it be probably presumed, that S. Augustine should dissent from him in so high a Mysterie, and yet on note, or remem­brance thereof left in the monuments, and writings of either of them? How can it be (I say) that they should mainly dissent in faith, since vnity of faith was the band of their most freindly agrement? Or that they should be Heretickes one to another, when their mutuall profession of being scourges of Heretickes, gaue the first cementa­tion, and strenghtening to their inuiolable amity? Or finally (if we will belieue credible Authours) how could they so conspiringly, and vnanimously (as if but one Soule had informed two Bodyes) haue sayd in that di­uine Hymme of theirs, Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominū con­fitemur, if there had bin any disparity in theyr worship of God, or different confession of him, as their Lord?

The Fifth, and last Caution, which I will heere deliuer, is to weigh, whether the actions recorded by a­ny Father do rather sort to the doctrine of the Catholiks touching the Reall Presence, or to the opinion of the Sa­cramentaryes, since the Fathers approbation of any such workes, doth sufficiently warrant in theyr Iudgements the fayth wherunto such actions are truly appropriated. Thus answerably heerto we find, that S. Augustine lib. 22. de Ciuit. Dei. c. 8. reporteth, that a certaine House infested] The words of S. Augustine in that place are these : One Hesperius hauing his house infested with wicked spirits, to the affliction of his beasts, and seruants, desired in my absence certaine of our Priests, that some would goe thither &c. One went, and offered there the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ, praying what he might, that the vexa­tion might cease, and God being thereupon mercifull, it ceased.] Thus S. Augustine. house infested with wicked spirits, was deliuered of the said spi­rits, through the offering vp of the Sacrifice of the Bo­dy of Christ (as this holy Father there saith) by certaine Priests thither sent. Now heere he saith not, that the particuler prayers of the Priests freed the house of them, [Page 201] neither can we thinke, that, that Learned Doctour be­lieued the sacrificing of a litle bread, and wine to worke such stupendious effects; but he plainly affirmeth, that this great Miracle was performed by the offering vp of Christs Body, and Bloud; Therefore it followeth euen [...], and demonstratiuely, that S. Augustine be­lieued, that Christs Body, and Bloud was truly, and really in the celebration of the Eucharist.

And thus much touching these Obseruations. And now I will end this Chapter, affirming that in regard of what hath beene deliuered in this second Part, we may be the more bold to reproue the precipitate, and wil­full blindnesse of the Sacramentaries, who (by reason of some few scattered darke passages found in the Fa­thers) are not ashamed to vociferate, and crye mainly out with Dioscorus the Hereticke in the Councell of Chal­cedon: We defend the opinions of the Fathers; We haue their Testimonyes, not by snatches, or at the second hand, but vt­tered in their owne Bookes; Wee are cast out with the holy Fathers: whereas indeed, these vauntes are as farre from being iustified, as their beliefe herein is distant from our Catholike beliefe.

THAT BY THE CONFESSIONS OF THE Most learned Protestants, the Fathers do teach the Reall Presence. CHAP. X.

WEE VVe read.] 1. Samuel 5. & 6. read, that as through Gods permissiō, the Arke was for the tyme with houlden by the Philistians; so through the sweetnesse of his Proui­dence (which euer worketh good out of euill, as he once did Light Light out of Darknesse.] 2. Cor. 4. out of Darknesse) it was in the end safely restored to Israel. The like may we say of the writings of those primitiue Fathers, which (next to the Sacred Scriptures) may be termed the Arke, or Tabernacle, wherin do lye entreasured the riches of the Euangelicall Law. Of this Arke our Aduersaries would seeme in the [Page 203] beginning to haue impatronized themselues (I meane in their owne vaunts, and in the Eye of the vnlearned, not of the Iudicious) but not being able to make good their supposed title therto, and frustrated of their expected gaine therby; they are at the last pleased to relinquish all such vsurped interest, and freely to surrender it to the true Israelites of the Catholike Church.

This shalbe heere made euident (to omit what hath bene already deliuered) euen hy the vncoacted, and vo­luntary confessions of the Sacramentaries; who abso­lutely disclayming in this great Controuersie from the Fathers, as being chiefe Patrons of our Catholike Faith heerin, do betrample their Writings, and Testimonies with an vnaccustomed contempt, and scorne: charging both them, and the tymes wherin they liued with great superstition concerning the same. Thus we see, how our fastidious, and delicate Sectarie, weary still of plodding on the common path, and tract of faith (though beaten with a continuall practise of Gods Church, and a Gene­rall Warrant of the Fathers since the Apostles) delighteth himselfe (according to that [...]) with cer­taine Deuiations, and By-wayes of Innouation, & No­uelty; since this (saith he) begetteth a manu-mission, & freedome of his vnderstauding vnworthily heertofore enthralled to the iudgments of the Papists Church, and Fathers.

But to proceed. I will produce (as I said) in this point the Sacramentaries owne words (so shall the Ene­my wound the Enemy, and Truth receaue a strenthe­ning from her impugners) wherin they most fully ac­knowledge in behalfe of vs Catholikes, that the Fathers did ioyntly teach our now professed faith of the Eucha­rist. [Page 204] Which kind of proofe both by their owne Their owne Assertions.] For Doctour VVhitaker de Ec­cles. controuers. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 14. saith: Firmum fit necesse Argumen­tum illud quod sumitur ex Aduer sariorum confessione &c. Asser­tions, as also euen in reason it selfe is auayleable: since as a Testimony of a friend, against a friend, so of an Ad­uersarie for an Aduersary is most conuincing.

Now that the Fathers in this weighty Controuersy are on our side, shall appeare foure seuerall wayes by the plaine confession of our Aduersaries; in the vnfolding whereof by certaine steppes, & degrees, I will (in part) retaine my former prescribed Method. First then this shall appeare, in that the Fathers taught the reseruation of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Adoration of the same. Thirdly, that it was a true, and perfect Sacrifice offered to God for the expiation of our sinnes; all which three points doe potentially, and necessarily include our Ca­tholike doctrine. Fourthly and Lastly, that euen in direct, and plaine words they taught the Reall Presence, and Transubstantiation. All which shall be proued euen from the Sacramentaries owne pennes.

And First, touching Reseruation, which most conse­quently implyes the Reall Presence, since if the Eucharist be nothing else but Bread, and Wyne, to what end is it to be reserued? especially considering the Doctrine of our Sacramentaries, who VVho teach.] So writeth M. VVillet in Synopsi Papismi. p. 460. besides, it is the common doctrine of all the Protestants. M. VVillet words are: It is no Sacrament except it be receaued. teach, that this Sacrament consisteth only in action; to wit, during the tyme of celebrating, distributing, and eating it: which being expired, they say, that the Bread, and Wyne then cea­seth to be any longer the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now the Fathers in this point of Reseruation are charged by diuers. And first Kemnitius (that insolent Iudge of his owne Iudges) acknowledgeth this point, saying: Saying: VVitnesses.] Examen. part. 2. pa. 102. Witnesses of this custome of priuate Reseruation of the Eucha­rist, are Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil &c. [Page 205] He also in the same place saith; That certaine of the Fa­thers greatly commended the Reseruation of the Sacrament. And finally there concludeth saying; that it was, Antiqua consuetudo, latè patens, & diu propagata.

Caluin Caluin saith.] Instit. 4, c. 17. §. 39. saith: That the Reseruation of the Sacra­ment is veteris Ecclesiae exemplum: An Example of the an­cient Church.

The Centurists The Centurists.] Cent. 4. col. 427. do reprehend the Ancient Fa­thers for the Doctrine of Reseruation, and withall they They shew.] Cent. 4. col. 878. shew, that it was the Viaticum of such as were sicke; which point euidently argueth the doctrine of Reser­uation.

That it was a Viaticum for the sicke, is further con­fessed by Monsieur Monfieur Casaubon.] Who in his Epistle to Cardinall Peron, writeth, that Patres Concilij Niceni, & [...]ota Antiquitas &c. The Fathers of the Nycene Councell, & all Antiquity did minister the Eucharist to the sicke, and in that respect did call it their Viaticum. Casaubon. Cartwright in his second Reply Second Reply.] part. 1. p. 77. thus censureth S. Iustin for this point: Iustins saying of Deacons carrying the bread of the Holy Supper of the Lord, is contrary to the Institution.

Doctor Fulke D. Fulke confesseth.] Against Heskins, Sanders &c. pag. 77. confesseth no lesse freely in these words: That the Sacrament was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, is not so great a Controuersy as whether it ought to be reserued. To conclude, this point is so cleare, as that Cyril ad Calosyrium condemneth the Anthropomor­phites, as Hereticks, for denying the Reseruation of the Eucharist. And therefore he is deepely reprehended for so doing by Peter By Peter Martyr.] lib. aduersus Gardinerum de Eucha­rist. col. 838. printed at Basil. Martyr, who saith thereof thus: Ea consuetudo, etsi saperet nonnihil superstitionis &c. Though that custume of Reseruation may seeme somwhat to tast of su­perstition, yet did Cyril, and others subscribe therto.] And Martyr there further thereof: Statim enim ab Apostolorum temporibus &c. Presently after the tymes of the Apostles, men did degenerate from that ancient simplicity of the Diuine wor­ship.] So euident a thing (we see) it is, that the Fathers [Page 206] euen by the confessions of our Aduersaries did teach the reseruation of the Eucharist. Which thing being gran­ted, and consisting chiefly in practise (which might well descend from Age, to Age) whether is it not more proba­ble, that the Fathers aboue censured some of them liuing but fifty, or threescore yeares after the Apostles, should be better informed of the Apostles vse heerin, then these vpstarts, who appeare aboue fifteene hundred yeares af­ter the Apostles.

Concerning the second point, which is Adoration of the Sacrament, the Fathers euen in our Aduersaries iudg­ments rest chargeable therin. Which doctrine (as I haue shewed aboue) implicitly inuolues in it selfe the doctrine of the Reall Presence; for seeing we cannot imagine, that they would ascribe any Adoration to Bread, and Wine (still belieuing it to be but bread, and wine) we must assure our selues, that they exhibited this adoration to the Eucharist, as belieuing, that vnder those externall formes did lye the true Body of Christ accompanyed with his Diuinity.

Now, touching our Aduersaries censuring the F [...] ­thers, as faulty heerin; we find, that wheras Nazianzen Nazianzen telleth.] Orat. 11. de Sorore Gorgonia. telleth of his sister Gorgonia (a testimony heertofore by vs alleaged) how she (afore being dangerously sicke) prostrating her selfe before the Altar, and calling vpon him who is worshipped theron, departing (not with­out Miracle) presently receauing health. Which place Doctour D. Fulke.] Respons. ad Stapleton. de success. Eccles. pag. 230. Fulke not acknowledging, nor denying, cō ­cludeth thus: Fucharistia in altari &c. The Eucharist vpon the Altar was not worshipped of her, although it was had in great reuerence, and perhaps not without superstition.] Thus D. Fulke. Which denying-granting Answere of his, well [Page 207] discouereth, what he thought of Gorgonia's action heerin. This action of Gorgonia is also reprehended by Peter Mar­tyr (as I shewed afore) lib. contra Gardiner.

In like sort we find, that S. Ambrose is controlled for the adoration of the Eucharist by the Centurists, who speaking of Ambroses prayers in orat. praeparat. ad Mis­sam, say: Continent adorationem.] Cent. 4. col. 430. Continent adorationem Panis in Sacramento. They contayne the Adoration of Bread in the Sacrament.

Chemnitius Kemnitius also.] Exam. part. 2. pag. [...]2. also setteth downe seuerall sentences of Nazianzen, Ambrose, & Augustine, pronouncing ther­upon, that in his iudgment they contayne the Adoration of the Sacrament. Iohn Fox Fox wryteth.] Act. Mon. pag. 896. writeth touching the An­tiquity of this point of Adoration, that if Honorius (who liued anno 1220.) did not bring it in, we cannot find it to come in by another. Now that Honorius did not begin it, ap­peareth out of al the former Testimonies alledged therin.

To conclude this point, S. Basil speaking of vnwrit­ten Traditions, saith: Verba inuocationis, dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae, & pocusum Benedictionis, quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit?] Which place hauing reference to the particuler words of Adoration, is acknowledged, & reprehended by D. Fulke By M. Fulke.] In his Reioynder to Bristow. p. 685. : so true it is, that the Fathers by the confessions of the Sacramentaries taught the do­ctrine of the adoration of the Eucharist.

Touching the third Branch, that is, that the Eucha­rist was in the iudgment of the Fathers (whose Testimo­nies to that end are already afore alledged) a true, and perfect Sacrifice, euen by the acknowledgmēt of our Ad­uersaries; we find that the Carthage Councell, wherat S. Augustine was present, and subscribed, teacheth the Sacrifice of the Masse, and therfore is controlled therin by the The Centurists.] Cent. 4. pag. 16. there speaking of the 79. Canon of the fourth Councell. Centurists who thus write: Hic Canon &c. This [Page 208] Canon, if it be not forged, sheweth, that euen in that tyme, Prayers, & Oblations for the dead were made.] Where by the word Oblations, they meane the Sacrifice of the Masse.

S. Ambrose in like manner is charged by the Centu­rists Centurists.] Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. in these word [...]s Ambrosius locutionibus vtitur &c. vt Missam facere, offerre Sacrificium. Ambrose vsed those kind of speaches &c. as for example, to say Masse, or of­fer vp Sacrifice.

Gregory Nyssen is also reprehended by Crastouius Crastouius.] Lib. de opificio Missae. Sect. 164. a Protestant, for mantaining the doctrine of the Sacrifice in these words: An ignoramus opinionem Nysseni &c. Are we ignorant, that the opinion of Nyssen is of it selfe absurd, who said, that when Christ gaue his body to his disciples to eate, that then his body was latently, ineffably, and inuisibly sacrificed vp?] This Father is also for the same point reprehended by D. Doctour VVhitaker.] contra Duraeum. l. 4. pag. 320. Whitaker.

S. Cyril of Ierusalem is charged by Hospinianus Hospinianus.] I [...] Sacrament. pag. 167. in this sort: Quod ad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet &c. As concerning Cyril of Ierusalem, he indeed affirmed, accor­ding to the custome of his tyme, that the Sacrifice of the Altar was a great help of the soules.

S. Cyprian is deeply reproued for his doctrine herein by the Centurists The Centurists.] Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. in these words : Sacerdotem inquit &c. Cyprian saith that the Priest doth enioy the place of Christ, and offereth sacrifice to God the Father.] In like sort, D. Fulke D. Fulke saith.] Against Heskins, Sanders &c. pag. 100. saith of him : It is granted, that Cyprian thought the Bread, and Wyne, brought forth by Melchisedech, to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ.]

Tertullian receaues this Censure from the Centurists: The Centurists.] Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 5. Tertullianus approbauit &c. Tertullian did approue obla­tions (or Sacrifices) for the dead &c.]

Irenaeus also hath his doome from the said Centurists: The said Centurists.] cent. 2. c. 4. col. 63. De Oblatione porrò Irenaeus satis &c. Furthermore Ire­naeus is thought to speake ouer incommodiously of Oblation, when he saith, that Christ did teach a new Oblation of the New Testament, the which the Church receauing from the Apostles, doth offer vp to God throughout the whole world.]

To conclude, S. Ignatius, the Apostles vndoubted Scholler, is traduced by the By the Centurists.] cent. 2. c. 4. col. 63. Centurists, as fauouring this doctrine: thus they write of him. Quaedam ambi­gua, & incommode dicta &c. Certaine things occurre in this Fathers writings, which are ambiguous, and incommodiously spoken, as in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses : where Ignatius sayth, that it is not lawfull without a Bishop neither to offer, nor to immolate a Sacrifice.] In this sort the Centu­rists in another Another place.] Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 167. place say of Ignatius, that his words touching this Doctrine are periculosa, & quasi errorum semina.

Thus we see, how euery particuler Father is parti­culerly charged heerwith: yet Caluin euen with one VVith one sentence.] Instit. l. 4. c. 18. Sentence condemnes diuers of them at once, who thus writeth: Veteres quo (que) illos video &c. And I see, that those Ancient Fathers did wrest otherwise the memory hereof (mea­ning of the Lords Supper) then was agreeing to the Institution of our Lord; for their Supper maketh shew of an iterated, or at least renewed Sacrifice &c. for they haue imitated more neare­ly the Iewish manner of Sacrifising, then either Christ ordey­ned, or the Ghospell could well suffer.] And in another Another place.] lib. de vera Eccles. reformat. place, Caluin thus proceedeth: Solenne est nebulonibus [...]stis &c. It is an accustomed manner with these Knaues (so ray­lingly he tearmes the Catholikes) to scrape togeather, what faults soeuer they find in reading the Fathers. Therefore when they obiect, that the place ef Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus [Page 210] of the Sacrifice of the Masse; and the Oblation of Melchise­dech in like sort is so interpreted by Athanasius, Ambrose, Au­gustine, Arnobius: I answere in few wordes, that the same Wryters do also in other places vnderstand by bread, the body of Christ, but so ridiculously, as both Reason, & Truth force vs to dissent from them.] Thus Caluin.

Neither do we find Kēmtius Kemnitius.] pag. 798. to be much lesse spa­ring in censuring the Fathers concerning this point; for he thus pronounceth of them : Ne (que) Veterum qualescum (que) sententiae &c. Neither in this Controuersie the sentences of the ancient Fathers, but the Canonicall Scripture is to be the Rule, and Square of faith.] And againe, reprehending the Fa­thers for calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, he saith: that the so naming of it, is, de Naeuis quorumdam Veterum.

And thus much concerning our Aduersaries char­ging the Fathers of euery age, euen from the Apostles to S. Augustine (euen insimulating S. Augustine himselfe within the same supposed Errour) with the doctrine of the Sacrifice. And therfore no meruayle, if Sebastianus Sebastianus Francus.] lib. de abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Eccles. Francus, an eminent Protestant, did peremptorily pro­nounce, that, Statimpost Apostolos &c. Presently after the Apostles all things are turned vpside downe, the Supper of the Lord is transformed into a Sacrifice.] And yet Hospinian not content heerwith proceedeth further saying: Iam tum primo.] in Histor. Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. [...]m tum primo illo saeculo, & viuentibus adhuc Apostolis &c. The Diuell in the very first age, and when the Apostles wer [...] yet liuing, gaue subtily more to this Sacrament, then to Baptisme, and by litle, and litle withdrew Men from the first forme therof.] And thus far of the Protestants acknow­ledgment of the Fathers minds, touching this point of the Sacrifice.

Now to come to the last Point, which is to shew out [Page 211] of the Protestāts Writings, that the Fathers did in plaine, and direct wordes, without the help of any inferences, (though neuer so immediate, and necessary) teach the doctrine of the Reall Presence. First then (to omit Grego­ry the Great, as not being within the first fiue hundred yeares, condemned by Doctour Humfrey heerin) we find S. Chrysostome reprehended by the The Centurists.] Cent. 5. col. 517. Centurists, because Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare.

In like sort Eusebius Emyss [...]nus is charged by the Cen­turists, in that Parùm commodè.] Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985. Parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit: He spake vnprofitably of Transubstantiation.

Neither doth S. Ambrose Ambrose escape.] Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. escape the like rebuke of the Centurists, since he is affirmed by thē in the bookes of the Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, to confirme the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which Father for the very same is taxed by By Oecolampadius.] Lib. epist. Oecolampad. & Zuin­glij l. 3. Oecolampadius.

S. Cyril in like manner is heynously traduced by Pe­ter Martyr for his doctrine of the Reall Presence, for thus Martyr saith: I will not so easily.] Peter Martyr l. Epistol. epist. ad Bezam, annexed to his Common places. I will not so easily subscribe to Cy­ril, who affyrmed such a Communion, as therby euen the sub­stance of the Flesh and Bloud of Christ is ioyned to the bles­sing, for so he calleth the holy bread &c.]

Martyr also In another place.] In his second Alphabeticall Table (annexed to his Common places) of the Additions vnder the letter H. at the word Heresy. in another place thus saith : The He­resie of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ.] As also in a third In a third place.] Epist. ad Caluinum. place, he further reproueth the doctrine of Cyril, and of diuers other Fathers in this point.

S. Cyprian also is charged in the booke ascribed to Vrsinus, intituled, Commonefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Coena: who there There writeth.] pag. 211. & 218. writeth thus : In Cyprian are many things, which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation.] And hence it is, that the Sermon of Cyprian de Coena Do­mini, wherin he writeth so fully in defence of Transub­stantiation [Page 212] is said by our Aduersaries to be but counter­fait; And yet notwithstanding D. Fulke against the Rhemish The Rhemish Testament.] in. 1. Cor. c. 11. Testament acknowledgeth the authour ther­of to be in the time not much inferiour to Cyprian, and there produceth Authority out of the same Booke. Lastly Ignatius is acknowledged by By Kemnitius.] Exam. part. 1. pag. 94. Kemnitius to haue con­firmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, in that emi­nent place of his, Eucharistias, & Oblationes non admittunt &c. already herefore alledged.

Now seeing the voluntary Confessions of our Ad­uersaries concerning the Fathers Iudgements in this point, are so cleare, I cannot but approue the ingenuous, playne, and impoliticke dealing of some other Prote­stants, who in regard of the truth hereof freely con­fesse the further Antiquity of this Doctrine. And accor­ding hereto we find, that Antony de Antony de Adamo.] In his Anatomie of the Masse pag. 236. Adamo (a mar­keable Protestant) saith : I haue not hitherto beene able to know, when this Opinion of the Reall, and Bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne.] And in like sort Adamus Adamus Francisci.] In margarita Theolog. pag. 256. Francisci (another Protestant) confesseth no lesse thereof, saying: Commentum Papistarum &c. The Papists Inuention, touching Transubstantiation crept early into the Church.]

Thus haue I heere set downe the Fathers Iudgments in this high Mysterie, confessed by the most Learned (though to their owne Preiudice) of our Aduersaries by the foure former wayes; to wit, by acknowledging, that the Fathers did teach the Reseruation, the Adora­tion, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist (ech of these neces­sarily inuoluing our Catholike Faith) and lastly, the Conclusion it selfe, in playne, direct, and literall words. Wherefore if any of the Sacramentaries shall seeme to [Page 213] haue iust reason, to vse hereat the complaint of that A­postata Anti-Constantyne.] Thus Theodoret recordeth Iulian to say l. 3. c. 8. Anti-Constantine, I meane, Lucian: We are wounded with our owne quills: out of our bookes they take ar­mour, which in fight they vse against vs.] Let such remem­ber, that Truth hath a Soueraignty, and Influence ouer a Mans Penne; forcing her Enemyes at vnawares euen in impugning her, to defend her (for so our Sectaryes doe mightily strenghten this our Catholike Faith, when in refuting of it, they acknowledge the Fathers to be our chiefest Patrons) and extorting at their hands the like benefit, which Premeth [...]us Thessalus (recorded by Plutarch) had receaued from his capitall Aduersarie, who in fight intending to kill him, launced only with his sword a most dangerous mole, or wenne, and so thereby without any further hurt restored him to his more perfect health.

But as heere I haue deliuered the Protestants Asser­tion, to wit, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did with a full consent maintaine the Reall Presence; so I take it not impertinent heere to set downe briefly ano­ther Position, to wit; That the Primitue Church did neuer ioyntly erre in Faith, and Religion. Which Pro­position is most true both in reason it selfe, and by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries. In Reason, for se­ing that Christ foūded his Church with such solicitude, as he did, and being founded, did water it (for it en­crease, and continuance) with the shedding of his own most precious Bloud, and the Bloud of infinite Martyrs during those Primitiue tymes; can it stand with his di­uine, and benigne Prouidence, presently after his Ascē ­sion, or at the most vpon the death of his Apostles, to a­bandon his former care had therof? Or shall we imagine him so vnkind, and vnmercifull (who through a mer­cifull [Page 214] kindnesse was content corporally to dye, to pre­uent our eternall death) as instantly then to repudiate his most deare, and chast Spouse, by suffering an vtter disparition, and vanishing away of the true Faith? By the acknowledgment of the Protestants the former As­sertion is also most true, as shall euidently appeare out of their owne words, from the Reference From the Reference appropriated] Answerably hereto we find, that Iewell in his defence of the Apology thus saith: The Pri­mitiue Church, which was vnder the Apostles, and Martyrs, hath euer­more beene accounted the purest of all others without exception. Kemnitius saith in his Exam. Conc. Tridēt. part. 1. pag. 74. VVe doubt not, but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles, and Apostolicall Men, not only the Text of Scripture, but also the right, and natiue sense thereof. And in the same part he also saith: VVe are greatly confirmed in the true, and sound sense of Scripture, by the testimony of the Ancient Church. Doctor Sarauia in defens. tract. de diuersis Ministrorum gradibus pag. 8. writeth: Spiritus Sanctus (qui in Ecclesia praesidet) verus est Scripturarum Interpres: ab eo igitur est petenda vera interpretatio, & cum i [...] sibi non possit esse contrarius, qui primitiuae Ecclesiae praesedit, & per Episcopos eam guberuauit, ipsos iam abijcere consentaneum veritati non est. In like sort the Confession of Bohemia, in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. acknowledgeth, that, The Ancient Church is the true, and best Mistresse of Posterity, and going before leadeth vs the way. Finally Doctor Bancroft speaking of Caluin, and Beza, thus writeth in his Suruey of the pretended Holy Discipline: For M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I doe thinke of them, as their writings doe deserue, but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers, I must confesse. All which prayses, and commendations giuen by so many of our Aduersaries to the Pri­mitiue Church, and the Fathers of those Ages, are vnworthily, wrongfully, and vntruly applyed, if so the Church of that Tyme, or the Fathers therof should haue generally erred in matter of faith. appropriated to this place. Now these two Propositions (to end this Chapter withall) I will combyne, and incorporate to­geather in this one Argument, wherby our Aduersaries may more clearly discerne the ineuitable, and dangerous resultancy, issuing from such their confessed (yet true) Assertions. Thus then:

The Propositiō is acknowledged by our Sectaries in the Marginall Reference. The Assumption is aboūdantly con­fessed by them throughout this whole Chapter (for it cā ­not be denyed, but that doctrine, which was taught by all the chiefest, & learned Fathers of the Primitiue Church, was the generally taught, and receaued Doctrine, and Faith of those Ages, and Tymes) therfore the Conclu­sion is most truly, and necessarily inferred. And thus my nyce Protestant Reader, if so his stomake can endure the the tast of an Argument, hath heere a Compound (to wit, that the Doctrine of the Reall Presence, is by the confes­sion [Page 215] of the Protestants, most true) made of the mixture or the two former Simples. ²

OF CERTAINE CONSIDERATIONS Drawne from Luther, the Lutherans, and o­ther Protestants, teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist. CHAP. XI.

HAVING in the former Chapter pro­ued euen frō the Testimonies of our Aduersaries (so receauing from them therby a benefit, but not a courtesie) that the ancient Fathers (though most remote frō vs in circūstance of Place, and Tyme) were neuerthelesse con­spiring with vs in faith, & beliefe of the Eucharist, and therfore altogeather opposite to the professed doctrine of the Sacramentaries, Thus the Fathers God is not as our Ad­uersaries God, euen our Euen our Enemyes.] Deuteron. 32. Enemies being Iudges: It will [Page 219] not in this place seeme (I hope) inconuenient, if I pre­sent to the Readers iudgment two obseruations; the deli­berate consideratiōs wherof (though but Morall induce­ments) are able to obtund, and blunt the most forcible reasons vrged to the contrary.

The first of these shalbe taken from Luther, whose malice towards the Pope (for indeed he breathed nothing but Malice, Pride, and Lust) was so implacable, as that he endeauoured by all meanes possible to annoy, and en­domage the Sea of Rome; and therupon (as the World knoweth) he did burst out from the Catholike Church, by denying the most poynts denyed at this day by the Protestants. Hence now I would demaund, how chan­ced, that he changed not his opinion in the Article of the Reall Presence, aswell as in the rest, since the detriment comming to the Pope by this meanes, must haue beene very markeable, and far extending, for it would haue brought in an Innouation of the externall, & daily wor­ship of God throughout all Christendome? Truly we can assigne no other reason, but that the euidency of the Euangelists, and the Apostles Texts (for Himselfe confesseth.] to wit, in his epistle ad Argentinos. himselfe of this point confesseth no lesse) was so vnauoydable, as that he could pretend no colour of dissenting from the Church of Rome heerin. And so being heere conuinced with the perspicuity of Christs owne words, was con­strayned to acknowledge him to be in the Eucharist, no otherwise then the Diuells ouercome with Christs My­racles, euen forcedly noysed him to be the The Sonne of the Liuing God.] Matth. 8. Mar. 1. Sonne of the Liuing God. Thus we see, that out of an impartiality of iudgment (which in other matters was darkened with passion) he heere was compelled to maintayne the same Doctrine, which was maintayned by his designed Ene­my; [Page 220] In defence whereof we may easily discouer his fer­uour, by his acerbity of writing against the Zuinglians in these words: We VVe censure.] Epistol. contra Articul. Louan. thes. [...]7. tom. 2. censure in earnest the Zuinglians, and all the Sacramentaryes for Hereticks, and alienated from the Church of God.] And againe: Cursed Cursed be.] Tom. 7. VVittemberg. fol. 381. be the Charity, and Concord of the Sacramentaries for euer, and euer to all eternity.]

To the Iudgement of Luther I will subordinate the iudgement of his owne brood (the Lutherans) euer since his time, who (though according with the Caluinists, and Zuinglians in many of the other points controuer­ted betweene them, and the Catholikes) with greater earnestnes haue euer maintained the doctrine of the Re­all Presence: Witnesse hereof are their long continued Continued Booke-warres.] There hath beene seuerall hundreds of Bookes written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists, or Zuinglians, and by these against the former, and the Subiect of very many of those books is only touching the doctrine of the Sacrament. See of this point Coccius his Thesaurus tom. 2. Hospinianus his Histo­ria Sacrament. part. 2. and the yearly Catalogue of Bookes returned from Franckford. Booke-warres, their Proscriptions, their Banish­ments, and other temporall dishonors, wherewith they afflict one the other, and all vndertaken originally, and primatiuely for iustifying of Christs corporall, and reall being in the Sacrament. Now the Motiue of the Luthe­rans Agreement with the Catholikes herein, cannot be deriued from any frendly association betweene vs, and them; for we see, that not only in most other Articles, but also in diuers circumstances, and accessorie Infe­rences vpon this very doctrine, they dissent from vs (as in the manner of the Presence, the Adoration, the Sa­crifice &c.) and therefore we may assure our selues, that it is the euidency of Gods word, attended on with an answerable practise of the Primitiue Church, and a ioynt consent of the Fathers, which did force their iudgements herein, and hath made them such resolute, and constant Propugners of the Reall Presence.

The second Obseruation (to passe ouer the former [Page 221] acknowledged doctrine of the Reall Presence, taught by the most eminent Deuines of England, as appeareth in my Epistle to his Maiesty, & the other to the Reader, whose Position therin seemes more Catholike, then that of those hereafter alledged) whereupon I will heere rest, shall be drawne from such our Aduersaries, who, though they imbrace not the truth of Christs Reall Being in the Sa­crament to the bodily Mouth, yet they altogeather disa­uow, and reiect the common doctrine of the Sacramen­taries, and so (as if the verity hereof did partake of a Morall vertue, to be boūded on ech side with extremes) they come crowding in with a middle kind of faith, teaching with the Catholikes, that Christ is really, and truly in the Eucharist; and with the Sacramentaries, that his Body is taken only with the mouth of faith.

The doctrine of these Participles in faith (so to tearme such Men) though erroneous, I alledge to this end, to demonstrate hereby, that the luculency, and clearnesse of the Proofes for this our Catholike Beliefe, though it hath not (through their owne de­faults) that working influence vpon such iudgements, as to draw them entirely, and wholly to the Truth, yet is it able to hinder, that they entertaine not that grosse (yet spirituall) mistaking of the Sacramentaries; euen as the Sunne, whose heate sometimes is such, as though it cannot dispell, and consume the vapours neere to it, yet is it of force to preuent, that they thicken not into any darke cloudes of stormes, and tempests.

Diuers Protestants of great eminency (as Hooker.] l. 5. of Ecclesiasticall Policie sect. 67. Hoo­ker, D. D. VVhytaker.] Contra Duraeum. pag. 168. VVhitaker, and And others.] as Bucer in Script. Auglic. pag. 548. The Confession of Belgia in the English Harmonie, pag. 431. and by diuers others. others) haue maintayned this kind of Christs being in the Sacramēt, & for their so doing, haue bene sharply rebuked by other Protestants, [Page 222] as inclyning heerin (to vse their owne wordes) ouer­much to Ouermuch to Poperie.] So is this their Opinion repre­hended by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Cōmon places in English. epist. 25. who is for the same reciprocally controlled by Bucer in his Script. Auglic. p. 548. The same Opinion of Christs existency in the Sacrament is reprehended by our English Puritants in their Christian Letter to M. R. Hooker, by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena; and finally (to omit diuers others) by Ludouicus Alemannus in positio­nibus apud Lugdunenses editis Anno 1566. who thus there writeth her­of: Ne (que) etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, vt vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo. Popery, the particulers of which I haue dis­played in the marginall Notes. Yea euen Caluin himselfe, (as seeming to allow the former Protestāts assertion) yet chiefly out of Policy, the more to countenance his whea­ten Cōmunion, thus bursteth forth into admiration of Gods power, manifested in the Eucharist, saying: Nihil Nīhil restat.] l. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 7. restat, nisi vt in eius Mysterij admirationē prorumpam, cui nec Mens planè cogitando, nec lingua explicando par esse po­test.] So desirous is a Babylonian to speake heerof in the Dialect of an Israelite. Now the [...], or Resultancy of all heertofore deliuered in this Chapter, is, to discouer that both the Lutherans, and infinite others of the most learned, and graue Protestants, do concurre heerin, that the words of Christ, & his great Apostle S. Paul (besides other humane authorityes) are so cleare, & euident, for his true, and corporall Presence in the Sacrament, as that no wit whatsoeuer can probably wrest them (and therfore Impudency it selfe might well seeme to blush at such forced Detorsions) to the vphoulding only of a bare, naked, & Typicall Presence. And that, if eyther of these two sorts were demaunded, whose particuler faith among the Christians of this Age, they would admit next to their owne, they both would prefer our Catho­like Faith before the Sacramentarian Innouation; for they both participate heerin much more with the Ca­tholikes, then with the Sacramentaries. Out of which we may iustly inferre, that the Faith of the Church of Rome only is true, and vndoubted, and all the rest erro­neous, according to that most probable Position: Cui ceterae partes, vel sectae secundas vnanimiter deferunt, cùm singulae principat [...] [...] vendic [...], melior reliquis videtur.] [Page 223] For we must presume, that the first Censure, termina­ting in their owne Faith, proceedeth out of Preiudice, and Selfe-loue; the other out of a cleere, and impartiall Iudgment.

And heere now I will close vp this Chapter with a discouery of one notorious sleight of the Sacramentaries, which shall serue, as a Chorus to this second Tract. It is this; That now at the length they are content to diuulge, that the Article of the Reall Presence, is but a Point adi­aphorous, or indifferent, and therfore may be maintay­ned on all sides without endangering the Foundation of Christian Religion. But what? Doe they thus teach in fauour towards vs, therby to lessen our supposed errour heerin? No verily. This show of kindnesse we admit not, for Timeo Danaos.] Virg. Aneid. 4. Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes. The true Reason then heerof is this: They seeing, that Gods sacred word (at least in the litterall, and genuine sense therof) the vn-interrupted Practise of the Church, the conuin­cing testimonyes of the Fathers, and finally theyr owne Brethren (though comparting with them in other Arti­cles of theyr owne Religion) do all ioyntly corroborate, and strengthen the Catholike doctrne in this High My­stery. And on the other side, vnwilling to recall (for Pryde cannot brooke a iust yielding, or submission to an Aduersary) what they haue heertofore so pertinaciously defended, they haue therfore thought it good Policy, to suggest to the world, and Indifferency of this Point, that by so doing they may intimate to all, that though they erre therin (as hauing so many great Euidences against them) yet their Errour (not touching any Cardinall, & supreme article of Faith) is the lesse dangerous, and ther­fore the more sufferable, and pardonable.

Now answerably to this my Asseueration, we find euen Doctor D. Keynolds.] in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference. Reynolds, no vulgar Idoll in our English Temple (to assigne To assigne diuers others.] Answerably hereto, we find Iacobus Acontius l. 3. stratagem. Sat. pag. 135. thus writing. It is euident concerning aswell those, who hould the Reall Presence of Christs Body in the Bread, as those others, which deny it, that although of necessity the one part doe erre, yet both are in way of Saluation, if in other things they be obedient to God.] So also the indifferent iudgement of Iohn Frith, Acts. and Mon. 503. who there saith hereof : The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament, byndeth no man of necessity to Saluation, or Damnation, whether he belieue it, or no. diuers others to the Marginall Reference) to affirme, that the Reall Presence, is but as it were, the grudging of a former Ague, if otherwise the party hould the Christian faith. Thus we see how our Aduersa­ries comportment in this Controuersy is full of fraud, morefull of Malice. Their incorrigible humour of con­tradicting the Catholike Church (for their Sacramen­tall Position is grounded meerely vpon Opposition) dis­playes their Malice; their false extenuating (for their owne aduantage) the greatnesse of this Mysterie, their Fraud.

THAT THERE ARE MANY CONGRVENTIALL Reasons, shewing the Conueniency, why Christ might be induced to leaue his Body, and Bloud in the Eucharist. As also shewing the Conueni­ency of Transubstantiation. CHAP. XII.

IT is an accustomed, & approued Me­thod both of Philosophers, and De­uines, after they haue fortified their Assertions (the subiect of their Dis­course) with the most forcible Testi­monyes, which are to be alledged in that behalfe, then to attend the said Proofs with certaine Congruentiall Inducements, perswa­ding the conueniency, and fitnes of such their doctrine.

Thus the Philosopher (for instance sake) after he [Page 227] hath much discoursed of the number, the vastnesse, and the beauty of the Heauens (Gods Hieroglyphick Chara­cters, wherin are written his Power, and Glory) and descending to demonstrate the roundnesse of those Bo­dyes, as also the answerable roundnesse of the Earth, from the vnchangeable Motions, Phainomena, and Ap­pearances of the Heauens; he sheweth the sutablenesse of this forme of them both, and how it sorteth to the be­nefite of all Creatures, and the Irregularities, and ex­orbitant Effects, rising from any other supposed forme giuen to them.

In like sort, the Diuine conuincing against the A­rian, that Christ is both God, and Man, from the holy Scriptures, and the authority of the Church, doth war­rant his doctrine with certaine perswasiue motyues, drawne from the consideration of Gods Iustice, and the Atrocity of Sinne; including, that it was conuenient, that since Sinne did first deuide God from Man, he, who by redeeming the world, should reunite them, should be both God, and Man. And thus the firster kind for­ceth our Iudgment; the other, as sorting with Reason, and Prudence, and in some sense presuming the former, serues only (as sweet meates to our stomakes) pleasing­ly to close vp our iudgment. The same order will I heere obserue : For hauing (I trust) already sufficiently pro­ued the Truth of the Reall Presence in the Eucharist frō all the former Authorities, drawne from the Word both of God, and Man, I will set downe certaine Congruen­ces, and Prudentiall Reasons, wherwith our Sauiour might well seeme to haue bene induced to leaue his Sa­cred Body to his Church, that by the authority, and disposall therof, it might be truly, and really exhibited [Page 228] to all Christians whatsoeuer.

And heere by reason of the great number of them, I will chiefly insist in some few (for I am desirous to con­tract this Treatise within as small a Compasse, as con­ueniently I can) in regard whereof I will not much more enlarge my selfe vpon those Effects, and Operations of this most heauenly food, which heretofore I haue tou­ched by way of alledging the Fathers Authorities; which shew, that the Eucharist is a Pledge of our Saluation; that by it we are not only by Faith, but euen corporally vnited with Christ; That in regard of this vnion, the Eucharist is a Seale to vs of our Resurrection; finally that through it we are made Partakers of the diuine Nature; All which admirable Effects and vertues, may probably be imagined (among other Motiues) to haue beene most preuayling with our Lord for the first institution of this holy Mysterie; for Man cannot conceaue, how Christ could inuent more forcible meanes to produce such spi­rituall operations, then by instituting this Sacrament. In respect also of the same desired expedition, I will not long rest in displaying, and amplifying the dignity, and worth of such Inducements, as I intend heere to vrge, but will passe them ouer with a cursory Penne, breifly intimating them to the studious Reader.

Well then, one Inducement of the Institution of this Sacrament may be, that seeing Mortall sinne (which is the Harbinger of eternall damnation) cannot be auoy­ded altogeather, but by the Grace of God; what better meanes could his diuine Maiesty inuent for the watering our Soules with his Grace, then the ordayning of this Sacrament? for since we are hereby truly, and really vni­ted with Christ (the Fountaine of Grace) how can we [Page 229] be altogeather estranged, and deuided from such Influ­ences, as proceed from Christ? yea we are to belieue, that this ioyning of Christ with vs, doth not only enable vs to preuent future Sinnes, but also affoardeth meanes to salue, and medicine other spirituall diseases. Which Ef­fect is worthy to proceed from such a Coniunction, since we read, that the The woman in the Ghospell.] Marke c. 5. woman in the Ghospell by touching only the hemme of Christs garment, was cured of her corporall sicknesse.

In like sort, Christ intending to enrich Mans soule with all necessarie, and spirituall knowledge for the a­uoyding of Sinne, and guyding him in the way of a ver­tuous life, could not by more conuenient meanes per­forme this his designe, then by our receauing him with­in vs, who is knowledge it selfe. For let vs consider his Humanity, we find him to be fraught with such a [...], and fulnesse of wisdome, as that, De plenitudine De plenitudine eius.] Iohn cap. 2. eius omnes accepimus. Let vs ascend higher with respect to him, as to the Second Person in the most Blessed Trinity, and we may glasse in him all sufficiency without any blemish of Imperfection, for we are taught, that he is Lumen de Lumen de Lumine.] Symbolum Athanasij. Lumine. Finally, let vs contemplate him in the supreme Maiesty of Deitie, and our weake sight is euen dazeled with the rayes of his brightnesse, since he is that Sunne from whence all reasonable Creatures do deryue their Intellectuall beames. Therefore it must needes follow, that, that Christian, who with due pre­paration receaueth him in this high Mystery, is much enlightened with spirituall, and heauenly Knowledge; and this not only during that most happy (though short) presence of him within vs, but also for no small season thereafter; euen as we see the Sunne doth leaue vnto vs [Page 230] for a reasonable tyme, a secondary light after his depar­ture from our Horizon.

A second Motiue heerof may be for our increase of Faith. For in regard of the many obscurities encompas­sing the Catholike doctrine heerin on all sides, it follow­eth, that the Faith of him, who giueth an immoueable assent heerto, is mightily aduanced : for the difficulties in any dogmaticall Point, and a faith of the said Point, may wel resemble a paire of Ballance, wherof how much the lower one part descendeth, so much the higher the other riseth; for so we find, that the greater the difficul­ties are which depresse our vnderstanding against the be­lief of any Mysterie, the higher aspireth our faith in be­lieuing the same. Wherfore in such cases our vnderstan­ding (especially if we be vnlearned) must afore digest all such subtiltyes with an vnexamined intertainment, free from all inquisitiue rumination of them; no other­wise then in the Old Law the Paschall Lambe (an ex­presse figure of the holy Eucharist) was commaunded to be eaten by By swallowing the parts.] Exod. c. 12. swallowing the parts therof downe, without any chewing of the same.

Our Hope in like sort is raysed heerby to a higher straine; for since the Obiect of Christian Hope is the Ioyes of Heauen, what greater assurance can we haue of a future accomplishing of our said Hope, then in the meane tyme (as meate giuen to strengthen vs in our spi­rituall Iourney) to feed vpon him, who is the Lord, and King of Heauen? Or how can we doubt, that we shall not in due time (if our owne demerits do not merit the cōtrary) enioy those riuers of the water of life, when whilest we are heere vpon earth, we drinke the Bloud of our Sauiour, which is the Source, and Well-spring it [Page 231] selfe? Not without cause therfore did our most gracious Author heerof affirme, that, Qui manducat meam carnem.] Iohn 6. Qui manducat me am car­nem, & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Yea one Father is so strong in this point, that he is not afraid to pronounce, that, Dum in hac vita.] Chrysostome homil. 24. in prior. ad Corinth. Dum in hac vita sumus, vt terra nobis Caelum sit, facit hoc Mysterium, so as that by the ope­ration, and Presence of the Blessed Eucharist, we enioy Heauen, before we be in Heauen: So true it is, that a confident, and erected Hope is a pleasing anticipation of a future good.

Fourthly who will not acknowledge our Charity, and Loue towards our Sauiour to grow more intense, & to become more inflamed heerby? I meane, in contem­plating the immensurable Goodnesse of God manifested to vs heerin, who would not only vouchsafe to become Man for Man, but also is content so much to abase him­se [...]fe, as to enter (being accompanyed with his Diuini­ty) into the body of a most sinfull, & wretched Worme; which proceeding of Christ, in that it did flow from an infinite gulfe of Charity towards vs, how can we be so monstrously vngratefull, as not (though in a lower pro­portion) to meete him with some retaliation of burning zeale? for seeing euen vnreasonable Creatures are heer­in so reasonable, as that they shew a liking towards thē, of whom they haue receaued any good turnes; much more then with man, should Loue be the vsury of Loue, and Affection euer reflect Affection. And therfore a Christian Soule ought in this place to striue through an height, and extremity of Loue (whose Nature is to in­corporate togeather things different) to be most in­wardly, and inseparably conioyned with her Creatour, euen dwelling, and residing in him, and so making good [Page 232] in herselfe that saying : Anima magis est, vbi amat, quàm vbi animat. And thus farre of these three Theologicall vertues, and how consorting, and sutable the Institu­tion of the Blessed Eucharist is to the progresse, and in­crease thereof; from which holy Mysterie though these vertues receaue their augmentation, and perfection; yet not their beginning; for we teach (according to that of the Apostle, Qui Qui manducat, & bibit indignè.] 1. Cor. c. 11. manducat, & bibit indignè, iudicium sibi manducat, & bibit) that he, who is altogeather de­priued of them, can no more (as being spiritually dead) profitably relish, and tast this celestiall Manna, then a Body (naturally dead) can disgest corporall meates.

Another Reason of ordayning the Eucharist, may be to bind all Christians togeather not only by Charity, but euen in a certaine reall, and substantiall manner. Now this vnion is performed, in that all Christians do communicate of one, and the same spirituall food; ac­cording to those words of the Apostle (which though immediately they be appropriated to the former vnion of mind by Charity, yet may they well be extended to this more straite, and intrinsecall vnion) Vnus Vnus Panis.] 1. Cor. 10. Panis, vnum corpus multi sumus, qui de vno Pane participamus. Thus doth this Reall vnion of Christians through Christ beget an vnion of them in Charity; and this of Charity (for who loueth truly his Neighbour, loueth Christ) engendreth againe a Secondary vnion of them in Christ : so powerfull, and operatiue is heere this Circulation of vnion.

Sixthly, how could our 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 [Page 233] be fedde, and nourished? The immensenes of which Loue our vnderstanding cannot comprehend, and there­fore we may heere well vse that forcible word [...].] 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 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 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 [Page 234] therof to renew all spirituall operations flowing from the same: Qui 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 [Page 235] 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) shalbe discouered 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? hee [...] ­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 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 substāce 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 Cōmunicant 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 Cō ­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. Secondly, by reason, that in regard of the presence of the Accidences, the worth and merit of our faith is increased. Third­ly, they being absent, it would be a horrour to Mans nature to eate Mans flesh Fourthly, if they were absent, then this Proposition (Hoc est Corpus meum) could not be true, since then the whole should be so changed into the whole, as that nothing should remayne common to both the Termini of this Conuersion. Reasons drawne in like sort from Conueniency (for they are strange Mathematicians) since of all the seuerall Aspects, which may be borne to the Sunne of Gods Church (for, in sole posuit Tabernacu­lum suum) they approue, and allow only a meere Diame­tricall Opposition: thus (grauely) esteeming themselues [Page 236] to be so much the neerer to the Truth, by how much they are further of from the The pillar and foundation.] According to that, Colum­na, & Firmamentum Veritatis. Tim. c. 3. Pillar and Foundation of Truth.