A DISCUSSION OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation: Wherein the same is declared, by the Confession of their own Writers, to have no necessary ground in God's Word: As also it is further demonstrated to be against Scripture, Nature, Sense, Reason, Religion, the judgement of the Ancients, and the Faith of our Ancestors: Written by THOMAS GATAKER B. of D. and Pastor of Rotherhith. LONDON, Printed by I. L. for William Sheffard, and are to be sold at his shop at the entering in of Popes-head Alley out of Lombardstreet. 1624. This Treatise consisteth of two parts. 1. A brief Discourse containing diverse Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation. 2. A Just Defence of the same Discourse, and Arguments against the Answer of a nameless Popish Priest thereunto. To the Reader. BE pleased (I pray thee) to understand in a word, as the occasion of undertaking, so the motive of publishing this Controversy. Having had some Conference with an Honourable Lady nobly descended, whom some Factors for Rome had endeavoured to pervert, about the Point of Transubstantiation, and Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist; I was by her requested to deliver her in writing, the sum of that that had passed then by word of mouth from me, as well in way of Answer to the exceptions taken to our Doctrine, as in way of opposition to the Roman tenet therein. Whereupon within a few days after, having digested it as well as straits of time would permit, and added some further enforcements of the general heads than insisted on, I delivered it verbatim as here thou now hast it. Which writing being imparted to one of those Factors, a speedy answer was promised, and (after long expectation of it) at length performed, such as here it is exhibited (under the letters of N. P. put for a Nameless Popish Priest) without word or syllable detracted, added, or altered. Unto which I soon after dispeeded a Reply; which was to the same Honourable Personage also not long after represented. Now having hitherto heard of nothing returned further thereunto, (albeit some years be past since the exhibition of it) I have thought good by the advice of some judicious Friends to publish all together (my Reply only in some few places enlarged) as well thereby the more fully to clear some objections urged commonly (to the simpler sort especially) against our Faith and Doctrine concerning that Sacrament, and our exposition of some passages of holy writ, either concerning, or supposed to concern the same; as also further to discover (to such especially as are not so well acquainted therewith) the gross and palpable frauds and falsehoods, with such Popish Factours too frequent, which in the advised reading and perusing hereof may easily and evidently be descried. And this is all that (not listing to detain thee long from the discourse itself) I was desirous by way of Preface to fore-acquaint thee withal. The Lord vouchsafe thee and us all true understanding, sound judgement, and a love of the truth both in this and in all other things. Thine in our common Saviour, THO: GATAKER. Errata. IN the Text. page 31. line 21. for said read say. p. 33. lin. 10 for these r. those, l. 20. for a man's r. man's l. 23. for difficulty r. difficulties p. 39 l. 3. for confimeth r. confirmeth l. 12. for main r. maim l. 27. for commodioas r. commodious p. 40. lin. 5. for to pass r so pass p. 41. l. 11. for and r. with p. 42. l. 8. for is r. is not p. 47. l 7. for Cross r. Grosse. p. 51. l. 24. put out simply and p. 53. l. 7. for these r. in those p. 54. l. 17. for to conclude r. concluded p. 56. l. 25. after Christ's put in body p. 60. l. ult. for things r. thing p. 64. l. 30. for Catechising r. Catechise p. 65. l. 5. for one r. of one p. 66. l. 17. for Gloss r. Gospel p. 74. l. 9 for this r. this is p. 75. l. 30. for their r. that their p. 87. l. 34. for; either r. either; p. 99 l. 24, 26, 36. put out 1. 2. 3. l. 35. for receive r. receiving p. 103. l. 5. after they put out was p. 199. l. 9 for Galathians r. Galatians p. 148. l. 10. for conversion r. conversion) l 33. for it) r. it. p. 149. l. 35. for here read how l. 37. for before. r. before? p. 100LS. l. 25. for body r. bodies p. 151 l. 20. for therefore r. thereof, p. 152. l. 4. for to as r. as to l. 26. for bread r. bred p. 154. l. 31. for what r. what this p. 155. l. 31. for like like r like nature p. 158. l. 28. for whinch r. which l. 34. for those r. that those p. 169. l. 8. for Christ r. Christ's p. 171. l. 3 for places r. place. p. 187. l. 16 for seemed r. seem p. 189. l. 27. for assumped r. assumpted p. 197. l. 31. for cannot r. can not p. 199. l. 24. for in r. is in l. 33. for that is r. that which is p. 202. l. 21. for prooe r. prove p. 212. l. 13. place the (before The contrary p 219. l. 20. for tempored r. tempered. p 222. l. 29. after not put out he p. 226. l. 19 for Emissemus r. Emissenus. In the Margin page 13. letter z. for signifitatiuè r. significatiuè p 17. l. e. for Videt r. Vide & p. 20. * for dentis r. dentibus p. 21. * for mittar r. mittam p. 33. l. vst for est. et r. esset p. 64 l. m. for Lenserus r Leu●aeus p. 66. l. k for Greg. 8 r. Graec. 82. p. 98. l q. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100 * for hom. r. nom. p. 118. l. f. for ducatur, iestis r. ducaturi estis, p. 131 l. b. for oniensis r. omensis p. 138. l. s remove Gal 4. 3. to p. 139. p. 140. l. f. for l. 8. r. l. 1. p 165. l. b. for Sticorum r. Stoicorum p. 173. l. c. for Gerob. r. Gorol. p. 177. l. l. for pa●is r. panis p. 192. l. x. for and r. ad l. a. for frantur. r. frangitur l. b for sacerdotes r sacerdos p. 199. l x. for Christum r. Christi p. 219. l. u for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 220 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Brief Discourse containing diverse Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation. THE Question is, whither Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of a Transubstantiation or a real conversion of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of Christ. This those of the Church of Rome affirm, we deny; & refuse to yield to for these Reasons. 1. That which no Scripture enforceth upon us, that in matter of Faith we are not bound to believe. For the Scripture is the Rule of our Faith. a In his, quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi. Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 In it (saith August.) are found all those things, Which concern faith and good life. And, b Hoc quiá de Scripturis authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. Hieron. in Math. c. 23. That which hath not authority from it, (saith Jerome) may as easily be rejected, as it is averred. And, c Nihil de co constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet. Tertull. de carn. Christ. Of that (saith Tertullian) there is no certainty, that the Scripture hath not. But that Christ is present corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of any such Transubstantiation or real conversion of the Creatures into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, no Scripture enforceth us to believe. Nor are we therefore bound to believe it. That no Scripture enforceth us to believe it, shall appear by examination of those places that are alleged commonly to prove it. The places usually produced are principally two. The former place is out of the Institution itself; those words of our Saviour, This is my Body. Matth. 26. 26. Mark 14. vers. 22. Luke 22. vers. 19 1. Corinth. 11. verse. 24. That these words enforce us not to believe any such thing, is thus proved. If these words may well be taken figuratively, as well as some other speeches of the like kind in Scripture, and other the like phrases usual in ordinary speech, than these words enforce us not to believe any such thing. But these words, This is my Body, may well be taken figuratively as well as other speeches of the like kind in Scripture, to wit, d Gen. 41. 26, 27. Septen boves, & septem spicae septem anni sunt: & non dicit septem annos significant. Aug. in Levit. quaest. 57 The seven kine, and the seven ears are seven years: e Apoc. 17. 12. The ten horns are ten Kings: f 1. Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ: and as other phrases usual in ordinary speech, as ff Intuentes tabulam aut parietem dicimus; Ille Cicero est; ille Salustius, ille Achilles, ille Hector: hoc flumen Simois; illa Roma, cum aliud nihil sint quam pictae imagines: & omnes ferè imagines earum rerum quarum imagines sunt, nominibus appellati solent. Aug. ad Simpl. lib. 2. quaest. 3. when pointing to the pictures of Alexander, Caesar, William the Conqueror, Virgil, Livy and the like, we say, This is Alexander that conquered Asia; This is Caesar that conquered France; This is King William that conquered England; This is Virgil that wrote of Aeneas; This is Livy that wrote the Roman story; and the like. These words therefore enforce us not to believe that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, by virtue of any such Transubstantiation. The truth hereof is acknowledged even by our Adversaries themselves. Cardinal Bellarmine granteth that g Haec verba necessario inferunt, aut veram mutationem panis, ut volunt Catholici, aut mutationem metaphoricam, ut volunt Caluinistae; nullo autem modo sententiam Lutheranorum admittunt. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 19 these words, This is my Body, may imply either such a real change of the Bread as the Catholics hold, or such a figurative change as the Caluinists hold, but will not bear that sense that the Lutherans give them. And, Cardinal Caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth, that h Non apparet ex Euangelio coactivum aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba propriè. Cajetan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. art. 1. there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce us to understand those words properly. This is my body. And he addeth that i Ex subi●nctis verbis non potest concludi evidenter praemiss● verba esse intelligendapropriè. Ibid. Et posteà; cum ●uius relationis veritate stat praeiacentem esse veram solum in sensu metaphorico: ut patet in exemplo, Petra autem erat Christus, non propriè sed metaphoricè inteiligenda. Et similiter illa propositio, (Hoc est corpus meum) esset vera, si in solo metaphorico sensu esset p olata. nothing in the text hindereth but that those words, This is my body, may as well be taken in a metaphorical sense, as those words of the Apostle, The Rock was Christ: and that the words of either proposition may well be true, though the thing there spoken be not understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphorical sense only. And I find alleged out of Bishop Fisher in a work of his against Luther (for the book I have not) these words; * Hactenus Matthaeus; Neque est hic unum verbum unde probetur in Mis●a nostra vera carnis & Sarguinis Christi presentia. joan Rof●ēs. contr. Captiu. Babylon. There is not one word in S. Mathewes Gospel, from which the true presence of Christ's flesh & blood in our Mass may be proved. Ex Scriptura probari non potest. Ibid. Out of Scripture it cannot be proved. Thus by the Confession of our Adversaries themselves, our Saviour's words may well bear that meaning that we give them, and there is nothing in the Text that may enforce us to expound or understand them otherwise. It is absurd therefore for any to reason thus, as many yet are wont to do; Christ saith, This is my Body: and we are bound to believe Christ: and therefore we must needs believe that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament. Since that the words of Christ by our Adversaries their own confession may be most true, and yet no such thing at all be meant by them, or intended in them. And the same may well be showed, (as Caietan pointeth us to it) by the like. For must we not believe the Apostle as well as Christ? or must we not believe Christ as well in one place as in an other? But the Apostle saith, that k 1 Corinth. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ: And yet no man believeth therefore that the rock was turned into Christ; though he believe the Apostles words in that place. Yea our Saviour himself saith; l Luke 12. 20. This Cup is the new Testament: and, m Matth. 26. 28. This Cup is my Blood. And yet is no man so senseless as therefore to believe that the Cup which our Saviour then held, was turned either into the New Testament, or into Christ's blood. As well therefore may a man prove that the Rock was turned into Christ, because the Apostle saith n Non dicit, Petia significat Christum; sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per substantiam non erat, sed per significationem, Petra autem erat Christus. Aug. in Levit. quae. 57 not, The Rock signified Christ, but expressly, The Rock was Christ: or that the communicants themselves are turned into bread, because the Apostle saith, o 1. Cor. 10. 4. We are all one Bread: or that the Cup was turned either into the New Testament, or into Blood; because our Saviour saith, This Cup is the New Testament; and, This Cup is my Blood: as that the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, because our Saviour saith of it, This is my Body. The Rock was Christ only symbolically and sacramentally, by representation and resemblance: and the Cup, that is, the wine in the Cup, (for so our Saviour saith it was, q Math. 26. 29. the fruit of the vine) was the New Testament, as r Gen. 17. 13. Circumcision the Covenant, as s Gen. 17. 11. a sign and t Rom. 4. 11. a seal of it. And in like manner is the bread said to be the Body of Christ, as u Exo. 12. 11. the Paschal Lamb is called Petra Christus in signo, Aug. in joan. tract. 26. quia significat Christum. Idem. epist. 102. Ibi Petra Christus; nobis Christus quod in altari ponitur. Idem in joan. tract. 45. the Passeover, not really or essentially, but typically and sacramentally, as a type and sign of the same. Yea so the Ancient Fathers expound the words. x Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Tertull. contr. Martion. lib. 4. cap. 40. The Bread (saith Tertullian) that Christ took and distributed to his Disciples he made his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my Body. And, y Dominus non dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Aug. contr. Adimant. cap. 12. The Lord (saith Augustine) doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he delivered the sign of his Body. And he giveth elsewhere a reason of such manner of speech; to wit, because z Solet res quae significat eius rei nomine quam significat nuncupari. Aug. in Levir. quaest. 57 Aliquando res que significat, nomen eius rei quam significat accipit. Idem epist. 102. Solent imagines rerum earum nominibus appellari, qua●um imagines sunt. Idem ad Simplic l. 2. q. 3. Signs are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified: and a Si sacramenta quand●m similitudinem eatum retum quarum sunt Sacramenta, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac auiem similitudine plaerumque etiam ipsarum retum nomina accipiunt, Aug. epist. 22. Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments, in regard of the similitude that they have of them. And so, saith he, a Sicut secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est; Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est. Aug ibid. the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the Body of Christ; and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. Yea you shall find that which we herein maintain, evidently confessed and confirmed by the Gloss upon Augustine in the Pope's own Canons. Augustine's words inserted into the Corpse of the Canon Law are these; b Sicut coel●stis panis quae Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revein sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius viz. quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruse, positum est: vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio: sic sa●… amentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. Aug. apud Grat. de consecra. d 2 c. Hoc est. As the heavenly Bread, which is the Flesh of Christ, is in it own manner called the body of Christ, when as in deed and truth it is a sacrament of that body of Christ, which being visible, palpable, and mortal was placed on the Cross: and that immolation of Christ's flesh which is done with the Priests hands is called Christ's passion, death, and crucifying, not in the truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying it: so the Sacrament of faith, whereby we understand Baptism, is faith. And the Popish Gloss upon that place thus speaketh; c Coelestis, id est, coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improp●●è: unde dicitur, suo modo; sed non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio; vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significat. Gloss. ibid. The heavenly bread, that is, the heavenly Sacrament, which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the Body of Christ, but improperly: and therefore is it said, In it own manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in a significant mystery. So that the meaning is, It is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Gloss. Thus you see what our very Adversaries themselves grant us concerning the exposition of these words, This is my body: and that which may be gathered from them. The words of Christ prove not necessarily (saith the Romish Cardinal) that the bread is turned into Christ's body. And, when the bread is called Christ's body, the meaning is, (saith the Popish Canonist) that it signifieth Christ's body. And what is this, but the very same that we say? To conclude, as * Dominus ait, ●pse est Elias: ipse au●em ait, Ego non sum Elias. Recte Iohannes propriè, quia Dominus figuratè. Aug. in joh. tract. 4. Augustine well observeth, Christ saith, “ Mat. 11. 14. john is Elias; and john himself saith, '' joh. 1. 12. I am not Elias: and yet neither of them cross the other, because john spoke properly, and Christ figuratively: So Christ saith, This bread is my body, in one sense; and we in another sense that it is not his body: and yet we cross not Christ; because we speak properly, he figuratively, as the Gloss itself confesseth. And on the other side they were * Mat. 26. 60, 61. false witnesses though they alleged Christ's own words mis-expounded of the material Temple, which s joh. 2. 19 21 he meant of the mystical Temple, his humanity. And so may others be, though they allege Christ's own words of the bread being his body, urging that as spoken properly, that by him was figuratively spoken. If it be objected that by this our denial of Transubstantiation, and of Christ's corporal presence, we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread. I answer, that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporal presence be denied, yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread; than it maketh the water in c Baptismus etsi Deus non est, magnum camen aliquid est, quia sacramentum est Dei. Aug. de vnic. Bapt. c. 5. Baptism to be but bare water, because all deny any such conversion or corporal presence in it. A piece of wax annexed as a seal to the Prince's Patent of pardon or other like deed, is of far other use, and far greater efficacy and excellency than other ordinary wax is, though it be the very same in nature and substance with it, and with that which it was itself before it was taken unto that use. And so is the bread in the Lord's Supper, being a seal of God's covenant, and of Christ's last will and Testament, of fair other use, and of far greater efficacy and excellency than any other ordinary bread is, though it be the same still in nature and substance with it, and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated. That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret, both expressly anouch. d Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina res est, etc. et tamen esse non desinit substan●… vel natura panis & vini, sed permanent in suae proprietate naturae: & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebratur. Gelas. Ep. Rom. de 2. in Christo nature. in Bibliothec. Patr. tom. 4. Surely the Sacraments (saith Gelasius) which we take, of Christ's body and blood, are a divine thing, and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the divine Nature: and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine, but they abide still in the propriety of their own Nature: And certainly an image and similitude of Christ's body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries. And, e Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura: manent enim in priore substantia & figura & forma Theodoret. dialog. 2. The mystical signs (saith Theodonet) after the sanctification do not forgo their own nature, but retain still their former substance, and figure, and form. And again, the same Theodoret, f Qui quod naturâ corpus est triticum & panem appellavit, & vitem rursus seipsum nominavit, is symbola & signa quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit non naturam mutans, sed naturae gratiam adiiciens. Theodoret. di●log. 1. He that called that which is by nature his body, g joh. 12. 24. wheat, and h joh. 6. 51. bread, and again named himself i joh. 15. 1. a vine; he hath honoured the symbols and signs which we see, with the titles of his body and blood, not changing the nature of them, but adding grace to it. Thus they, and thus we: and yet neither do they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine. The latter place usually alleged to this purpose, is that large Discourse our Saviour hath concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. joh. 6. 51-58. True it is indeed, that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the natural body and blood of Christ, and there be such a corporal presence, as Papists imagine; it must needs follow that Christ's very flesh is eaten, and his very blood itself is corporally drunk in the Sacrament: And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemn form of recantation that he enjoined Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon, avoweth that k Verum corpus Domini nostri jesu Christi & non sacramemtum solum, sensualiter, & none in sacramento solum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, & sidelium dentibus atteri. Nicol. Pp. de consecra. d. 2. c. Ego Barengarius. the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with men's teeth, not sacramentally only, but sensually: and that all that hold the contrary deserve to be eternally damned. A sensual indeed and a senseless assertion, yea an horrible and an hideous speech; full fraught (I may well say, though it proceeded from a Pope, who, they say, cannot err) with extreme impiety and blasphemy, and such as Christian e●res cannot but abhor to hear. In so much that their own Glosser upon the place well warneth us to take heed how we trust him, l Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii, in maiorem incides haeresm, quam ipse habuit. Glos. ibid. Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresy than Berengarius ever held. But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another. And this indeed must needs follow upon the former. The corporal presence of Christ in the thing eaten, must needs infer and enforce a corporal eating of him: and to prove the same they press commonly our Saviour's words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Which as, with some of the Ancients indeed, they understand of the Eucharist, so they expound (though without their consent therein) of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ's flesh. But neither are those words of our Saviour to be understood of any such corporal eating and drinking: nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speak of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which was not then as yet instituted, but of feeding on him spiritually by faith, which is done not in the Sacrament only, but out of it also. And first, that the place is not to be understood of any such corporal eating and drinking, it is aparent. For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giveth: m Si praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, figurata est. Aug. de doct. Christi. l. 3. c. 16. If in any precept some heinous or flagitious thing seem to be enjoined, you may thereby know it to be a figurative speech. I need not apply this general Rule to the point in hand; Augustine doth it for me. He instanceth in that very particular that we now treat of. n Nisi manducaveritis, etc. Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergò, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum & s●au●ter atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. Aug. ibid. Unless you eat (saith he) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. It seemeth to enjoin an heinous and flagitious thing. It is a figurative speech therefore, commanding us to communicate with Christ's passion, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. So that this place by Augustine's Rule, and his own application of it is to be understood figuratively, and doth not therefore infer any corporal feeding. 2. That this whole Discourse of our Saviour is not to be understood of any Sacramental or corporal, but of spiritual eating only, it is likewise apparent. For 1. None are saved, but such as so feed on Christ, as is there spoken of. o joh. 6. 53. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, (saith our Saviour) and drink his blood, you have no life in you. p Aeternam ergò vitam non habet, qui istum panem non manducat, nec istum sanguinem bibit: Nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt, aeternam verò omninò non possunt. Aug. in joan. Tract. 26. He hath not therefore life eternal, (saith Augustine,) that eateth not this bread, and drinketh not this blood. For temporal life men may have without it; but eternal life without it in no wise can they have. But many are and shall be saved by Christ, that never Sacramentally fed on Christ in the Eucharist, yea that never eat at all of the Eucharist, or saw it, or knew of it: as not only the ancient Fathers that lived before Christ's Incarnation, who yet, (as Augustine well observeth) q Escam eandem spiritualem quam nos manducaverunt. Aug. in joan. Tract. 26. & 45. did eat the flesh of Christ spiritually as well as we do now, and were saved by the death and passion of Christ, which, as Bernard speaketh, r Mors eius profuit ante quam fuit. Ber. Serm. de coen. Dom. was effectual even before it was actual; and the Thief on the Cross, that s Luk. 23. 43. passed thence to Paradise the same day that he died: but many Infants also that die ere they come to years of discretion, as the Council of Trent acknowledgeth, t Docet sancta Synodus parvulos usu rationis carentes nulla obligari necessitate ad sacramentalem Eucharistiae communionem. Concil. Trident. Sess. vit. Can. 4. Siquis dixerit, parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessariam esse Eucharistiam, anathema sit. ibid. accursing all those that hold, mis-expounding the words of Christ in that place, that all Infants are damned that receive not Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. Which yet u Ecce Innocentius Papa sine baptismo Christi, & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dixit. Aug ad Bonif. l. 2. c. 4. Sanct. Innocentius parvulos definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Idem contr. julian. l. 1. c. 2. Hoc idem habet & idem de pecc. mer. & remiss. l. 1. c 20. & 24. & add 2. Epist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 22. & ibid. l. 4. c. 4. & de veeb. Ap. 8. one of their own Popes sometime held and maintained; and which would necessarily follow, if that place were to be understood of the Sacramental eating of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not therefore the Sacramental eating of Christ in the Eucharist, that is there spoken of. 2. All that feed on Christ so as is there spoken of, are sure eternally to be saved. For so our Saviour himself saith. x joh. 6. 50, 51. 58. If any man eat of this bread, he shall never dye, but live for ever. And, y joh. 6. 54. whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. And, z joh. 6. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. And, As I live by the Father se * joh. 6. 57 He that eateth me shall live by me. a Non ita est in hac esca, quam sustentandae temporalis vitae causa sumimus. Nam qui eam non sumpserit, non vivet: nec tamen qui eam sumpserit, vivet. In hoc verò cibo & potu, i. corpore & sanguine Domini non ita est. Name & qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam, & qui eam sumit, habet vitam, & hanc utique aeternam. Aug. in joan. Tract. 26. It is not (saith Augustine) with this meat as with our bodily food. That unless a man take, he cannot live: but take it he may, and yet not live; he may die, after he hath taken it. But in this food of our Lord's body and blood it is not so. For both he that taketh it not, can not live; and he that taketh it, liveth eternally. For, b Sicut enim, fiquis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum altera per totum commisceat; necesse est, siquis carn●m & sanguinem Domini recipit, cum ipso ita coniungatur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Cyril. in joan. l. 4 c. 17. As if one pour melted wax upon other wax, the one is wholly mixed with the other: so it must needs be (saith Cyril) that if any man take Christ's body and blood, he be so joined with him, that he be found in Christ, and Christ in him; and c Rom. 8. 1. consequently that he be saved by Christ. But many feed upon that that is given in the Eucharist, that yet are eternally damned d Multi de altari accipiunt, & moriuntur; & accipiendo moriuntur. Vnde dicit Apostolus; judicium sibi manducat & bibit. Nun buccella Dominica venenum fuit judae? & tamen accepit, Aug. in joan. Tract. 26. Many take it, and die; (saith Augustine,) yea many die in the taking of it. He eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, saith the Apostle. And was not the morsel that Christ gave judas, poison to judas that took it? And again; e Hujus rei Sacramentum de mensà Dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit. ibid. The Sacrament hereof is taken at the Lords Table by some to salvation, by others to destruction. Whereas the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament, is taken to salvation by every one that is partaker thereof, to destruction by none. If all be saved then that eat of Christ's flesh in that manner that Christ speaketh of in that place. But all are not saved that eat corporally what is offered them in the Eucharist: it must needs follow that Christ speaketh not of any corporal eating of him in the Eucharist in that place. But we need not insist longer upon the proof hereof. For that our Saviour's whole discourse in that place is not to be understood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but of feeding on Christ spiritually, is confessed and acknowledged not by one or two only, but by many Popish writers of great note, Cardinals, Schoolmen, Canonists, Professors, Jesuits and others; as by name, by f Cusan. epist. 7. ad Bohem. Cardinal Cusane, g Caietan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 12. & in joan. cap. 6. Cardinal Cajetan, h Gabr. Biel in Can. Miss. lect. 84. Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman, i Astesan. sum. lib. 4. tit. 17. quaest. 2. Astesanus a Canonist, k Ruard Tapper. explic. artic. 15. Ruard Tapper, and l joan Hessel. de commun. sub una specie. john Hessels Professors of Divinity at Louvain, and m Cor. jansen harm. Euan. c. 59 Cornelius johnson a great * Here I must crave: pardon for styling this johnson or jansenius a jesuit, being mistaken in him, and understanding himnow to be none, A Popish Bishop only he was of Gaunt in Flanders. jesuit; the most of them by Cardinal Bellarmine himself alleged and acknowledged to hold as we do, that those words of our Saviour, speak only of a spiritual eating, and n Non agi in hoc capite de sacramentali manducatione & potu corporis & sanguinis Domini. Bellarm. de sacrament. Euchar. l. 1. c. 5: not of any corporal, yea or sacramental either. According whereunto it is acknowledged not by Augustine only, but by johnson the jesuit, who at large disputeth and confirmeth that which we say, both grounding upon o joh. 6. 27. 29. 35. 47. the words of our Saviour himself, that to eat Christ's flesh in the manner there spoken of, is nothing else but p Hoc est manducare cibum qui non perit, etc. Quid paras ventrem & dentes? crede & manducasti. Aug. in joan. Tract. 25. Idem est manducare Christum, & credere in Christum. jansen. harmony. c. 59 to believe in Christ. Since then the places produced to prove this corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, are by our Adversaries their own confession such as either do not necessarily prove the point, or are otherwise to be understood, we have little reason to yield unto them therein. Hitherto we have showed that no Scripture enforceth us to believe, as those of the Romish Church hold, concerning the real conversion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, and a corporal presence of either necessarily flowing there from. Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remain in substance and nature still the same, and are not so converted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, we further thus prove. 1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the q Mat. 26. 26. Story of the Institution. Iesu● took bread, and blessed, and * In hac enim narratione omnia haec verba, accepit, benedixit, fregit, dedit, unum accusatiwm b●euiter regunt, Panem. Steph. Durant. de rit. Eccl. l. 2. c. 38. n. 15. broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, This is my Body. Whence I thus reason; Look what our Saviour took, that he blessed; what he blessed, that he broke; what he broke, he delivered to the Disciples; what he delivered to them, of that he said, This is my Body. But * Deus in Euangelip panem corpus suum appellans. Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 19 it was Bread that he took, the Evangelist so saith, and Bread therefore that he blessed, bread that he broke, bread that he delivered, and bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body. And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Ancient Fathers. r Panem in quo g●…iae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui. Iren. contr. Valent. l. 4. c 34. The Bread that hath been blessed (saith Irenaeus) is its own Lords body. God in the Gospel (saith Tertullian) calleth bread his Body. s Panis est corpus Christi. Aug. apud Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. Qui manducant. The Bread (saith Augustine) is the Body of Christ. t Panis, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis, est corpus Dom●ni. Hieron. ad H●dybiam. 〈…〉. Praecepisti ut credamus, expone ut intelligamus Quomodò est panis corpus evis, & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis eius? Ista ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod vide. 〈…〉 speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. Aug. apud Beda in 1 Cor. 10 The Bread, (saith Hicrome,) that the Lord broke, and gave his Disciples, is the Lords body: And if we ask, how Bread is or can be Christ's body? as we may well do, and v it is no new Question; It was long since asked by the Ancients and answered by them. The Author of that work in Cyprian of Christ's principal works; (to pass by all others;) u Dedit Dominus noster in mensa propriis manibus panem & vinum, in cruse verò manib. militum corpus tradidit vu●nerandum, ut in Apostolis secretius impressa si●cera veritas, et vera sinceritas exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esse● et sanguis, et quibus rationibus causae effectibus convenirent, et diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et significantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. Author de Cardinal. Christi oper. c. de unct. Our Lord (saith he) at the Table in his last Supper, gave Bread and Wine with his own hands, and on the Cross he gave up his body to be wounded with the Soldier's hands, (Mark, bread at the Table, his Body on the Cross,) that the sincere truth and true sincerity more secretly imprinted in his Apostles, might expound to the Nations, how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood, and by what means the causes agreed with their effects, and diverse names or kinds were reduced to one essence, and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names. In which last words he most evidently showeth, how Bread is said to be Christ's Body; to wit, because signs and the things by them signified are wont to have the same titles given them. The Bread is Christ's Body: as u joh. 6. 48. 51. Christ himself is bread; * Corpori quidem symboli nomen imposuit, symbolo verò corporis. Thodoret. dialog. 1. Christ giving (saith Theodoret) the name of the sign to his Body, and the name of his body to the Sign. Or, The Bread is Christ, as x 1 Cor. 10 4. the Rock was Christ; as y Ibi Petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altati Dei ponitur. Aug. in loan. Tract. 45. Augustine well observeth. Yea that the Bread is said to be Christ's Body is apparent, and that it can in no other sense so be said, Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesseth: z Haec sententia, Hic panis est. corpus meum, aut accipi debet tropicè ut panis sit corpus Christi signifitatiuè, aut est planè absurda et impossibilis: nec enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus Christi Bellan. de ●uchar. l. 1. c. 1. This sentence (saith he) This Bread is my Body, either must be taken figuratively, that the Bread be Christ's body significatively, (that is, by signification only) or else it is altogether absurd and impossible: for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ: (he meaneth, essentially, or otherwise then by signification or representation.) So that The Bread is said to be Christ's body: the course of the Text showeth it; and the Ancients commonly acknowledge it: but it cannot so be (saith Bellarmine) but figuratively. In no other sense therefore are our Saviour's words to be understood. 2. We reason from the express words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament. a 1 Cor. 10. 16 The Bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is it not the Communion of Christ's Body? It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that b Mat. 26. 26. Consecration goeth before fraction. The Bread is blessed, that is, consecrated, (for c Benedictio consecrat Ambr. de initiat. myster. c. 9 Prece mystica consecratu●. Aug. de trinit. l. 4. apud Grat, de consecr. d. 2. c. corpus et sang. the Benediction is in truth the Consecration) before it be broken. But it is bread (saith the Apostle) even when it is broken. It is bread therefore still, even after it is consecrated. Yea, is it bread when it is broken? and is it not bread when it is eaten? Yes, if the Apostle may be credited; even when it is eaten 100 d 1 Cor. 11. 26. For as oft (saith he) as you eat this bread, and, e 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily. And, f 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man therefore examine himself, and so eat of this bread. It is not so oft called Christ's Body, but it is called bread as oft, even after it is consecrated, and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christ's body. The Apostle than telleth us of the one Element that it is bread even after it is consecrated: and of the other our Saviour himself saith that it is wine. For after that he had delivered them the Consecrated Cup, he telleth them that g Mat. 26. 29. Mar. 14. 25. Ostendit vinum esse, quod benedictum est. Clem. Alex. paedag. l. 2. c. 2. He will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine, etc. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine? There was wine (saith Augustine) in the mystery of our redemption, when our Saviour said; I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. And yet was that after consecration that he spoke it. And if it be wine still, then sure it is not essentially Christ's blood, howsoever it may well be symbolically, as we say. So Origen; * Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit, non bibam amodò de hoc gel●mine vitis. Aug. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75. Et Burchard. decret. l. 5. c. 2. In the first place he gave his Disciples bread. Yea, “ Fragmenta panis discipulis dedit. Cyril, in joan. l. 4. c. 14. He gave them (saith Cyril) pieces of bread. And, Cyprian saith. “ Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. Cypr. l. 2. ep. 3. It was wine, that he called his blood. And, w Quando mysterium hoc tradidit, vinum tradidit. Chrys. in Math. hom. 83. He delivered wine, (saith Chrysostome) when he delivered this mystery: which he proveth also by those words of our Saviour, Of this fruit of the vine. And here let me debate the matter with those that use to press us with Christ's words, which yet we think not much to be pressed with, if they be understood as they ought; Primum dat panem discipulis suis. Origen in Mat. hom. 12. Christ saith, This is my Body: And shall we not believe what he saith? The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken, and that is eaten in the Eucharist: and our Saviour himself saith, it was the fruit of the vine that he gave them in the Cup. And will they not believe what the Apostle saith, or what Christ saith? Or shall we believe those that tell us contrary to the express words of either, that the one is not bread, though the Apostle say it is: or the other was not wine, albeit our Saviour say it was? For how our Saviour's words may be true in the one place, though the bread be not essentially, but symbolically Christ's body, we can easily show, and themselves see and acknowledge, as hath formerly been shown. But how the Apostles and Christ's words should be true, or bear fit sense in the other places, unless there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration, I suppose, they will not easily show. If they will say, it is called bread because it was bread before, as h Exod. 7. 12. Baculus, i. draco, nomine eius rei ex qua versa, et in quam reversura. Aug. in Exod. quaest. 21. Aaron's rod is called a rod, after it was turned into a serpent. I answer: The reason is not alike. For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod: but it is absord to say that Christ's body is made of bread. Yea the Papists themselves are at a stand here, and cannot well tell what to say. For they say indeed commonly, that i Panis convertitur in corpus Christi. Bellar. de Euchat. l. 3. c. 11. 19 the Bread is turned into Christ's Body: and they say sometime also that k Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non est absurdum. ibid. c. 24. Christ's body is made of bread: and that l Christi corpus ex pane conficiunt sacerdotes. ibid. the Priest maketh Christ's body of bread. Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say, that m Verè corpus illud quod suit crucifixum, factum suit ex pane. ibid. That body of Christ which was crucified, was truly, or verily made of bread. They may believe him that lift. And yet they deny that n Nego Christi corpus absolutè à sacerdotibus fieri. ibid. Christ's Body is made by the Priest: (He maketh Christ's body of bread, and yet Christ's body is not made by him:) or that o Corpus Domini in Eucharistia non producitur, sed solum succedit pani. ibid. the body of Christ is produced of bread, but doth succeed only in the room of bread. But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth only in the room of it: or to call a thing seriously (for in mockery indeed sometime we do) by the name of some other thing, only because it is now in the place where that thing before was: unless it be in some Magical action, p Exod. 7. 12. Videbantur esse quod non erant ludificatione venefica. Aug. in Exod. quest. 21. wherein that seemeth to be done that indeed is not, and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing, but according to that that seemeth to be. In a word we may truly say, of that Serpent, that it was once a Rod: but we cannot truly say of Christ's body, that ever it was bread. 2. The Serpent there though termed a Rod, because it so had been, and q Exod. 7. 15. should again so be, yet appeared evidently to be a Serpent, in so much that r Exod. 4 3. Moses himself at the first sight was afraid of it. And so we shall find it to have been ever in all miraculous conversions, that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense, to the sight, as in the water turned into blood, to the taste, as t joh. 2. 9 in the s Exod. 7. 20. water turned into wine. Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter. We see no flesh there, we taste no blood there. Nay we see evidently the contrary to that these men affirm. For we see Bread and Wine there: and we find the true taste of either. And we have no reason upon their bare words to distrust either sense, and believe the contrary to that that we see and taste, only because they say it. u Quod vidistis, panis est & calix; quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant: quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, & calix est sanguis. Aug. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. That which you see (saith Augustine) is bread and a cup: that which our eyes also inform us: that which your faith requireth you to be informed of, is, that the bread is Christ's body, and the cup his blood: which they cannot be but figuratively, as Bellarmine before confessed. A mystery we acknowledge, we deny a miracle: v Aliquando ad significationem aliquam fit species vel aliquantulum mansura, sieut serpens, aeneus, vel per acto ministerio transitura, sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur, sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt, honorem tanquam religiosa habere possunt, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. they may be honoured, saith Augustine, as religious things, not wondered at as strange miracles,) save in regard of the supernatural effects of them, in regard whereof there is a miraculous work as well in Baptism, as in the Eucharist. And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either. * Regula est, quod si possumus saluare Scripturas sacras ●er ea quae naturaliter videmus, non debemus ad miraculum, vel ad potentiam divinam recurrere. Aegidius Hexaemer. l. 2. c. 3. It is a rule (saith the Schooleman) that where we can salve Scriptures by that which we see naturally, we should not have recourse to a miracle, or to what God can do. 3. We reason from the nature of Signs and Sacraments. That which a Rom. 3. 11. the Apostle saith of one Sacrament, to wit, Circumcision, is true of all: for there is one general nature of all: Sacraments are Signs. b Sacramentum, i. sacrum signum. Aug. de civet. l. 20. c. 5. Bern. decoen. Dom. Thom. sum. part. 3. q. 60. art 1. A Sacrament, (saith Augustine) that is a sacred Sign. And, c Signa, cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur. Aug. Epist. 5. Signs appertaining to divine things are called sacraments. Now this is the Nature of Signs that d Signun omne aliquid aliud preter se significat. Aug de doct. Christam. l. 3. c. 1. they are one thing and signify another thing: that they signify some other thing beside themselves, or diverse from themselves. And in like manner, (saith Augustine) e Sacramenta quoniam signae sunt rerum, aliud existunt, & aliud significant. Aug. contra Maxim. l. 3 c. 22. videt eundem supra ex Beda in 1 Cor. 10. Sacraments being Signs of things, they are one thing, and they signify some other thing. But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signs of Christ's body and blood, as hath been before showed, and the Ancients generally avow: And therefore are they not essentially either. They signify Christ's body and blood: and what they signify they are not. And g Miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipeie. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 5. It is a miserable servitude (as Augustine well saith) for men to take the Signs for the things themselves by them signified. 4. We reason from the nature of Christ's Body, even after his Passion and Resurrection. Christ's natural Body hath flesh, blood and bones, the limbs and lineaments of an humane body, such as may be felt and seen to be such. This appeareth plainly by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead, when they misdoubted some delusion: h Luk. 24. 39 Behold mine hands and my feet: f In Ecclesia offeruntur panis & vinum, antitypa carnis & sanguinis Christi. Macar. hom. 27. quomodo appellant & Basil. in liturg. Greg. Naz. orat. in Gorgon. Theod. dial. 1. alii passim. for it is I myself: Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. But that which is delivered, handled, and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing. i Videmus nec par esse nec simile; nec carne indutae imagini, nec invisibili deita●i, nec membrorum lineamentis: Est enim ro●undae figurae, & sensu vacans. Epiphan. Serm. anchor. It is not in any wise, (saith Epiphanius) equal or like unto Christ, either his humanity that is clad with flesh, or his Deity that is invisible, or to the lineaments of his limbs, For it is round, senseless, and liveless: as Christ himself is not. It is not therefore the natural body of Christ. Our sight and sense evidently inform us the contrary; (howsoever Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell us that k Per consecrationem fit ut Christi corpus verè & visibilitet adsit super mensam Bellar. de missa. l. 1. c. 12. Christ's body is verily and visibly upon the board, after that the words of Consecration be once uttered: they think belike they may make men believe any thing. And our Saviour himself teacheth us by sight and sense to judge of his Body. * Quasi ad singulos quosque cunctantes adhuc voc● corporea utatur & dicat, Quid turbati estis? etc. Quid laborat intellectus, ubi magister est aspectus? Leo. epist. 22. As if to this day, (saith Pope Lee) he spoke still to each one that sticketh and staggereth, as he spoke there to his Apostles. Why sticketh our understanding, where our sight is our Teacher? I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case, * Vereor ne ipsis sensibus nostris facere videamur iniuriam, quando id loquendo suademus, ubi omnes vires officiumque sermonis facilimè superat evidentia veritatis. Aug. epist. 57 I fear lest we seem to wrong our s●●ser, in seeking to prove or persuade that by speech, wherein the evidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said. 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies. l Col. 3. 1. Christ's body is in Heaven: m Philip. 3. 20. from whence we look for him. And n Act. 3. 21. there is to abide till the end of the world. Now a true natural body as Christ's still is, cannot be in two, much less in twenty, or rather in twenty hundred places at once: which yet Christ's body must needs be, if that be true that they say. Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both p Luk. 23. 43. in Paradise and in heaven at once (supposing Heaven and Paradise to be two several places, howsoever q 2 Cor. 12. 24. with the Apostle Paul they are not) maketh answer, that he could not as he was man, or in his humanity his body and his soul; though he might as he was God, or in his Deity, that is every where. And he addeth, r Vnus jesus Christ, ubio; perid quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo Aug. Epist. 57 The same jesus Christ, is every wherein his Deitîe, but in heaven in his humanity. And further in his discourse hereof, saith he, Take spaces and places from bodies, and they will be no where, and because they will be no where, they will not be: Take bodies from qualities, and wanting wherein to subsist, they must needs cease to be: and yet in the Popish host are qualities found, o August ad Dardan. ep. 57 (as before) that have no subject body to subsist in, being not the qualities of Christ's body, and yet having no other body for them to subsist in; for they are the qualities of Bread, and yet there is no bread there, (if they say true) to bear them. Every Body therefore must needs have a certain place: and they are so circumscribed with and confined unto that place, that they cannot at the same time, or so long r Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt: & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, & ideò necesse est ut non sint. Aug. Epist. 57 * Ita loca suis molibus tenent, ut distantibus spaciis simul esse non possiut, Aug. ibid. as they keep that place, be in any other place but it. And so is it also even with the glorified body of Christ jesus. s Nulla ratione extra nostri est corporis veritatem. Leo. Ep. 72. Christ's body (saith Leo) in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies. And therefore, Christ (saith Gregory Nazi●nzen) in regard of his body is circumscribed and contained in a place: in regard of his spirit (or his Deity) he is not circumscribed, nor contained in any place. And Augustine, t Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc est veritas Dominus: Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse opottet: veritas eius ubique diffusa est. Aug. in joan. tract. 30. Our Lord * Docemus eundem Christum circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum spiritu; qui loco continetur, & loco non continetur. Greg. Naz. ad Clodon. & apud Thedoret dialog. 1. is above; but our Lord the Truth is here too. For our Lord's body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place, but his Truth (that is, his divine power) is diffused into all places. And therefore, u Noli dubitare ibi esse hominem Christum, unde venturus est. Ascendit in coelum; nec aliunde quam inde venturus est angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in coelum. i. in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non est putandus ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. Aug. Epist. 57 Doubt not (saith he) but that the Man Christ is now there, from whence he is to come. He is gone up into heaven: and thence he shall come, as he was seen to go thither, (the Angel saith it;) that is, in the same form and substance of flesh, which though he have given immortality unto it, yet he hath not taken nature away from it. According to this form he is not every where. For we must take heed, that we do not so maintain the deity of the Man, that we overthrow the verity of his Body. In a word; As the Angel reasoneth, speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulchre; * Mat 28. 6. He is not here: for he is risen again. So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christ's bodily presence, reconciling those two places that might seem the one to cross the other: * Mat. 28. 20. Behold I am with you till the world's end: And, “ Mat. 26. 11. Me shall you not have always with you. ' ' In regard, (saith he) of his Majesty, his providence, his grace we have him always here. But in regard of his flesh, which the word assumed, which was borne of the Virgin, nailed on the cross, etc. We have him not always. And why so? Because he is gone up into `` Secundum maiestatem suam, providentiam, gratiam, impletur, Ecce ego vobiscum. Secundum carnem verò etc. non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quomam ascendit in coelum & non est hic. Aug, in joan. tract. 50. heaven, and he is not here. And again speaking of Christ● being on earth and not in heaven as man, and yet in both places as God: * Homo secund. corpus in loco est, & de soco migrat: & cum ad alium lolum venerit, in eo unde venit, non est. Deus ubique totus est, nec secumd. spatia tenetur locis. Idem in joan. tract. 13. Man according to his body is in a place, and passeth from a place; and when he cometh to another place, is not in that place from which he came. But God is every where, and is not contained in any place. So that the Romanists if they will have Christ's Body in the Eucharist, they must fetch it out of Heaven, and indeed as if they had so done, a jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar muum, in conspectu maieiestatis tuae. Canon Missae. they do in their Mass request God to send his Angels, to carry it up again thither: And their Gloss saith, that so soon as men set their teeth in it, it retireth instantly thither: though that cross their common tenant. Or rather they must frame a new body, and so make Christ have two bodies, one that remaineth whole still in heaven, and another that the Priest maketh or createth here upon earth. But what speak I of two Bodies? Christ * Mat. 28. 6. must have as many several Bodies as there be consecrated Hosts: for b Totus Christus est sub v●raque specie disiunctim. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 4. c. 21. the whole Body of Christ, (they say) is in each Host; yea more than so, there is an whole entire man's body flesh, blood, and bones with all limbs and lineaments (for so it must needs be, if it be Christ's natural Body) not in every Communicants mouth only, but in every crumb of the Hoas● that they break of it, when they crush it between their teeth; as they also flatly and precisely affirm. And by * Certum est, quod quam citò species dentis teruntur, tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi. Glos. de consecr. d. 2. c. Trib. 9 this reason the whole body of Christ, (against all reason; For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is ever greater than any part:) shall be less in quantity then the least limb or member of his Body, than a nails paring of his little finger: than which nothing is more absurd and senseless. d Ipsum immortale corpus minus est in parte quam in toto, August. Epist. 57 Even an immortal body, (saith Augustine speaking of and instancing even in Christ's body,) is less in part than it is in c Totum Christi corpus est sub parte speciei. Glos. ad Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. Qu● manducant. Totum corpus Christi est in qualibet parte hostiae. Innocent. 3. apud Bie●… de Can. Miss. lect. 80. In quolibet puncto sacramenti totum est corpus Christi. Gabr. Biel ibid. the whole. e cum sit corpus substanstantia, quantitas eius est in magnitudine molis eius. Ergò distantibus partibus quae simul esse non possunt, quoniam sua quaeque spacia locorum tenent, minores minora, & maiores maiora, non potuit esse in singulis quibusque partibustota vel tanta, sed amplior est quátitas in amplioribus partibus, brevior in brevioribus, & in nulla parte tanta, quanta per totum Aug. ibid. For a body being a substance, the quantity thereof consisteth in the greatness of bulk. And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another, and cannot all be together, because they keep each one their several spaces and places, the less parts lesser places, and the great greater, there cannot be either the whole quantity, or so great a quantity in each single part, but a greater quantity in the greater parts, and a lesser in the less, and in no part at all so great a quantity as in the whole: But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantity as great and greater than his whole body, and his whole body less than any part of it is. But how, will you say, is Christ's Body and Blood conneighed unto us, or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunk then in the Eucharist, if it be not really there present? I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question: How (saith he) shall I hold Christ when he is not here? How can I stretch mine hand to Heaven, there to lay hold on him? Send thy faith thither (saith he) and thou hast him. Thy forefathers held him in the flesh; hold thou him in thy heart. You have him always present in regard of his Majesty, but in regard of his Flesh, as himself told his Disciples, not always. But for fuller satisfaction I answer: 1. Sacraments are f Rom. 4. 11. seals annexed to God's covenant. And as a deed being drawn of the Prince's gift concerning office, land or livelihood, and his broad seal annexed to it, and that deed so drawn and sealed being delivered, that office, or that land, though lying an hundred miles of, is Quomdo tenebo absentem? quomodò in coelum manum mittar, ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte & tenuisti. Parents tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene cord. Etiam absens praesens est. Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum. Secundum praesentiam catnis rectè dictum est discipulis, Me semper non habebitis. Math. 26. 11. August. in joan. tract. 50. Et idem Epist. 59 Quomodò tangeret, cum ad Patrem ascendiss●t, nisi forte fidei profectu & mentis ascensu? therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conveyed and assured unto the party unto whom the same deed is so made, and to whose use and behoof it is so delivered, as if it were really present: So these seals being annexed to God's Covenant of grace concerning Christ, his Flesh and Blood, and his Death and Passion, and our title too and interest in either, the things themselves, even Christ's body and blood themselves (though sited still in Heaven) are as truly and as effectually conveyed with them and by them unto the faithful receiver, when they are to him delivered, as if they were here really and corporally present. 2. We receive Christ in the Eucharist, as in the Word and Baptism: wherein also we do truly receive him, yea, and feed on his flesh and blood, as well as in the Encharist, albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either. g Rom. 6. 4. Non ait sepulturam significamus, sed prorsus ait, consepulti sumus: Sacramentum ergô tantae rei non visae eiusdem rei vocabulo significavit. Aug. ep. 23. Col. 2. 12. We are buried together with Christ (saith the Apostle) by Baptism into his Death. And, As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. i Tingimur in passione Domini. Tertul. de Bapt. We are dipped in our Lord's passion: saith Tertullian. Sprinkle thy face with Christ's blood, saith Hierome speaking of Baptism, that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead. k Habes Christum in praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum 8: potum. Aug. in joan. tract. 50. Thou hast Christ (saith Augustine) at the present by faith, at the present by the sign of him, at the present by the Sacrament of Baptism, at the present by the meat and drink of the altar. Yea, l Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum, tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis & sanguinis Domini participem fieri, quando in baptiismate membrum Christi efficitur. etc. quando ipse hoc quod illud sacramentum significat, inueni●. Aug. ad Infant. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. No man ought to doubt (saith Augustine) but that every Faithful one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of * Tolse hyssopum, intinge in sanguine: videat exterminator sanguinem in front tua, Hieron. in Psal. 85. Christ: and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup, though he depart out of this life ere he eat of that bread and drink of that Cup, because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth. And for the Word, m Christiani omni die carnes agni comedunt, i carnes verbi Dei quotidiè sumunt. Origen. in Gen. hom. 10. Christian men (saith Origen) eat every day the flesh of the Lamb, because daily they receive the Flesh of God's word. And; n Vide Agnum verum, etc. judaei carnali sensu comedant carnes Agni: nos comedamus carnem verbi Dei. Ipse enim dixit, Nisi comederitis carnes meas, etc. Hoc quod modò loquimur, carnes sunt verbi Dei. Idem in Num. hom. 23. The true Lamb is o joh. 1. 29. the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world: for p 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passeover is offered for us. Let the jews in a carnal sense caete the flesh of a Lamb: but let us eat the flesh of the Word of God. For he saith, unless ye eat my flesh, ye shall have no life in you. This that I now speak is the Flesh of the Word of God. And again, q Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum sacramentorum ritu, sed & cum sermones eius recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut ipse dicit, verba quae loquor, spiritus & vita sunt. Orig. in Num. hom. 17. We are said to drink Christ's blood not in the Sacramental rites only, but when we receive his word, wherein life consisteth; as he saith, r joh. 6. 63. The words that I speak are Spirit and Life. And, Hierome also understandeth those words of our Saviour, s Quando dicit, Qui non etc. licet & in mysterio possit intelligi: tamen verius corpus Christi & ●anguis eius sermo scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Hieron. in Psal. 147. He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my blood; not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist only, but more specially, or as he speaketh, more truly, of Christ's word and doctrine: and addeth therefore, that ᵗ When we hear the word of God, both the word of God, and the Flesh of Christ, and his Blood is poured in at our ears. If in the Sacrament of Baptism then, and in the Ministry of the word we truly receive Christ, and become partakers of Christ, yea we eat and drink Christ in either as well as in the Eucharist, what needeth any such real transmutation more in the one then in the other? 6. We reason from the Quality of the Communicants in the Eucharist. If Christ's body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist: then all that eat of the Eucharist, must of necessity eat Christ in it. But many eat of the Eucharist, that yet eat not Christ in it. For none but the faithful feed on Christ: none eat him, as we showed before, but those that live by him, yea and in him; that are living members of his mystical Body. Whereas many wicked ones eat of the Eucharist; many eat of it, that are out of Christ. u Illi manducabant panem Dominum: ille panem domini contra Dominum. August. in joan. tract. 59 The other Disciples (saith Augustine) did eat that Bread that is the Lord: judas did eat the Lords Bread against the Lord. And disputing against those that hold that wicked men * Quando audimus sermonem Dei & sermo Dei, & caro Christi, & sanguis eius in auribus nostris funditur. Ibid. should be saved, if they lived in the Church, because they fed on Christ in the Eucharist, saith, that such wicked ones are not to be said to eat Christ's body, because they are not members x Nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in menbris computandi sunt Christi. Aug. de civet. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. of his body. And that y Ipse dicens, Qui manducat, etc. loan. 6. Ostenditquid ●it non sacramento tenus, sed reverâ corpus Christi manducare, etc. q. d. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non man●o, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. Ibid. Christ when he saith, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I i● him; doth thereby show what it is truly, and not sacramentally only to eat Christ's body and to drink his blood, and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood, that abideth not 〈…〉 Christ and Christ in him. And again he saith: 2 Escam vitae accipit, & aeternitatis poculum bibit, qui in Christo manet, & cuius Christus habitator est. Aug. in senten. 139. He receiveth the Bread of Life, and drinketh the Cup of eternity, that abideth in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth. * Qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem eius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiam si tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat, Ibid. But he that disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood, though to his own judgement for his presumption he daily receive indifferently the Sacrament of so great a thing. And again: a Qui manducant & bibunt Christum, vitam manducant & bibunt. Illum ●●nducare est refici: illum bibere est vivere. Quod in sacramento visibiliter sumit●●, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducatur & bibitur. Aug. apud. Grat. de consecr. dist. 2. c. Qui manned. They that eat and drink Christ, eat and drink life. To eat him is to be made again, to drink him is to live. That which is taken visibly in a Sacrament, is eaten and drunk spiritually in the truth itself. For, b Iste cibus & potus eos à quibus sumitur immortales veraciter & in corruptibiles facit. Hoc est ergo manducare illam carnem & illum potum biber●, in Christo manner & illum m●…nentem in se habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in qui non mane● Christus, proculdubio non manducat spiritualiter ca●… eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corpotis Christi Aug. in joan. tract. 26. This meat and drink maketh those that take it truly immortal and incorruptible. This is therefore to eat that flesh and drink that drink, for a manto abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in him. And consequently he that abideth not in Christ, nor Christ in him, without doubt doth not eat his flesh nor drink his blood spiritually, though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the Sacrament of Christ's Body. To Augustine I add Origen, who having spoken what shall anon be related of Christ's typical and symbolical Body, as he calleth the Sacrament: c Et haec quidem de typico symbolicoque corpore. Multa porrò & de ipso verbo dici possunt, quod factum est caro verusque cibus, quem qui comederit, omninò vivet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest edere. Etinim si fieri posset, ut qui malus adhuc perseveret, edat verbum factum ca●em, cum sit verb● & panis viws, nequ●que scriptum fuisset; Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in aeternum. Origen in Math. 15. Much (saith he) might be said more of the Word it self that became Flesh and true Food, which whosoever eateth shall surely live for ever, and which no evil man can eat of. For if it were possible that any man, that continueth evil still, should eat of the Word that became Flesh, since it is the living Bread, it had never been written, d joh. 6. 58. Whosoever eateth of this Bread, shall live for ever. It is impossible then that any wicked man, or any that are damned should eat Christ: But many wicked men eat of the Eucharist, many are damned that eat of it. The Eucharist therefore is not really Christ. Lastly, we reason from those things that are done about, or may be fall those Creatures that in the Eucharist are consecrated, which cannot be done to or betide now Christ's glorified Body. 1. The Eucharistical Bread was e Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 24. broken in pieces and divided into parts by our Saviour at his last Supper. And the like rite was observed f 1 Cor. 10. 16. by the Apostles in the administratiof the Eucharist: And is g Bellar. de Miss. l. 2. c. 10. Nicol. Pp. de consecr. d. 2. c. Ego Bereng. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 80. Durand ration. diuin. l. 4. part. 2. in 6. part. Can. & Durant. ex Bestarione de rit. Eccles. l. 2. c. 38. in the Romish Church also not unusual. But as Christ (saith the Apostle) is not divided; so Christ's Body is not divided into parts; as they themselves confess; nor broken into pieces. h 1 Cor. 11, 24. His Body indeed is said to be broken, not that it was really broken into pieces; but as by the Prophet it is said, that i Dominus voluit conterere cum. Hieron. Esa. 53. 10. It pleased God to break him, and to put him to grief: (which was fulfilled in those pains and torments that for us he sustained) and as we use to say of men that with grief and care they are broken. Otherwise it was never broken; much less is it now broken, being wholly quit even of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before. Yea the Papists themselves not daring to avow that of Christ's very body; are enforced to affirm, that every Communicant receiveth k Totu Christi corpus singu●● accipiunt. Gabr. Bie●… in Can. Miss. lect. 80. the whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receive but a part, (saith their own Canon, as you shall hear anon) of the Element in the Sacrament. That therefore, that is so divided there, is not Christ's natural Body. And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salve and reconcile the words of their Canons, and to make their own doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited. There is inserted into the Canon, this saying of Augustine; l Nec quando manducamus, parts de illo facimus. Et quidem in sacramento sic fit; & norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi. Vnusquisque accipit partem suam. Vnde & ipsa gratia partes vocantur. Per partes manducatur in sacramento, & man●t integer totus in coelo, manet integer totus in cord tuo. Aug. de verb. Euang. apud Grat. de conscr. d. 2. c. Qui manned. & apud Bedam in 1 Cor, 10. Quae Durandus etiam ex Gregorio citat rational. diuin. l. 4. p 2. in 6. p. Can. We do 〈…〉 make parts of Christ, when we eat him. Indeed in the Sacrament we do so, and the faithful know how we eat Christ's flesh there. Each one taketh his part: and the Eucharist itself is therefore called their Parts. Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament, and yet remaineth whole in Heaven; and yet remaineth whole in thy heart. On which place saith the Glosser; m Supra, eadem dist. Ego Bereng. contr. Gloss. ad c. Qui manned. This is contrary to that which Pope Nicolas saith, in Berengarius his Confession. And so it is indeed, for therein (as before you heard) it is said, that not the Sacrament only, but Christ's very Body itself is broken by the Priest. But that cannot be, saith the Gloss; for n Glorificatum corpus laesionem aliquam pati non potest Ibid. a glorified Body cannot suffer any such maim or harm. And therefore saith the same Gloss, o Nominibus pa●tium appellatur corpus & sanguis Christi, vel ipsae species quae per partes dividuntur vocantur corpus & sanguis Christi, scil. significanti mysterio. Gloss. Ibid. The Body and Blood of Christ is called by the name of Parts, or the Species that are divided are called the Body and Blood of Christ, in a significant mystery: that is, as we say, because in a mystery they signify Christ's Body and Blood. That than which is taken in the Sacrament is divided into parts, and eaten by piecemeal: But Christ's natural Body is not so divided, or taken corporally. That therefore that is taken in the Eucharist is not Christ's natural Body. To conclude; Christ when he broke, either he broke Bread or his Body: but he broke not his Body; for his Body remained entire still: he broke Bread therefore; and so the Evangelist saith, p Mat. 26. 26. He took Bread and broke it: and yet q Christus prius consecravit, quam fregit, & benedicendo consecravit. Durant. de rit. Eccles. l. 2. c. 38. num. 15. he had blessed it, and so consecrated it first, as r Innocent. Pp. apud Gabr. Biel lect. 39 Pope Innocent and other Popish writers confess: It remained Bread still therefore even after Consecration: when as Cyril speaketh, * Fragmenta panis discipulis dedit. Cyril. in johan. lib. 4. cap. 14. He gave his Disciples fragments of Bread: for of his Body it could not be. Yea, that which they break at this day, either it is Christ's very body, or but bread: not Christ's body. For, s Corpus Christi si frangeretur & divideretur, corrumperetur, quod est impossibile, cum sit impassibile. Gabr. Biel. lect 80. Christ's body if it were broken and divided, would be spoiled, saith Biel the Schooleman; but that it is impossible, because it is impassable: Therefore Bread only. For what they speak (out of Pope Innocent therein crossing Pope Nicholas, as “ Vide Durand. rational. diuin lib. 4. part. 2. in 6. part. Canon. Durand also well observeth of dividing nothing but * Color, sapor & pondus. Hostiens. sum. l. 3. de conser. altar. num. 17. the colour, and shape, and savour, and weight, and the like accidents, is frivolous, and contrary to the words of the Institution that admit no such sense. I might add hereunto that which Pope Nicholas acknowledgeth, that if the body of Christ be corporally in the Eucharist, it is not only broken by the Priest's hands, but t Nicol Pp. ubi supra. torn to pieces also with men's teeth: And though the Evangelist tell us that u joh. 19 36. Exod. 12. 46. No bo●e of him was broken, v Psal. 34 20. God indeed so kept them, that not one of them was broken, even when x Psal. 22. 16. they pierced y joh. 20. 25. with nails his hands and his feet: yet if it be as they say, his very bones must needs be broken between their teeth that here chew him: and he sustaineth more hard measure in that kind by the teeth of his own Disciples, than he did then at the hands of those that were his executioners. Hard teeth they have doubtless that can so easily break bones: and hard hearts that can find in their heart to use their Saviour so hardly. z Quis tam stultus est, ut id quo vescitur, credat esse Deum? Cic. de nat. Deor. Who is so sottish (saith the Heathen man) as to think that that he eateth to be God. * Theodor in Levit. qaest. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: What man in his wits (saith Theodoret) will account that to be God which either he abhorreth, or that he offereth to the true God, and himself eateth? And who is so impious, say I, as to eat thus that which he thinketh to be God? 2. That which is consecrated in the Eucharist is subject to corruption, putrefaction and foul abuse: Christ's natural body now glorified is not so. That therefore is not Christ's natural body, that is consecrated in the Eucharist. That which is consecrated in the Eucharist, I say, is subject to corruption. For, a Si ad res ipsas, quibus sacramenta tractantur, animum conferamus, quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles? Si ad id, quod per illas ●es agitur, quis non videat, non posse corump●? Aug. de Bapt. l. 3. c. 10. If we regard those visible things (saith Augustine) wherewith we administer the Sacraments, who knoweth not that they are corruptible? But if we respect that that is intended in them, who seeth not that it cannot be corrupted? The Elements in the Eucharist, if they be kept any long time, are prone to putrify. In regard whereof their counterfeit S. Clement b Qualiter tenere debemus in sacramentis, te ex ordine nos decet instruere. Clem. Pp. epist. ad jacob. fratren Dom. instructing (for so he speaketh) the Apostle S. james how to deal with the Sacrament (How shameless are they that dare obtrude such things on the Church of God? how blockish and sottish that believe them?) doth very gravely and sagely admonish him to have special care of c Reliquias fragmentorum corporis Domini custodire debent, ne qua putredo in sacrario inveniatur, ne portioni c●●poris Domini gravis inferatur iniutia. Clem. Ibid. keeping the relics of the Host, or the fragments of Christ's body, (for so he calleth them) from growing mouldy in the Pyx, and * Ne murium stercora inter fragmenta portionis Dominicae appareant. Clem. Ibid. that no mouse dung be found among the fragments of Christ's portion; lest great wrong be done to some portion or piece of Christ's body. (And yet they told us before that Christ's body is not parted.) And Cardinal Bellarmine telleth us of the Sacramental wine, that it cannot be kept long but it will grow sour. Or if they be taken, they are consumed, and “ Col. 6. 22. perish (as the Apostle speaketh) in the use of them. e Panis ad hoc factus in aceipiendo sacramento consumitur. Aug. de Trinit. l. 3. c. 10. The Bread (saith Augustine) that is made for this use, is in the Sacrament consumed. But Christ's natural Body is in no wise consumed. f Nulla panem hunc multitudo consumit, nulla antiquitate veterascit. Author. de cardin. Christi oper. c. de coen. Dom. No multitude (saith one) consumeth this bread; no continuance maketh it stale. g Reficit nec deficit: sumitur, nec consumitur tamen. Ex Aug. Beda. in 1 Cor. 10. & Aug. in joan. tract. 13. & de vers. 27. That heavenly food refresheth, and yet never faileth: it is never spent at all, though it be never so oft taken. * joh. 6. 27. It never perisheth (saith our Saviour) but lasteth to life eternal. Yea in many places the manner was anciently, if any bread were left after the celebration of the Sacrament, either to h Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 2. c. 26. Euagr. histor. l. 4. c. 34. Niceph. hister. l. 17. c. 25. & Concil. Matiscon. 2● can. 6. distribute it among the Catechumeni, who might not as yet receive the Eucharist; or to i Hesych. in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. & Bern. epist 88 burn it with fire, in d Vinum conseruari non potest, quin acescat. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 14. imitation of k Exod. 12. 10. the Paschal Lambs remainders; which yet it is to be thought they would not have done with it, if they had held it to be Christ's body. Yea to this day the Romanists are enjoined in their Church Canons, l Omne sacrificium sordida vetustate perditum, igne comburendum est. Burchard. decret. l. 5▪ c. 50. ex Conc. Aur. c. 5. if the host grow mouldy or m Vel integrum, & in eo vermis, vel à vermibus consumptum. Durand. rat. diuin l. 4. de 〈…〉 part. Can. breed mites; (neither of which, I suppose, Christ's Body now can do,) Or ⁿ if a sick body that hath been houseled, bring it up again; Or o Si casu gulae Eucharistiam evomuerit. Missal. in cautel. if the Priest being drunk before chance to spew it up again; p Incineretur. Ibid. & Du●and. Ibid. to burn both the one and the other, q Contritum cum vino sumatur, nisi horror sit sumere. Duran. if no man be found so hardy as to take either, and r juxta altare recondatur. Missal. pro reliquiis custodiatur. Durand. to lay up, or reserve, the ashes, of it for a relic: and s Si canes lambuerint, vel à canibus consumitur, poeniteat 100 dies. Burch. l. 5. c. 48, 49. ex Penitent. Theodor. & Rom. if the dog's chance to lick that up that the Priest cased himself of, he must do double penance for it. Or t Petr. de Lap. resol. dub. cap. 7▪ art. 3. dub. 7. apud Viret. de sacrif. Miss. l. 3. c. 17. if a mouse h Si corpus Christi infirmo datum rejicitur. Durand. Ibid. chance to pick their God almighty out of the Pyx (of which more anon) and she can be taken again, she must be opened, and Christ's body, if it may be, picked out of her, and if no man have a stomach to so delicate a morsel, both she and it must be burnt, and the ashes reserved. For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes: let them not blame us if with due reverence to such holy mysteries, we argue from our Saviour's own words; the Ancients have done so before us: p Mat. 15. 17. Whatsoever (saith our Saviour) goeth into the mouth, entereth not into the heart, but goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, q Mark. 7. 19 which is the purging of all meats. Whereupon as Augustine saith, having spoken both of the food that is r 1 Tim. 4. 4. sanctified for the sustenance of our bodies, and of the bread that they used to give to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament, s Ista ciborum sanctificatio non efficit, ut quod in os intraverit, non in ventrem vadat, & in secessum emittatur per corruptionem: unde ad aliam escam quae non corrumpitur exhortatur nos Dominus. August. de peccat. mer. l. 2. c. 26. This sanctification of meats hindereth not, but that that which goeth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is by corruption cast out into the draught; whereupon our Lord exhorteth us to t joh. 6. 27. another meat that corrupteth not: So Origen speaking of the Sacrament itself, u De typico symbolicoque corpore. Origen. of the typical and symbolical Body of Christ; (for so expressly he explaineth himself:) x Quod si quicquid ingreditur, etc. & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum eiicitur. Nec materia panis, sed precatio quae illi adiicitur & super illum dictus sermo efficit ut profit non indignè Domino comedenti illum. Origen. in Mat. c. 15. If, saith he, whatsoever goeth in at the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught: then even that Bread also that is sanctified (or consecrated; all is one) by the word of God and by prayer, as it is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught: nor is it the matter of the bread, but the prayer added to it, and the word spoken of it, that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiver. But to say so or to think so of Christ's blessed and glorious Body were most hideous, most horrible. Well therefore saith Ambrose; y Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae substátiam fulcit. Ambr. apud Grat. de confecr. dist. 2. c. Non iste. It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly, but the Bread of eternal life, that sustaineth the substance of our souls. And Augustine expressly telleth us that z Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Aug. in Psal. 98. We are not to eat that body that the jews saw, nor drink that blood which they shed that crucified Christ; but there is a Sacrament commended unto us, which being spiritually understood will put life into us. * Nihil absurdius fingi potest, quam Eucharistiâ nutriri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri, & cibum esse ventris non mentis Eucharistiam. Bellar. de Euchar. l 2. c 4. There can nothing be imagined more absurd (saith Bellarmine himself) then to think that Christ's Body should nourish the mortal substance of men's bodies, and so should be the food, not of the mind, but of the belly. But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs do and worse than this; the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd. Lastly, what can be more horrible, then to imagine that Christ's body, or any part of it, should be not in the belly of a man, but in the belly of a beast? a Aures piae hoc abhorrent audile, quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi. Bonauent. in 4. Sent. dist. 13. quaest. 2. art. 1. apud Aftesan. sum. part. 4. tit. 17. quaest. 2. Christian ears (saith Benaventure) abhor to hear that Christ's body should be in the draught or in a mouse's maw. Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one & the other too must needs be, if a mouse chance (as he may) to meet with a consecrated Host. Nor do the Popish writers ordinarily make dainty of it to acknowledge as much. If a pig or a dog, (saith Alexander of Hales) should swallow down an whole consecrated host, I see not why or how Christ's body should not pass into its belly. And, b Si canis, vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo corpus Domini non trai●ceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. Alex. Alice, sum. part. 4. quaest. 3. mem. 1. art. 2. Thomas Aquinas, c Brutum animal per accidens corpus Christi manducat. Thom. sum. part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3. A brute beast may by accident eat Christ's body. And, d Etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub specibus, etc. sicut etiam, s● proiiceretur in ●utum. Thom. Ibid. Though a Mouse or a Dog eat a consecrated Host, yet the substance of Christ's body ceaseth not to be there, no more than it doth, if the Host be cast into the dirt. e Si dicatur, quod sumat, non est m●gnum inconueniens, cum sceleratissimi homines istud sumant. Glos. ad Grat. de consecr. dist. 2. c. Qui benè. If it be said (saith the Glosser) that a mouse eateth Christ's Body, there is no great inconvenience in it; since that the most wicked men that are, receive it. f Nemo carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit. Aug. in Psal. 98. Nene eateth Christ's flesh (saith Augustine) but he that first worshippeth it. And I doubt much whether any of these dogs, pigs, or mice, ever adored it: howsoever Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell us either of g jumentum corpus Christi suppliciter adoravit. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 8. ex Antonin. sum. hist. part. 3. tit. 24. c. 3. Sect. 2. & Sur. tom. 3. in vita Anton●● de Milan. an Horse or an Ass that worshipped the Host. But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations, go together. Yet so necessarily doth this follow upon their doctrine of the Eucharist; that whereas some of their Doctors seem to doubt h Quid à mure comeditur cum sacramentum corroditur? Lomb. sent. l. 4. dist. 13. A. what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Host, and maketh a good meal of it; And the great Master of the Sentences saith, i Deus novit. Ibid. God knoweth; for he knoweth not; but he inclineth rather to think, that k Dici potest, quod corpus Christi à brutis non sumitur, quamuis videatur. Ibib. the mouse eateth not Christ's body, though she seem so to do; whereupon the Masters of Paris give him a wipe for it by the way, and said, the Master is out here. And others of them, to salve the matter, would coin us a new miracle, and say, that m Quam citò mus rodit, corpus Christi esse desinit. Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. d. 13. p. 1. q. 2. art. 1. & Astesan. sum l. 4. tit. 17. q. 2. so soon as the mouse's mouth cometh at it, or her lips kiss it, Christ's Body conveyeth itself away, and n Panis miraculosè revertitur. Innocent. de Miss. l. 4. c. 11. & Fortalit. fid. lib. 3. consid. 6. imposs. 17. the bread miraculously cometh again in the room of it: o Et haec opinio communior est, & honestior. Astesan. Ibid. and this (say they) is the commoner and the honester opinion. Here is miracle upon miracle; such as they are. Yet Thomas Aquinas their p Angelicus Doctor. chief Schooleman, and one that could not be deceived herein, for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament l Hîc Magister non tenetur. Censur Paris. was confirmed by Miracle, a wooden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words, q Benè scrip sisti de me, Thoma. Erphurd. de fact. memor. c. 9 5. Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; telleth us peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise, if Christ's body be in the Eucharist, but that Mice and Rats must eat it, when they meet with the Host and make meat of it. r Quidan dixerunt, quod statim dum sacramentum tangitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc derogat veritati sacramenti. Thom. sum. part. 3. q. 80. a. 3. Some say (saith he) that so soon as the Sacrament is touched by a dog or a mouse, Christ's Body ceaseth to be there: But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament. Thus you may see what hideous, horrid and horrible conclusions this carnal and Capernaitical conceit of Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth, and must needs breed and bring forth with all those that uphold it. The Sum of all that hath been said. 1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appear that those words of our Saviour, This is my Body, may not be figuratively understood, is by Cardinal Caietan confessed. 2. That our Saviour's words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be understood not corporally but spiritually, is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note: and is, beside other Reasons, by a Rule given by Augustine evidently proved. 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remain in Substance the same, and are not really transubstantiated into Christ's Body and Blood, is evinced by diverse Arguments. 1. From the Course of the Context, which plainly showeth, that Christ broke and delivered no other than he took and blessed. 2. From the express words of Scripture, that calleth the one Bread, and the other Wine, even after consecration. 3. From the Nature of Signs, whose property it is to be one thing, and to signify another thing. 4. From the Nature of Christ's Body, that hath flesh, blood, and bones, which the Eucharistical bread hath not, that. which our taste, our sight, and our sense informeth us, by which our Saviour himself hath taught us to discern his body. 5. From the nature of every true Body, such as Christ's is, which cannot be in many places at once, nor have any part of it greater than the whole. 6. From the quality of the Communicants, good and bad, promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist, whereas none but the faithful can feed upon Christ. 7. From these infirm and unseemly, yea foul and filthy things that do usually, or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist, which no Christian ear can endure to hear that they should befall Christ's blessed and glorious body. Whence I conclude, that since this Corporal presence, such as the Church of Rome maintaineth, hath no warrant from God's word, as their own Cardinal confesseth; and is beside contrary to Scripture, to nature, to sight, to sense, to reason, to religion, we have little reason to receive it, as a truth of Christ, or a principle of Christianity, great reason to reject it, as a figment of a man's brain, yea as a doctrine of the devil, invented to wrong Christ and Christianity. It is the Rule of a Schooleman. We ought not to add more difficulty unto the difficulties of Durand. in sent. lib. 4. dist. 11. quaest. 3. Non oportet difficu tastes fidei difficultatibus superaddere; quin potius iuxta documentum Scripturae conandum est obscuritates elucidare. Et ideò, ex quo unus modus est clarè possibilis & intelligibilis, alius antem non est intelligibilis, videretur probabiliter quod ille qui est possibilis & intelligibilis, est et eligendus & tenendus. Christian belief. But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth, we should endeavour to clear that that is obscure. And therefore since that the one manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is clearly possible and intelligible, whereas the other is not intelligible (yea, nor possible neither,) it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is possible and intelligible should be chosen and held. A JUST DEFENCE OF THE FORMER DISCOURSE AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ANSWER OF A nameless Popish Priest thereunto: Wherein is set down; first, his Answer word for word, and then a Refutation thereof, according to his own Distribution of it. Division I. NOBLE Lady, I find your N. P. Divine utterly ignorant and unacquainted with the Author's works by him frequently cited. For example, pag. 9 he termeth Cornelius jansenius more than once a jesuit: whereas the first leaf of his book (if he had ever seen it) witnesseth him to have been a Bishop of Flaunders, and no jesuit. Like herein to an other of his own coat (for I guess him to be a Minister, who to myself and other worthy persons confidently averred Cardinal Bellarm. to have been an English man borne at Harr●● on the Hi●●; where there hath been indeed an ancient family of the Bellamy's, not Bellarmine's, as he foolishly conceived. Secondly, pag. 5. he citeth an authority out of Pope Gelasius written by a far different Author of that name Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine mentioned together with his works by Photius Bibliotheca sua Codice 102. Thirdly, in his 2. page, on the false report of an other nameless Author like to himself, ignorant and unsincere in his assertions, he maketh Bishop Fisher to affirm the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any one word in Scripture, contrary to Bishop Fishers, yea Luther's own doctrine in innumerable places. Fourthly, having traced him throughout his whole Treatise, I find him to be a mere collector out of other Authors: and for his best Arguments be hath stolen Bellarmine's objections against our doctrine, craftily dissembling his full and solid solutions of them in those very places: which is the usual trade of such Protestant petty writers. His proofs are tedious, superficial, and stuffed with impertinent allegations, maimedly and corruptly produced: with a very bad hand (which I suppose is his own) he inserteth many notes wholly idle and impertinent to his purpose; as I have in reading his papers particularly observed: which is to me an evident sign, that he hoped his papers should never come to the view of other than Ladies and unlearned pers●… unable 〈…〉 exam●●● them. It is the usual manner of those that defend a bad T. G. cause, to leave the matter, and fall foul on the adverse party, and (like the craven Cock, that having a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xenoph. in sympos. Et inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristoph. in ●quitib. eaten garlic, by his strong and stinking breath endeavoureth to drive him away from him, whom he is not able well to bicker with) by railing, re●iling and abundance of bad language to seek to beat off their adversary, or by lying and outfacing to cry down those that they deal with, when by evidence of truth and strength of Argument they are unable to convince them; hoping by such means to delude the simpler sort at least, that cannot so well discern their shifts. This as I have heretofore by experience found to be the common practice of Popish companions; so this Defendant loath to degenerate from the kind he cometh of, at the first dash beginneth with, charging the Divine he dealeth with to be one utterly ignorant, unacquainted with the Author's works that he citeth, a petty-writer, a mere collector, a false filcher, a foul corrupter, a superficial disputer, and what not? This is his charge: Let us hear how he proveth it. 1. He termeth jansenius, whom he citeth, more than once a jesuit, when he is not. It is true indeed: I confess, I do twice so term him, and I took him to have been so: wherein if I were mistaken, the matter is not great. I hope the authority of a famous Bishop, and a great writer of special note among them, our of a work of his written b Magna erudition, ac iudicio maturo Scriptum. Tho. Gozeus S. Theol. Profess. Lovan. & lib. Visitat. with much learning and mature judgement, as the Louvain professor acknowledgeth; and approved c Communi doctorum virorum iudicio. Io. Molan. Censor Apostolicus & Regius. by the common judgement of the learned among them, as the King of Spain's (to whom also it is dedicated) and the Pope's Censurer of books testifieth, may well be deemed of as much weight as the word or work, (if not of any, yet) of many a jesuit at least. As for the idle tale he telleth of the Bellarmine's and Bellamy's, which a Minister forsooth should take the one for the other, and thereupon affirm Card. Bellarmine to have been borne at Harrow on the Hill; it may well be thought to have been brought in for no other end (being so little to the purpose) but to let us understand that he is a man of some worth; for so much he intimateth when he saith, it was averred to himself and other worthy persons. He doubteth (belike) that his work would scarce make his worth known, if he should not otherwise acquaint us with it. The thing itself is like enough to be but a mere fiction; and might easily be requited with the tale of the Friar, that d Marnix Beehive. took Messias for the Mass, and so would prove out of the Gospel that Christ said Mass; or of the Priest e Hundred merry Tales that took unigeniti written short, for viginti, and so read to his people, God's twenty sons; or of him f Poggii facet. that bade the Epiphanie day, but could not tell whether it were an he or a she-Saint; or of him * H. Steph. apolog. for Herod. l. 1. c. 39 that bad Solin Cancro for an Holiday, because he found it written in red letters; and with many more the like, probable enough, if the learning of their lack-latin Priests be well weighed. But, had I ever seen the first leaf of his book, I might have known him to be a Bishop of Flanders and no jesuit. As if as oft as one either readeth or allegeth any Author, he must needs turn always to the title-page, to see what his style is: or as if jansenius might not as well be Bishop of Gaunt, as Bellarmine a Cardinal, and (if I mistake not) Archbishop of Capua, and yet for all that a jesuit. His proof therefore of my being unacquainted with this Author, (whom, I suppose, he will find me better acquainted with then he would) is very silly and slight: and the exception such, as sheweth that he wanted matter of moment to except against. But I hope when this Bishop of Flanders book cometh to be reprinted again, they will take that course with him, (if they have not left their old guise) that they have done formerly with many others; to wipe out of him whatsoever in this kind or any other, either maketh directly against them, or discovereth the weakness of such grounds as they labour to build their gross errors upon. Of which their false and fradulent dealing, it shall not be amiss to insert one Example by the way; the rather, because it concerneth the point here debated. Whereas therefore in the time of Carolus Calvus King of France and Emperor, above 800. years since, there was g Non paru● schis●●ate dividuntur, quide mysterio corporis sanguinisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur. Bertram praefat. ad Carol. Imper. much disputation and dissension in the Church about the doctrine of the Sacrament, one Bertram a man h Vir in divinis Scripturis valdè peritus, & in literis disciplinarum secularium egregiè doctus; nec minus vi●â quam doctrinâ in signis. Trithem. in Catalogue. of great note in those times both for life and learning, willed by the Emperor to declare his judgement therein, wrote a learned discourse thereof, wherein he confimeth by the testimonies of Augustine, Ambrose, and others of the Ancients, the very same that we now hold: and among other things affirmeth that i Appar●t quod multâ inter se differentiâ separatur; quantum est inter pignus, & eam rem pro qua pignus traditur; inter imaginem, & rem cuiu● est imago; inter speciem, & veritatem. Bertran. de corp. & sang. Dom. quaest. 2. there is as great difference between Christ's body that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and that which is daily received with the month in the Sacrament, as there is between the pledge, and that for which the pledge is given, between the image, and that whereof it is an image, and between the type and the truth. Now the Popish purgers authorised to main and mangle Authors, as well old as new, cum privilegio, without control, lighting among others on this book of bertram's, use these words of it, and of their own confessed courses in this kind. k Index Expurgat. Belgic. in tit. B. Albeit (say they) we make no great reckoning of this book, and therefore should not greatly care if it were utterly lost, and were no where to be had; (I cannot blame them if they wish it, and many other the like, burnt and abolished) yet seeing that the book hath been oft printed, and reprinted, hath been read of very many, is known commonly by the name of a book forbidden, and the Heretics by divers Catalogues of Books prohibited, are sure there is such an one, etc. And beside, since that in other old catholic writers we bear with very many errors, we extenuate, we excuse them, l Excogitato commento persaepe negamus, & commodum eis sensum affingimus. with some devised shift or other we very often times deny them, and by feigning give them some commodio as sense, (such they mean as may serve their own turns) when in disputations with our Adversaries they are objected unto us. (Mark, I pray you, the common dealing of these men in disputation, not charged on them by us, but confessed by themselves; and then judge you what fidelity or sincerity in citing of Authors, is to be expected at their hands.) We see not, why Bertram should not find the like favour with us: The rather, m Ne haeretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis sacientem ex●●ere & prohibe●●. L●st the Heretics should be snarling at us, and telling us that we burn up and prohibit antiquity, when it maketh for them against us. Which, you see, in this Author they would feign, if either they could, or durst do it. So at length they resol●… to do Bertram the favour to mangle and misuse his whole book, and having put in, and put out what they list themselves, to let him to pass, taught to speak for them now, that spoke all against them before. I may well say here, as Arnobius an ancient Father, sometime said; n Intercipere scripta, & publicam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deos defendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere. Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 3. To intercept writings, and seek to suppress things published, what is it but to be afraid of having the truth told and testified? 2. From the first idle Exception I pass to a second, as false, as the former frivolous. He citeth, saith he, an authority out of Pope Gelasius, written by a far different Author of that name, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Had not mere malice and a mind bend to cavil, either blinded this wrangler, or made him wilfully to wink, he might easily have seen (that which he could not also be ignorant of) in my very quotation, that the style and ●itle I give him, is no other than is commonly given him by Popish writers, as among others by o Gelasii Episcopi Romani, etc. Biblioth. Patrun à Margar. la Bigne 2. edit. Paris. 1589. tom. 4. Et ib. in margin, Gelasius 1. Afer. anno Dom. 564. Margarinus la Bigne, and those with him (besides many p Sic enim in edit. Basil. 1528 & Tigur. 15●1. others) that gathered together the works of the ancient Fathers, in the fourth T●me of their great Library sundry times printed, which 〈…〉 note there also in the Margin where I cite him. So that it is a mere false and friu●●us cavil to tax me for cyring Gelasius by 〈…〉 title that he knew well to be given him, (yea and that truly too, as anon shall evidently be ●…ed) by those of their own side that have at sundry times set him out by no other name but of G●lasius Pope or Bishop of Rome. But how doth this trister prove that he was not Bishop of Rome? Forsooth, because Photius maketh mention of one Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that wrote against the Heretics called Anomoei. The place wringeth them, and therefore they would fain shift off the Author, from being Bishop of Rome at least. And B●llarmine, q Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. Quamquam de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. haesitantius idem, vel Gennadii vel Gelasii Caesariensis. he telleth us that it was one Gelasi●● a Bishop of Caesarea, of whom jereme maketh mention. But Baronius confuteth Bellarmine; (here is Cardinal against Cardinal:) and r Baron. ●…nal. tom. 6. anno 496. Opus illud Gelasio Palestino nullo modo potest asscribi. saith, it cannot be that Gelasius: their times are too far asunder: both he was dead and his next successor, before that business was on foot, that he dealeth in. Thus they stick not to make men write books after they are dead, and laid up in their graves. But who is he then, saith Baronius? for Bishop of Rome he must not be. He is s Baron. ibid. Sed & Greg. de Valent. de Transsub. l. 〈…〉. c. 7. & C●●. loc. come. l▪ 〈…〉. c. 8. that Gelasius (saith he) that Photius maketh mention of: and this Defendant saith the same. Gennadius and diverse other, telleth us that Gelasius of the City of Rome Bishop, wrote against the Eutychians and Nestorians. And that is the very title of the book● that I cite. Now Photius telleth us of another Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, that wrote against the Anomaeans. Therefore saith Baronius, and from him this Defendant, the one must needs be the other. As if two Bishops of the same name could not write books against Heretics, but they must needs be by and by the same. But observe s Ge●nad. in Catalogue. Et cum eodem consentiunt Anastasius, Platina, P●ilip. Bergom. Trithem. & alii. I pray you, how handsomely these things hang together. The t Athanas▪ ●…mine contra Anomaeos d●alog. 2. quos Maximo ttibui restatur▪ Schottus ad. Photium. Chrys. contr. Ancmaeos. hom. 2. Aug. de haeres. c. 54 dissimilem per omnia p●…i asserentes filium. Socrat. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 45. & Sozom, hist l. 4. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anomaeans were Arrians and Aetians, so called, because they held the Son to be unlike the Father. The ᵘ Eutychians heretics, that held that Christ's humanity was turned into, or swallowed up of his deity. And now mark how these men reason; Gelasius of Caesarea (saith Photius) writ against those that oppugned Christ's divinity: and this Gelasius writeth against those that took away his humanity: this and the other therefore must needs be all one. Rather I reason on this manner: Gennadius reporteth that G●lasius Bishop of Rome writ against Eutyches and Nestorius: so doth this whom I cite; and all Editions of him, so style him: this Gel●sius therefore was Bishop of Rome. And how doth this now prove, that v Theod. haeres. fabul. l. 4. Enagr. hist. l. 2. c. 16. Thedor. Rhaet. de hae●●l. Isidor. Orig. l. 8. c. 5. Humanem naturam à divina absorptam. I cite Authors, whose works I am altogether unacquainted with, when the work I cite in their own printed Editions hath no other title, then that I give it? But for the further and fuller clearing of the truth in this point, and the vindicating of this piece of Antiquity to his right Author: Besides that Phetius flatlyaffirmeth that that Gelasius that wrote against the Anomaei, is the same with that Gelasius whom they would have this Author to be, to wit, he that wrote of the Nicene Council, but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pho●. bibliot. cod. 89. Et. ibid. de altero. illo; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. one that both for style and learning goeth far beyond him: Nor is the frame of this Author's discourse such as he describeth his to have been in that work, to wit, b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. cod 102 fastidiously and childishly, or youthfully at least, full of Logic rules and terms, for which himself maketh an Apology; which this neither doth, nor (writing in a far other strain) needed to do: As also that in this very work, the Author intimateth himself to have been Bishop of Rome, or (as he speaketh) of d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. the Apostolic Sea: Nor is it needful that with e Cum sedem Apostolicam vestra dilectio unanimiter teneat, constanter praedicet, sapienter defendat, etc. Melchior Canu● we turn sedem into fidem, as (to shift off this Author) he would there do: Besides all this, I say, Eulgentius an African Bishop who lived together in the same time with Pope Gelasius, and was his own Countryman, doth (as f Fulgentius qui codem ●●mpore vixit, etc. Gelas●… Papae absque ulla dubitatione adscrihit. Henr. Spondan. epitome. Baron. not. ad ann. 496. Hen●…y Spondan the Pope's Protonotary himself informeth us) g Beatae memoriae Papa Gelasius. Fulgent. ad Ferrand. respon 2. ascribe this work to Pope Gelasius, citing out of it certain passages; as h joan Pp. 2. non 1. in epist. contr. ●utych. in Biblioth. Pa●r. ●om. 4. edit. 2. john the second, who not long after succeeded this Gelasius in the same sea, also doth. That which putteth this truth so far out of all doubt, that Spondan by such evidence undeniable convinced, is enforced to i Spondan. ubi sup. control Cardinal Baronius and those other of their own writers therein. It is clear therefore that this Gelasius was not Bishop of C●sare●, as this Defendant would have him; but Bishop of Rome, as I allege him, above a thousand years since, and both held and taught then the same doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist, that we do at this day. But let him give me leave here to tell him of a trick too common with him and those of his coat; to wit, as to coin and forge Fathers, such as never were, not a few; so to cite oft in their discourses in matters of controversy Authors and writings, either justly suspected, or evidently spurious and counterfeit. In which kind this Defendant is more than once or twice faulty. To omit Cyril of jerusalem his catechetical Sermons, which even u Marc. Vd. ser. Catalogue. Codic. MS. apud Possevin. Quem Cytillum esse puto. Popish writers themselves dare not confidently avow; and divers passages in them bewray to be of a later date, then that Cyril whom they are fathered on. As also his citing of the very self same Author sometime as x Aug. de verb. dom. serm. 28. Augustine, and sometime as y Ambr. de sacram. lib. 5 cap. 4. Ambrose, which it may well be was neither, and may the rather be so deemed even for this cause, because he beareth the name of both; which both sure he could not be: He citeth these confessed counterfeits as authentical Authors; 1. Di●nysius Areopagita, branded long since in Photius his time, a Vt pseude●igrapha videntur à Ph●ti● n●tari. Posseui●▪ i● apparat. as Possevine confesseth, for a counterfeit; b Caietan 〈…〉 Act. 17. doubted of by C●ietan; c 〈…〉 schol▪ ad hieron▪ de Scrip. Eccl●… & in decla●● a●… Paris. cens. denied by Grocinus; d Valla in Act. 17. & Erasm. praefat. ad paraphras. in 1 Cor. derided by Ualla and divers others. 2. The passion of S. Andrew pretended to be written by the Ministers of Ach●ia: which Dr. White (not ours but theirs) writing of this very Argument, confesseth to be e Sed sit apo●…, ●t est absque controue●●ia, 〈…〉 Quod diws Andreas locutus ad Patres Memoratur, etc. Wh●… diacoes. M●…. without controversy an Apocryphal story: and containeth manifest untruth, if Bellarmine himself may be believed. 3. Cyprian de cardinalibus Christi operibus; which f Falsò tribuitur Cypriano. Possevin. in apparat. Possevine, g Non esse stylus arguit. Erasm. not. in 〈…〉. Erasmus, h Cypriani. non est, Po. 〈…〉 de Commun. sub utr. spec. Hesselius, and many other P●pish writers flatly deny to be Cypriaus, yea or any one i Au●…▪ ris Cypriano, imò & Augustino posterioris. Beliarm. de am●…. great. l. 6. c. 2. 〈…〉▪ ●or ignoratur. Bellar. de script. Eccles. n●ere Cyprians time. 4. Eusibius Emissenus his Homilies; which whose they are, saith Bellarmine, is not known; l Baron. annal. tom. 6. Baronies con●…th to have been foolishly set out under his name; and m Sixt. Senens. bibloth. l. 4. Six●… S●…sis (besides many others) affirmeth to have bee●e patched together by some Latin Author out of other men's writings, whereas E●sebi●s was a Greek. I add only what Bellarmine saith of the most of these Auth●rs together. Di●nysius his book (saith he) Eusebius his Homilies, and Cyprians Sermons of Christ's Cardinal works, n Apud nonnullos dubiae su●…, sc●ipturae, vel etiam supposi●…. Bellar. de saerae. confi●…. l. 2. c. 7. are with some counted doubtful, yea or counterfeit writings: 〈…〉 nor is it certainen whether they be theirs, whose names they bear. Yea of some of them he o Licet non sit certum an sint illi quorum no●ina praeferunt. Ibid. saith elsewhere, that p Revera 〈…〉, s●…, Emiss● non po●u●e ess● 〈…〉 Bellrr. in recognize & d● Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. it is certain q Revera no● est Cyp●. Idem de confirm. l. 2. 〈…〉. 7. & de E●●ha●. l. 〈…〉. c. 13● they are not. And yet are these of the principal Authors that this Defendant to uphold his torturing fabric produceth; albeit the things alleged out of them do not greatly stand him in steed, as shall appear when we come at them. But such counterfeit feips do they commonly tender us, and will needs enforce us to accept them for curr●nt 〈…〉; when they know that their own Critics have marked and bored them for such, neither will they pass in payment among themselves. § 3. His third Exception is that he citeth a nameless Author, ignorant and unsincere, like himself; who makes Bishop Fisher affirm the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any word in Scripture. True it is, I say, that I find Bishop Fisher alleged to affirm, that there is no one word in the Gospel, from which the true presence of Christ's flesh and blood in their M●sse may be proved. Which because I had not the 〈…〉 myself, nor knew where to have it, I thus only allege. And now, to put the matter wholly out of suspense; that ignorant and unsincere Author like myself, as 〈…〉 ●…rmeth him, who shall no longer be nameless, is that right Re●erend Prelate, now Lord Bishop of Winchester, r In Respond. ●d Apolog. Card. Bellar. 〈…〉. Praefat. monitor. Se●…nis Princip. jacobi Reg. cap. 1. in his elaborate work against Bellarmine's Apologi●; who (I doubt not) both had the book by him there cited, and cited the words no otherwise then they are in the book. No● (I think) is this Popish Doctor so extremely brazenfaced (though they have many of them in their brows too much of that mettle) that he dare challenge that M●rour of learning for an ignorant Author. I should esteem it but to great a grace to be counted ignorant as he is. § 4. Fourthly, having traced him through his whole Treatise ●e findeth him to be a mere collector out of other Authors, & to have stol●e out of Bellar. his objections, concealing his answers: and in a word all so poor & so weak, that it may seem written only for Ladies and idiots, unable to examine. I say no more here in way of defence for myself but this only; that this should have been rather discovered by him in particular, then thus charged in general, unless he could in the prosecution of it have better discharged himself then he hath done hitherto. The truth is; he himself is so much beholden to Bellarmine, that he is fain ever and anon to refer his Reader to seek in him what he should say (if he thought it at least worth the saying) himself. As if it were a good proof of what he averreth, or a sufficient resutation of what he findeth objected, to say, that Bellarmine hath largely proved the one, or Bellarmine hath sufficiently answered the other. Which if he have done either, he hath done more by much then he oft attempteth once to do. And surely his manner of dealing, beside the slightness and slenderness of his Answers, with a wet finger (as we say) passing by the manifold allegations produced as well out of the Ancients, as out of their own Authors, doth give a shrewd suspicion, that he thought this his writing would never be examined by any either learned or unlearned, unless they were such as wanted even common sense, sufficient to discover the absurdity of diverse passages therein. To give your Ladyship a taste of some of them before hand. Absurd Positions, and Contradictions. 1. He saith, that s Divis. 4. § 1. a Testament, as all learned know, may well signify a Legaces. 2. He maketh t Ibid. our Saviour to say, This my Blood is the Testament in my blood. 3. He saith, that u Ibid. Christ's blood is offered in the Eucharist, unbloodily, or not as blood. 4. He expoundeth a place of Theod●ret thus; * The x Ibid. §. 4. Sacramental Signs, that is, the Accidents, retain still the same Substance, that is, the same Accidents, 5. He saith that y Divis. 6. §. 3. Christ's Body is in the Eucharist, but without bodily existence, that is, his body is there, but not as a body. 6. That z Ibid. it is there, and yet it followeth not that it is eaten, though that that is there be eaten. 7. He maintaineth a Ibid. a corporal eating of Christ in the Sacrament, and yet that he is not there corporally eaten. 8. He affirmeth that b Ibid. ad Arg. 2. all are not saved that believe in Christ, and so fe●de spiritually on Christ. 9 He saith that c Divis. 8. §. 1. the Son of God is contained in the bread that is ea●en in the Eucharist; whereas they dery any br●… at 〈…〉 to be there. 10. He maintaineth that d Ibid. §. 3. a thing may truly be said to be turned 〈…〉 that that cometh only in the place of it. 11. He affirmeth that e Divis. 9 §. 1. one and the self same thing may 〈…〉. 12 That f Divis. 11. §. 4. Christ's body in the Sacrament hath no exte●… bigness a● 〈…〉. 13. He affirmeth g Divis. 14. §. 1. Christ's very body to be present in the Sacrament but in a spiritual manner, or as a Spirit; and therefore can no more there be broken, than Angels wounded embodies affirmed, or then his De●… on the Cross; and that nothing but accidents are broken in the Eucharist. 14. That h Ibid. §. 3. Christ's hiding himself in the Sacrament is 〈…〉 ex●…ion of him. 15. He saith, that i Divis. 14. §. 3. Christ is not touched in the Sacrament, and yet we touch him: that he in●…th 〈…〉 there, and yet he cannot be touched of us. 16. He saith, that k Ibid. §. 1. Christ's body is not abused, though mice and Rats eat it. 17. That l Ibid. §. 4. their Mass is the very self same with Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, and yet it is unbloody. 18. He maketh m Ibid. §. 8. Christ himself a memorial of himself. Cross and wilful falsehoods and falsifications. 1. That n Divis. 4. §. 2. I affirm Sacraments to be nothing but bare Signs and Types: and that, o Divis. 14. §. 8. we make the Sacrament but a bare Memorial of Christ. 2. p Divis. 35. §. 1. That I affirm them to be nothing but bare bread and wine. 3. That q Ibid. §. 2. I affirm Cajetan, Bellarmine and Gratian to say the same. 4. That r Divis. 6. §. 2. justine Martyr describeth the Celebration of the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist just as they now celebrate it. 5. That s Divis. 13. §. 1. the Fathers affirm that I●das received Christ's natural body. 6. That s Divis. 14. §. 5. all Christians in the World celebrate as, they do. 7. That t Ibid. §. 7. Augustine and all the ancient Fathers understand Christ's words john 6. literally, and not figuratively. 8. That u Ibid. §. 8. all the Fathers expound those words property, This is my body. 9 That x Ibid. Christ did not say of the Eucharist Cup, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. 10. That y Ibi. §. 11. the Centurists blame all the Fathers almost of Constantine's time universally for teaching Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament. 11. That z Ibid. §. 12. the ancient Britens held the same. 12. That * Divis. 8. §. 1. Origen, Basil, Jerome, and Augustine make the sin of such as come unworthily to the Sacrament equal with the sin of those that betrayed and killed Christ. But pass we from his Preamble to the Work itself. Division 2. HIs first end●… for three leaves together is to pr●… that there is nothing in the Gospel, whereby it N. P. may appear that those words of our Saviour, This is my Body, may not be understood figuratively as well as other speeches of the like kind in Scripture; as when, a Gen. 41. 26. Seven kine are said to be seven years; b Apoc. 17. 1●. ten Horns ten Kings; c 1. Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ, etc. So he; not telling withal his Reader (as he ought to have done, like an ingenuous solid Author) the many differences noted by d Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 11. Bellarmine and other Catholic Authors soluing this very Objection, between Christ's literal words, This is my Body, and other figurative speeches; these being simply and without any other explication uniformally recounted by three Evangelists, as also by Saint Paul, in their historical narrations: whereas where the Lamb is called the Passeover, the Rock is said to be Christ, etc. Something is still added in the text, to explicate the literal and true meaning of them. The Lamb (for example) is called in the same place the sacrifice of the Passeover: Christ is said to be a spiritual Rock, etc. And the very scope of visions and parables doth still show in what sense the words of them are literally to be taken: ●s the seven kine, ten horns, etc. Besides in all such figurative speeches, Semper predicatur de disparato disparatum: One thing is said to be another, which cannot be ●…dually or specifically the ●ame, but wholly different in nature from it. A man, (for example) as Christ was, cannot 〈…〉 ●…narily be a Vine, a Lion, a Rock, etc. But in Christ's words, This is my body, no such absurdor impossible thing is affirmed; but only that the substance which he had in his hands, was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it; Christ's words being operative (saith e S. Ambros. de myster. cap. 9 S. Ambrose) and omnipotently able to make that to be which is signified by them in in these words. Perhaps thou wilt say; I see another thing: How prove you to me, that I take the body of Christ? And this remaineth yet for us to prove, that it is not what nature framed, but what benediction hath consecrated: and that the force of benediction is greater than the force of nature: because even nature itself is changed by benediction. Moses holding a wand in his hand, did cast it from him, and it became a serpent. Now if man's benediction were of such force, as that it could change nature; what say we of that same divine Consecration, where the words of our Lord and Saviour do work? For this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speech of Christ. And if the speech of Elias was of such pow●● as to draw fire from heaven; shall not Christ's words be of force to change the forms of the elements? Thou hast read of the works of the whole world: Because he spoke the word, they were made; he commanded, and they were created. The word of Christ then, which of nothing could make that which was not, cannot it not as well change those things which are into that which before they were not? Since it is not a less matter to give new natures unto things then to change natures, etc. f Lib. 4. de Sacram. It is indeed Bread before the words of the Sacraments: But after that consecration is once added unto it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ, etc. g S. August. Serm. 28. de verb. Dom. I have told you, (saith S. Augustine) that before Christ's words that which is offered on the Altar is called bread: but when Christ's words are uttered, it is called no more bread, but his body. And explicating the Title of the 33. Psalm, wherein these words are written, Et ferebatur in manibus suis; And-he was carried in his own hands: Who (saith he, conc. 1.) is able to conceive how this can happen in man? For who is carried in his own hands? A man may be carried in the hands of an other: But in his own hands he cannot be carried. How this may be literally understood in David, we find not. But in Christ we do. For Christ was carried in his own hands, when giving his body he said, This is my Body. For than did he carry that body in his own hands, etc. When as Christ himself (saith S. Cyril) affirmeth and saith of the bread, This is my Body, who may presume to make any doubt thereof? And when the same Christ confirmeth and saith, This is my Blood, who can doubt, and say it is not his blood? Again, h Cyril. Catech. 4. mystagog. Let us not consider it as mere bread, or bare wine. For it is the body and blood of Christ. For although the sense teacheth thee that it is bread and wine, yet let thy faith confirm thee, that thou judge not the thing itself by thy taste. And a little after; This knowing for most certain, that the bread which we see is not bread, although thy taste thinketh it to be bread, but that it is the body of Christ: and the wine which we behold, although to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine, yet that it is not wine indeed, but the blood of our Saviour, etc. i S. Chrysost. homil. 60. ad popul. Antioch. Let us believe God (saith S. Chrysostome) in every thing; not gainsaying him, though what he saith may seem absurd to our sense and cogitation. I beseech thee therefore, that his speech may overcome our sense and reason. Which point we are to observe in all things: but especially in holy mysteries; not only beholding those things which lie before us; but also laying hold of his words; for his words cannot deceive us: but our sense may easily be deceived. And elsewhere lib. 3. de Sacerd. O miracle! saith he: O the bounty of God he that sitteth above with his Father, even in the same instant of time is handled with the hands of all, and delivereth himself to such as are willing to entertain and embrace him. Again, Elias did leave his garment to his disciple. But the Son of God ascending to heaven did leave his flesh. But Elias by leaving it was devested thereof: Whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us, yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it. AFter that he hath thus spent some part of his railing T. G. Rhetoric in traducing & vilifying this Protestantical Divine his Adversary, asignorant, unacquainted with the Authors he citeth, a petty writer, a mere collector, a filcher, a falsifier, etc. and disgraced his Discourse as consisting of proofs tedious, and superficial, and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced; and (that nothing may escape him without some nip) written with a very bad hand, which he taketh to be his own; and the party therefore one (it may be) not so fit to write for Ladies as himself, being both a man of worth (as before he intimated himself to be) and writing a fair hand too, though not very Scholarlike, as the work itself showeth: He cometh now to deal with the matter and substance of the Discourse. Where the first Proposition, that he undertaketh to oppugn, as I propound it, is this: These words in the Gospel, This is my Body, may well be taken figuratively. (Which how it may be, I show by some instances: to wit; these other in Scripture; k Gen. 41. 26. The seven kine, are seven years: l Apoc. 17. 12 The ten horns, are ten Kings: m 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ: or as those other in ordinary speech; This is Caesar: That is Cicero, etc. Nor is there any thing in the Gospel that may enforce the contrary. Now this worthy man that taxeth me for a mere Collector, and a filcher out of Bellarmine, hath nothing here to answer, but what he fetcheth from Bellarmine, whom he saith I filch all from. But let us see how well he urgeth and maketh good Bellarmine's answers. 1. The words are simply, and without any other explication, simply and uniformally (for so in his scholarlike manner he speaketh) recounted by three Evangelists and Saint Paul. And therefore they cannot be taken figuratively. For that must follow, or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose. We shall not need to go far to discover the weakness of this consequence. The n Math. 26. 27, 28. Mark. 14. 23, 24. Luke 22. 20. three Evangelists, and o 1. Cor. 11. 25. S. Paul speaking of the other part of this Sacrament, do all simply and without another explication uniformally (to retain his own precise terms) say, This Cup is, etc. therefore the Cup cannot be taken figuratively there: which if it be not, they must invent a new Transubstantiation of some other matter or mettle then the p Luk. 2●. 20. 1. Cor 11. 21. fruit of the Vine, either into the New Testament, or into Christ's blood. q Math. 26. 27, 8. Mark. 14. 24. § 2. When the Lamb is called the Passeover; and the Rock said to be Christ, something is added in the Text to explain the literal true meaning of them. The Lamb for example in the same place is called the Sacrifice of the Passeover. Christ is said to be a spiritual Rock, etc. 1. It is not true that he saith; that in the same place where the Lamb is called the Passeover, the same Lamb is called the Sacrifice of the Passeover: There is no more said, Exod. 12. 11. but this; Ye shall eat it in haste; it is the Lords Passeover: there being nothing by way of explication there added. But after indeed verse 27. not the Lamb precisely, but the whole Service is said to be the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover. When your Children shall ask you, What service is this that you observe? Then shall you say, It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover. Neither is Christ said to be a spiritual Rock. 1. Cor. 10. 4. But the real Rock is called a spiritual Rock: as the Manna, and the water that issued from it are called r 1. Cor. 10. 3, 4. spiritual meat and drink: And that Rock for matter corporal, for use spiritual, is said, as Augustine well observeth, s Non dicit, Petra significabat Christum; sed, Petra erat Christus. Aug. in Leu. q. 57 & Beda; & Haimo in 1. Cor. 11. Petra i●m erat in creatura, & per actionis modum nuncupata est nomine. Christi, quem significabat: sicut & Isaac Christus erat, cum ad se immolandum ligna portabat. Idem Aug. de Trinit. lib. 2. cap. 6. not to signify, but to be Christ: Nothing being added more to intimate a figurative sense there, then here in the words, This is my Body, which two speeches both t Aug. in joan. tract. 45. Augustine and u Caietan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 57 art. 1. Caietan compare the one with the other. 2. It is senseless thus to reason; In some places where figurative speeches are used, something is added to explicate them: therefore wheresoever nothing is added to explicate the figure, the words are not, or cannot be figuratively taken. 3. In many of the instances given, no such explication is added; as these, x Apoc. 17. 12 The ten Horns are ten Kings; y Gen. 41. 26. The a Mat. 28 9 seven Kine are seven years: This is Caesar: This Cicero, etc. 4. In the very Context there is added that which showeth the sense to be figurative. For that which is called Christ's blood by the Evangelist in the one verse, is expressly said to be the fruit of the vine in the next verse. And that which is called Christ's body by the Apostle, is immediately after, more than once or twice expounded to be b 1 Cor. ●1. 24, 26, 27, 28. bread. § 3. The very scope (saith he, or Bellarmine by him) of visions and parables doth still show in what sense the words are literally to be taken; as, the seven kine, ten horns, etc. And doth not the very nature of signs and Sacraments show in what sense the words used of, or in them, are to be taken? to wit, figuratively and symbolically, not properly or essentially. For what are Signs and Sacraments but real parables? both therefore termed Mysteries, as c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chry●●st. in 1 Cor. hom 7. Idem fere Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 1. & contr. Max. l. 3. c. 22, Chrysostome noteth; because one thing is seen in the one, as heard in the other, and some other thing understood. Or what is more usual then (as d Aug. in Levit q. 57 & epist. 23. & ep. 102. & add Simplic. l. 2. q. 3. & in joan. tract. 63. Augustine and e Author de Cardin. Christi oper. serm. de Coen. Heruaeus sub Anselmi nomine in 1 Cor. 10. Thom. de differ. verb. diuin. & human. etc. others well observe) that Signs and Sacraments be called by the names of those things, which they are signs and sacraments of? What Sacrament also is there, wherein or whereof such speeches are not used? Circumcision is called f Gen. 17. 13. the Covenant: the pasohall Lamb, g Exod. 1●. 11. the Passeover: the Rock, h 1 Cor. 10. 4. Christ: Baptism, i Ti. 〈…〉. 5. the Laver of Regeneration. And in like manner, saith k Sicut secundum quendam modum sacramentum corpotis Christ● corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi●st; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. ep. 23. Augustine, is the bread Christ● body; the name of the thing signified (saith l Theodoret. dialog. 1. Theodoret) being given to the sign. So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine; In visions and parables the very scope ever showeth that the things spoken are to be unstoode figuratively: But these places, the seven kine, and the ten horns, are visions and parables: And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratively. Why may not we as well reason on this wise? The very nature of signs and sacraments leadeth unto this, that when the names of the things whereof they are signs and sacraments are given unto them, it is to be understood not properly, but figuratively. But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are used, This is my body, and This is my blood: These words therefore, wherein the name of the thing signified is given to the Sacrament, are to be understood figuratively. And so he hath from his own grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required; to wit, not only, that there is nothing that may enforce us to expound them literally, but that there is somewhat of moment to induce us to expound them figuratively. § 4. In all such figurative speeches (saith he further out of Bellarmine) Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum; One thing is said to be another, when it cannot be individually or specifically the same, but wholly different in nature from it. A man for example, as Christ was, cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock, a Vine, or a Lion. But in Christ's words, This is my body, no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed; but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it. 1. In this speech of our Saviour, This is my body, as well as in that speech of the Prophet, m Ezec. 5. 5. This is jerusalem, or in that speech of the Apostle, n 1. Co. 10. 4 The Rock was Christ, is one thing, to wit, bread (as is afterward proved both by the course of the context, the words of the Apostle, and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers) said to be an other thing, to wit, the flesh of Christ, which is wholly different in nature from it. Nor can this worthy Disputer prove them contrary, unless you grant him the point in question, which here he shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion, to wit, that that which Christ had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it? 2. A man may as well be a rock; as a rock may be a man, or bread may be flesh. And why was it not as possible for the rock to be turned into Christ, and so to become Christ, as for bread to be turned into the body of Christ, and so to be the flesh of Christ? that the one might be understood properly as well as the other. If they will say, It is impossible that the rock should be turned into the flesh of Christ, before Christ was incarnate, I might answer them, as they use to do us; that God is able to do all things. And questionless it is * Yea some of them in effect confess the one to be as well possible as the other: Ante incarnationem Christi potuit. Eucharistia fuisse ita vera sicut nunc. Et tum fuisset sub speciebu● verum & idem corpus Christi illud quod sumptum est de virgine sicut modò. etc. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 47. as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh, that as yet was not; as that a little thin wafer cake, or the compass of it at least, should contain Christ's whole and entire body here on earth, while the very self same individual body should be whole and entire still in heaven. A creature may as well be, and yet not be at once, as a natural body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth, and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heaven. Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible, that Christ's body sitting whole and entire at the table, should hold the selfsame body whole and entire in its two hands on the table, and should give the selfsame body away whole and entire over the table to twelve several persons, to go severally into each of their mouths still whole and entire, and to become so many whole and entire humane organical bodies in their mouths, as in chewing they made pieces of that that was given them, and yet the selfsame body that they did thus take and eat, remain sitting there still unstirred and untouched? If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima (as he speaketh) as monstrous absurdities as ever were any, I know not what are. 3. Observe how these men that cannot endure to hear us say, This, or that thing is impossible: yet tell us themselves of many impossibilities; and that even then also when they speak of these miraculous mysteries, in the confuting one of another. It is impossible (saith this worthy writer) for a man, as Christ was, otherwise then similitudinarily, to be a rock, or a vine. o Thom. Aqui. contr. Gent. l. 1. c. 48 It is impossible (saith Aquinas) that a man should be an Ass. p Est impossibile quod panis sit corpus Christi. Gloss. ad Grat. de conscr. d. 2. c. Panis est It is impossible (saith the Gloss) that bread should be Christ's body. q Impossibilis est planè haec sententia, nisi tropic è accipiatur. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. It is altogether impossible (saith Bellarmine) that this sentence, This bread is my body, should be true properly. r Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 80. It is impossible (saith Biel) that Christ's body should be broken or divided and so be spoiled, being impassable. s Thon. Aq. sum. part 3. q. 81. art. 3. It is impossible (saith Aquinas) that Christ in his last Supper should give his body impassable. t Idem ibid. q. ●7. a. 1. It is impossible that his body being now impassable should be altered in shape or hew. u Ibid. q. 76. a. 8. It is impossible that Christ's body in his proper shape should be seen in any other place, but that one only wherein he is definitively. x Ibid. art. 6. It is impossible that the substantial form of bread should remain after consecration: or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there. y Ibid. q. 75. art. 2. It is impossible that Christ's body by a local motion should come to be in the Sacrament. “ Ibid. q. 76. a. 6. It is impossible that the same thing should both rest and move at once. “ Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 16. It is impossible that the same body should by local motion arrive in diverse several places at once. It is impossible that Christ's should personally assume the bread in the Sacrament. * Thom. sum. p. 3. q. 75. a. 3. It is impossible that Christ's body should be in the Sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it. All these and many other impossibilities they tell us of, that cannot endure to hear us speak of any. Now if they will tell us why these things are impossible, we shall as soon tell them again in their own words, why such a Transubstantiation and real presence, as they dream of, is impossible. z Ibid. a. 2. 4. How doth this follow: There is no impossible thing affirmed in Christ's words: Therefore they must needs be taken properly, or they cannot be taken figuratively? He might by the same reason prove that the Apostles words where he saith of himself, a 1 Cor. 15. 3● I die daily; or where he saith, b Gal. 2. 19 I am crucified together with Christ; or where he saith of the Galathians that c Gal. 3. 1. Christ was crucified among them; or the Psalmists as some fantastical d Vide Drus. quaest. l. 2. q. 39 & Paul. Rieium de anima coeli. Rabbins have held, where he saith of the Heavens, that e Psal. 19 1. they relate God's glory, etc. or our Saviour's, where he saith, that f Luk. 16. 24. the tongue of the Rich man's soul was in torment; must of necessity be all understood literally and properly, because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them. §. 5. He telleth us in Conclusion; that the meaning of our Saviour Christ's words is this; The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it. But where is aught in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conversion? yea if this were the sense of them, it should be made Christ's body ere those words were spoken of it: Whereas he and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conversion is wrought by those words, This is my body, and * In ultimo instanti, in quo pro●ertur vox ultima, ponitur effectus verborum in esse. Bellar. de Euchar. l 1. c. 11. is not effected till those words be all out; which they give the Priest a special charge thereof g Vno spiritu. tractim dicat. Cu●tel. Miss. in Missali. to utter speedily with one breath. And here let this profound doughty Doctor give an ignorant petty writer leave to demand of him, what is meant by the word This, in those words, This is my body; (for I suppose he will not be so absurd as the Glosser is, to say that h Ad haec dico, quod per hanc dictionem, Hoc, nihil demonst●a●ur. Glos. ad Gr●t. de conscr. d. 2. c. Timorem & alii nonnulli apud Durand. ration. diuin. l 4. part. 2. in 6. part. Canon. Hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all:) or what that substance was (as he speaketh) that Christ held in his hands when he spoke the word, Hoc, or this. If it were Christ's body made before of bread, than the uttering of those words did not then, nor doth now work any conversion of the bread into Christ's body: for nothing can be turned into itself, or into that that already it is: or i Si substantia panis fuisset adhuc, quando Christus offerebat Apostolis cibum illum coelestem, pronomen, Hoc, demonstra●●e● panem, & de pane dixis●et, quod esset corpus suum, etc. quod' est impossibile. Christ. de Cap. Font. de necess. correct. schol. Theol. ad Sixt. 5. Pp. l. 1. c. 2. if it were bread still, (as for ought ap peareth in the text, still it was) then must this needs be the sum and sense of Christ's words, This bread is my body: and so by his own rule, when disparatum de disparato dicitur, one thing is said to be another different in nature from it, it must needs be taken figuratively. § 6. Well wotting that there was no such thing either in the Text, or gatherable (to use his own terms) out of it: he would fain find out some Author, that would say that for him, that the text itself will not; and alleagdeth therefore some few Testimonies. Concerning which I might well say, as he saith, if I would do as he doth, that they have been answered long since by the L. Morney, the B. Morton, D. Fulke, and others, and he doth not deal sincerely in concealing their Answers; and so turn my Reader over to them, as his manner is, when he hath nothing to answer. But I answer to them severally. 1. Ambrose is alleged out of his books de Mysterijs, etc. and de Sacramentis: which books, howsoever i Vide Rob. Coqui Censuram Patrum. edit. 2. for diverse passages of them, and phrases used in them, they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no; and Possevine himself implieth that some have denied it, when he saith, that k Cum reliquis paene omnibus Possevin. apparat. all almost hold them to be his: and part of them (as we shall see anon) goeth commonly under another name: yet not to stand thereupon, but admit them for his. Nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such Transubstantiation as the Romanists hold; yea some subsequent words, if they had been annexed, would evidently speak against it. For first, Ambrose there expressly teacheth, that the creatures of bread and wine still abide even after Consecration, which utterly overthroweth the Popish Transubstantiation. If (saith he) there were so much force in the word of the Lord, (in the work of Creation) that those things began by it to be that before were not; how much more operative is it to cause l Vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur. Ambr. de sacram. l. 4. c. 4. citatus etiam à Lombard. sentent. l. 4. d. 20. D. & Tho. Aqui. sum. p. 3. q. 7 8. a. 4. that things should be still what they were before, and be changed into another things. So that by this Ambroses' confession the elements remain still what they were, and yet are changed indeed, which we deny not, into that which they were not; as wax is turned into a seal, being annexed to a deed; though it remain still for substance what erst it was. 2. That which Ambrose saith in the latter place, that m De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This bread is bread before the words sacramental; but when consecration cometh to it, it is of bread made Christ's flesh; that he speaketh in these words n De myster. c. 9 in the former place, which this mangler of him omitteth; o Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur; post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Before the blessing of the heavenly words is another kind named, but after Consecrationis Christ's body signified. And again p De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. in the latter place: Wine and water is put into the Cup, but by Consecration it becometh blood. Thou wilt say, q Speciem sanguinis non video; sed habet similitudinem I see no kind or show of blood. But it hath (saith he) a similitude of it. For as thou hast taken a similitude of death in (Baptism, he meaneth as lib. 3. cap. 7. so) r Similinudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis. thou drinkest a similitude of Christ's precious blood, etc. And thereupon he concludeth, s Didicisti ergò, quia quod accipis, corpus est Christi. Thou hast learned now, that that which thou receivest is Christ's body. So that it is in regard of signification and similitude that the one is said to be Christ's flesh, and the other his blood, as this Ambrose explicateth himself. 3. Expounding what manner of change he meaneth, when he saith, They are changed into that which erst they were not. * De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Tu ipse ante fuisti; sed era● vetus creatura: Posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura esse cepisti. Thou thyself (saith he) wast before; but thou wast an old creature: after thou wast consecrated, thou begannest to be a new creature; which newness yet (as Tertullian well observeth) importeth * Tam vetustatem hominis quam novitatem ad moralem non substantialem differentiam pertinere defend●mus. Tertul. de resurr. carn. no corporal, but a spiritual change in the party so consecrated, not in substance, but in quality differing from what he was before. 4. In the next u De sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Chapter, relating the words of their Church Liturgy then in use, he calleth that holy oblation, x Quod est figura corporis & sanguinis. D. n. l. c. y Ibid. c. 5. a figure of Christ's body and blood: which they entreat God to accept of, 2 Sicut suscipere dignatus es munera Abel, & sacrificium Abrahae. as he did Abel's gifts, and Abraham's sacrifice, etc. which cannot be understood of the very real sacrifice of Christ himself, unless they will make the Priest an intercessor to God the Father in the behalf of Christ jesus. Of which also more hereafter. 2. Out of Augustine are cited two Testimonies. In the former whereof he showeth, how judicious he is in the choice of his allegations, (that for which he taxeth the Divine he dealeth with) and how well seen in and acquainted with the Authors he allegeth. There are diverse Sermons set out under Augustine's name, (for this is no new thing with them to forge daily as well new works, as new writers) which they cite many of them, sometime under the name of Augustine, sometime under the name of this or that other Father: for they can find Fathers for their bastards as they list themselves. Of these many by a Bellar. de scrip. Eccles. Bellarmine, b Baron annal. tom. 4. Baronius, c Eras. in censur Erasmus, d Lovaniens. in censur. append tom. 10. the Divines of Louvain, and diverse others are confessed to be mere counterfeits. One whereof is the Sermon de Verb. Dom. 28. which this worthy Writer here citeth; and indeed is nothing else but a whole Chapter verbatim taken out of the fifth book of that work de Sacramentis, which he cited last before as Ambroses'. So that he doth herein as Captains, that wanting of their full number borrow one of an other, and so produce the same party by one name to day as one man's soldier, and by an other name the next day, as an other man's soldier, a gun-man (it may be) to day, and a pikeman to morrow. For this Author was but even now Ambrose; and now he is suddenly become Augustine; as if some such spell had been said over him, as they suppose to be said over their Host. And thus (as their common guise is) they make their coined creatures, like players on a stage, sometime to act one part, and sometime another. And this may well give just cause to suspect the authority of the Author, when sometime he is Ambrose, and sometime Augustine, and it may well be neither. For he is hardly ever believed that is taken once in two tales. And this Erasmus his annotation would have given him some hint of, had he been so well acquainted with the Authors he citeth as he would seem to be. Besides that this Ambrose, or Augustine, or what ever he be, when he is cited to give in evidence, saith nothing but this, that that which before Christ's words is called bread, is after them called no more bread, but Christ's body. Which unless it be meant, that it is not called only bread, but Christ's body also, e Deut. 5. 3. jer. 3. 22, 23. Host 6. 6. Non enim Dominus respuit sacrificia; sed non vult illa, si ab●que miserico●dia sint. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. which manner of speaking is not unusual) he will not deny himself to be most manifestly unture: for he acknowledgeth a little after that even after consecration the Apostle diverse times so termeth it. And if it be so understood, what maketh it either against us, who acknowledge (with the Ancients,) that it is commonly called, as all other signs ordinarily, by the name of the thing it signifieth; or for them, who should prove, not that it is commonly called Christ's body, but that it is really and essentially it. It is no more than as if one had said; Wax before it is set to a deed and imprinted, is called wax: but after that, it is not called wax, but a Seal. Mean while it may hence appear, that either this Writer (what ever he be) is scarce well acquainted with the writings of those Fathers that he citeth, or else he is wretchedly bend to abuse and delude those that he dealeth with. The latter Authority is taken out of Augustine's first Sermon on Psal. 33. wherein he saith, that Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said, This is my body. And here again this great Doctor showeth either his little acquaintance with Augustine, or his fraudulent dealing with those whom he desireth to delude. For Augustine repeating again in the very next Sermon what he had delivered in the former, putteth in those words, which show what his meaning was: When he commended (saith he) unto them his body and blood, he took into his hands, what the faithful know: (that was nothing, they themselves will grant, but f Math. 26. 26. bread, when he took it.) And g Ipse se portabat quod●m modo. Aug. ibid. conc. 2. he carried himself after a manner, when he said, This is my body. And if you will know what that, after a manner, meaneth, Augustine himself will best tell you, where he saith elsewhere; h Sacramenta plae●unque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt, etc. Ergò secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi; corpus Christi est. Aug. epist. 23. The Sacrament of Christ's body is after a manner Christ's body: because Sacraments for the most part be are the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments. After a manner than it is the body of Christ. And yet is it bread still. For so Augustine again i Aug. de ver. Dom. Serm. 3●. elsewhere; k Panem quem Dominus gestavit in manibus. It was Bread that Christ carried in his hands at his last Supper: l Ipsam coenam fide quotidiè manducamus: credimus in Christum quem fide accipimus. Modicum accipimus, & in cord saginamur. Which Supper we to this day eat daily by Faith; and in it by faith receive Christ, in whom we believe; and taking a little modicum, are spiritually fatted. His third Author is S. Cyril, that should be Bishop of jerusalem a little after the time of Constantine the Great: An Author not without good cause shrewdly suspected. Under his name our Popish Father-forgers have set out diverse things: Among others an Epistle of his that should be written to S. Augustine of S. Ieromes decease, and of the miracles that he wrought. Which Epistle is so gross and ridiculous, writing of the death of one that many a long year outlived him that should write it, that albeit many of them are not ashamed to m Lensorus de purgator. Eckius hom. 2. Dominic. 3. Aduent. Peres. de tradit. & alii. cite it as Cyrils' for the maintenance of sundry Popish points, yet others of them are enforced n Bellarm. censur. apud Posseui●. to confess the work countorfeit, and stick not to brand the o Baron annal. tom. 5. ann. 420. & in Martyrolog. Rom. Sept. 30. Author of it for an heretical impostor, and a loud liar. And of late they have set out under the name of the same Cyrill p Possevin. in appar. tom. 2. in August. two books of Catechising; which besides sundry passages in them that argue a late writer, as q Catech. 4. & 10. & 13. where he speaketh of the Invention of the Cross as r L●●●um crucis testatur apud nos apparens, usque ad hodiernum diem, & apud illos, qui secundum fidem ex ilio capie●tes, hinc universum orbem ferè iam replerunt. Catech. 10. a matter long before his time, and saith that the whole world was then filled with the pieces of it, whereas r Baron. annal. tom. 3. an. 326. the true Cyril was living at the very time when the Cross is reported to have been found by Helen; the same Catech●sings are t jos. Simler. in Biblioth. & Gretz. contra. Petr. Molin. reported to be found in some written copies under the name one john Bishop of jerusalem, of which name there was u Magdeburgen●. Centur. 8. cap. 10. one about the 2. Nicene Council, some hundreds of years after that Cyrils' decease. So that they may as well cite that second Council of Nice for the adoration of Images, as this counterfeit Cyril for their Transubstantiation, unless they can bring sounder proof for him, and better inform us what he is, and whence he came. The authority of this Catechiser is no better than the authority of that Epistler for aught can be showed; which yet x Vernier. in magn. & univers. council. in this very Argument is also produced, and y Vide Eckium ubi sup. is enforced upon us as an indubitate and authentical Author. Such bastard pearls, Bristol diamonds, and glass bugles are these poor pedlars, like petty chapmen fain to stuff their packets with, for want of better and choicer wares. And yet may we but have leave to expound this Cyril, or whosoever he is else, by himself, we shall soon show him to say no more than we willingly admit. For in a Catech. mystag. 4. the same Catechising that is here alleged, b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do not regard (saith he) these things, as bare ●read and wine. And in c Catech. mystag. 3. the Catechising next before; d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the holy Ghost, is e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. no longer bare bread, but Christ's body: so this holy Ointment after invocation is f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. no more bare or common ointment, but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost, by the presence of his Deity. And look what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist, the same doth g Author de initiat. mist. c. 〈…〉. the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptism. h Quid vidisti? Aqu●s. Sed non solas, etc. What seest thou? saith he. Water: but not water alone, etc. First, the Apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seen but the things that are not seen. Believe the presence of the Deity. For how could it work there, if it were not present. And again afterward; i Non solis corporis tui credas oculis: magis videtur quod non videtur. Believe not thy bodily eyes alone: that is better seen that is not seen. And say not we as much? that it is not bare bread, nor bare wine that is offered us in the Eucharist, (whatsoever this lying wretch hereafter shamelessly avoweth, as when we come to it shall be showed) which is all that our outward sense is able to inform; but spiritual signs and seals, and effectual instruments of grace, which the eye of our soul is alone able to conceive, and our faith to assure us of. 4. Chrysostome is alleged; but little to the purpose. The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. add Popul. Antioch. which Sermon this Answerer, had he been so well acquainted with the Author he citeth, as would beseem such a Doctor as he professeth himself to be, he should have found to be an Homily never made by Chrysostome, but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his, on the Gloss of S. Matthew pieced together, to wit, the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin, or the 82. and 50. according to the Greek. The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew: for that is the proper place of it. In which Sermon Chrysostome speaketh no more of the Eucharist, than he doth of the Sacrament of Baptism, in the very next words. k Chrysost. in Math. Lat. Serm. 83. Greg. Serm. 8●. It is no sensible thing (saith he) that Christ hath left us, but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In like manner it is in Baptism. By a sensible thing, to wit, water is the gift given, but the thing that is there wrought, to wit, regeneration and renovation, is a thing intelligible. If thou wert not corporal, he would have given thee the gifts themselves naked and spiritual: but because thy soul is conjoined with thy body, thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible. And in m Chrysost. in Math. Lat. Serm. 51. Grae. Serm. 50. the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pieced: Believe thou that the same supper wherein Christ himself sat down, is now celebrated. For there is no difference between this and that. For n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. it is not a man that doth the one, and Christ the other. But it is Christ himself that doth both the one and the other. When therefore thou seest the Priest reaching somewhat to thee: o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it, but that it is Christ's hand that is stretched out to thee. For as when thou art baptised, p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he doth not baptise thee; but it is God that holdeth thy head by his invisible power; and neither Angel nor Archangel, nor any other dare approach and touch: So is it now also. Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in general, applied after in particular, as well to Baptism as to the Eucharist? and therefore may as well prove a real or essential transmutation in the one as in the other: and if not in both, in neither, since the very same things are spoken of either: to wit, that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth, as what the spiritual eye of the believing soul by faith apprehendeth, and upon ground of God's word believeth: and that by things sensible are things intelligible conveyed to us, and effected in us as well in the one as in the other. The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. book de Sacerdotio. Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation. Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth above with his Father in heaven, is q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. at that time (to wit, when the Eucharist is celebrated) held in the hands of each one, and offereth himself to those, that will clasp him about and embrace him. But not to insist upon what was above said by him, that Christ himself and not Man both there and in Baptism administereth; nor upon other phrases in the same place used by him, both before of the same Eucharist, that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the people are all died purplered in it with Christ's blood; and afterward of Baptism, that in it s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we are buried together with Christ: Which cannot be understood but figuratively: he showeth in the very next words to those here cited, what his meaning was in them, and how all this is done, when he saith; t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this they do all then with the eyes of faith. The third place is not, as he seemeth to cite it, out of the same book, but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum Antiochenum. He found them joined together in Bellarmine, out of whom he hath all, and therefore took them (it seemeth) to be both out of one book. Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left us his flesh, and yet hath it still in Heaven. But how that may be verified, he himself showeth in the same place a little before, when he saith, that u Erat posthae duplex Elias ille: Et erat sursum Elias, & deorsum Elias. there was a twofold Elias, (whom he compareth Christ withal,) when Elias was translated, an Elias above, and an Elias beneath; he meaneth Elisaeus, on whom v 2. King. 2. 5 rested the spirit of Elias, whom he therefore esteemeth a symbolical Elias; as john the Baptist is called x Mal. 4. 5. Elias, because he came y Luk. 1. 15. in the power and the spirit of Elias, and so was also Elias, as z Math. 11. 14 our Saviour averreth (and a Aug. in joan. tract. 4. Augustine well observeth) though b joh. 1. 21. not essentially Elias, yet c Math. 17. 12, 13. Elias symbolically. And so here in like manner. Christ's essential flesh is in heaven, whither they must also, saith Chrysostome, d Chrysost. in 1. Cor. homil. 24. ascend, and fly up like Eagles, that will have it: his symbolical Flesh is here upon earth, as the Symbolical Elias was, in the Sacrament of his body; which (saith Augustine) e Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est. Aug. ep. 23. in some sort is his body, being a Sign and Sacrament of it. And thus you see what substantial proofs this great Blusterer hath brought to prove their Transubstantiation: and how well he hath acquit himself for a man well read in the ancient Fathers, as hereafter he boasteth himself to be. Division 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the ancient Fathers: and N. P. so plainly and unanswerably do they teach the literal understanding of our Saviour's words, and the miraculous conversion of the bread & wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the body and blood of Christ; telling us that we must not believe our sense or reason telling us the contrary; nor conceive it so impossible, as our carnal and gross Adversaries pretend, for the body of our Saviour to be in heaven, and in numberless places of the earth together i●…sibly existing. Whose plain testimonies are in a whole Book together by learned f Lib 2. de Euchar. Bellarmine truly and particularly collected: where also he refuteth the shifting answers of Protestanticall Divines unto them; soluing all Objections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholic doctrine. Who is by this Minister ignorantly or maliciously traduced, and made directly against the whole drift of his Controversy to teach a probability at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figurative and tropical sense of our Saviour's words, This is my Body; because disputing against Luther; supposing as well as he the literal sense of our Saviour's words, argumento ad hominem, by an Argument drawn from Luther's own grounds, he driveth Luther either to confess Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Saviour's words, This is my Body; or for to admit barely (against the known opinion of himself and all his disciples) a figurative and metaphorical understanding of them. For if Christ's words be literally to be understood, and bread also admitted to remain in the Sacrament, the pronoun, Hoc, This, would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it, and not the body of Christ invisibly therein present, and so bread in our Saviour's speech should falsely be affirmed to be Christ's body: Whereas if bread remain not, but be truly converted into Christ's body, no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literal understanding of Christ's words. Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seem to affirm that there is nothing in the holy Text, that may enforce us to believe that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, or (which is all one) that may enforce us literally and not figuratively to understand Christ's words, etc. Ignorance and mistaking must be my adversary's best means to salve this falsehood and many others which do ensue afterward. IN the next place having digressed all this while from T. G. the Argument he should have answered, he addeth that that which they teach concerning the literal sense of Christ's words and the miraculous conversion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ, is the true doctrine of the ancient Fathers: and to save himself the labour of proving that which neither he, nor any of his side shall ever be able to make good, he turneth his Reader over to Bellarmine, out of whom he picked all that before he had said, and telleth him that he hath both proved it, and refuted all the shifting answers of the Protestanticall Divines. Bellarmine (it seemeth) is his Aiax, behind whose shield he must shroud himself, or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter again. Now to make Bellarmine again some part of requital, because he is so much beholden to him, he will do his best to clear him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister, by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controversy to teach, a probability at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figurative sense of our Saviour's words, and to affirm, etc. It is true; I say that Bellarmine granteth, and so g Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 10. he doth, (I have set down his own words; they are not, nor can be denied) that these words, This is my body, may imply either such a real change as the Catholics hold, or such a figurative change, as the Caluinists hold: and that is all I say of him. The truth contrary to the main drift and scope of his controversy, (as it falleth out oft with those that against their own knowledge maintain error) did start from him unawares. Nor is the question now de re, but the propositione, as Bellarmine there speaketh: the question is not of the main matter in controversy whether Christ did really convert the Bread into his Body; which Bellarmine affirmeth; but whether that speech of our Saviour may not bear such a figurative sense as we give, which Bellarmine in plain and precise terms granteth. And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this, that Bellarmine doth not say that which in express words I have cited out of him, without alteration of any one syllable; and the falsehood therefore lieth manifestly on him that denieth it, when he knoweth them to be Bellarmine's own words in precise terms. But he hopeth (it seemeth) that with facing he may carry away any thing. I will add a little more out of Bellarmine, and yet no more than himself in precise terms saith. h Scotus in sent. l 4. dist. 11. quaest. 3. Scotus and i Cameracens. ibid. Cameracensis, two great Schoolmen, grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily be gathered out of the text of the Evangelists; howsoever they hold it, because the Church of Rome, that cannot err, hath so expounded it. And Bellarmine himself k Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. granteth that l Non est omnino improbabile. this is not improbable: For m Etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos adduximus, videatur tam clar●, ut possit cogere hominem non prote●uum, tamen an ita si● meritò dubitar● potest, cum homines doctissin●i, ac acutissimi, etc. contrar. sentiant. though the Scripture (saith he) that we bring, may seem so clear, that it may constrain a man that is not wilful to yield it, yet it may well be doubted, whether it be so or no; since most learned men, and most acute, such especially as Scotus was, are of a contrary mind. And now we have besides Scotus and others, three Cardidinals, Card. Bellarmine, Card. Caietan, and Card. Cameracensis, all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot clearly or unanswerably be proved by Scripture. I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant; It is all one (saith he) to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce us to believe that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, and to say that there is nothing to enforce us literally and not figuratively to understand Christ's words. Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter: and unless he can disprove Caietan (which as yet he hath not assayed to do) he must by his own confession yield the former. Division 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in ask, how the Chalice N. P. may be called the new Testament in our Saviour's blood. I answer him, because our Saviour's blood by the effusion whereof his last W●ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternal inheritance purchased and applied unto us, is in this Chalice really contained and unbloodily offered on the altar for us. For the word Testament (as all learned men know) is apt to import not only the interior act of the dying man's Will, but also the authentical instrument or deed, wherein that his dying Will is contained, and his legacy conveyed unto us, which here in the Chalice is our Saviour's blood to cleanse and inebriate de●●●t souls. Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously he endeavoureth to show the bread and wine to be no other than bare signs and types of Christ's true body and blood; as Alexander's picture representeth his absent person; as Circumcision is called the Covenant, because it was a sign thereof, etc. either not understatding like a dull Scholar his Master Caluines' doctrine, or over saucily willing to contradict him; who towards the end of his book de Coena Domini expressly denieth bread & wine to be empty signs of our Saviour's body and blood, but such signs as have the signified substances of our Saviour's body and blood conjoined with them. For n In cap. 11. ad Cor. 1. Christ (saith he) is no deceiver to delude us with bare figures, etc. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easy for my Adversary himself to salve many of his own objections: that for example, which he maketh out of Tertullian, page 3. saying, The bread which Christ took and distributed to his Disciples he made his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. For as Caluines' former words import, so also Tertullian meaneth, the sacramental symbols not to be naked signs of Christ's absent body and blood (as the Minister would have them) but such signs as have the signified substance conjoined unto them; as smoke is the sign of fire; warm blood of life; the fiery tongues over the Apostles, in that day of Pentecost, and the Dove over our Saviour in his Baptism, were signs of the holy Ghost present, etc. Which manner of being signs of Christ's body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to contain the true substances of our Saviour's body and blood in them. So is Saint Augustine to be understood, where he saith, Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he delivered the sign of his body. And when out of Gratian my Adversary citeth those words, The heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, etc. is a Sacrament of Christ's body visible, palpable, mortal, and pierced on the Cross, etc. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirm the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remain in the Sacrament; they mean not physical substances and nature of bread and wine still to remain after the consecration, but only the accidents to remain unaltered in their nature, signifying and containing our Saviour's body and blood under them. And if he had cited the place of Theodoret fully out, he had utterly overthrown his heretical and fraudulent purposes of citing him. His words are these: Neither do the sacramental signs after consecration depart from their nature; for they remain (note how he speaketh of the signs not of the substances of bread and wine remaining) in their former substance figure and form to be seen and touched as before: but they are by our understanding conceived to be as they are made; and they are believed and adored according to our faith of them. So judicious and learned is mine Adversary here and in other places, in the choice of his Arguments and Authorities alleged against us. But howsoever he faileth in that, he will be sure to help out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies. I have just cause to suspect his like dealing in citing Gratians Gloss on S. Augustine's words in the precedent page, and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I have not these Authors now by me to examine the places in themselves. And they are of so small esteem with us, especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconvenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtlety many times than truth, as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to magnify him, as if he were the Oracle of our Church, and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certain a proof as it could not be denied by us. IN the next place therefore, skipping over this Confession T. G. of Caietan, that there is nothing in the Gospel that may enforce us to take those words of our Saviour properly, This is my body: but that they may for aught that is in the Text be taken figuratively as well as those words, The Rock was Christ. As also leaping quite over the Answer given to that Objection that we are bound to believe our Saviour, when he saith, This my body: as if we could not believe those words of his, unless we believe Transubstantiation: whereas their own writers grant that the words of our Saviour may be true, though no such thing be: He picketh out here and there some bymatter to be nibbling upon, that he may seem to say somewhat, though he keep aloof off from the main matter. And first, because he thought he had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet, which he was desirous to vent: He saith I make a great stir in ask, how the Chalice may be called the New Testament in Christ's blood. I half suspect that some body hath sometime pushed him with this Question; and he is willing therefore here to explicate it for the saluing of his own credit, the rather having lighted upon a new device, that he thinketh will easily help out. For I move no such Question, much less make such ado about ask it, but say only, We must believe our Saviour as well, when he saith, This Cup is the new Testament, or This Cup is my blood; as we must believe him when he saith, This is my body: and that either may be true, though there be no such real conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament, or Christ's blood in the one, or of the Bread into his body in the other. And his part had been (if he meant to keep to the point) to show why the one may not be true in a figurative sense as well as the other. But let us hear how learnedly (though it be beside the matter) he explicateth our Saviour's words, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Thus forsooth; My blood in this Chalice really contained and unbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed, and the eternal inheritance purchased and applied unto us: and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood. Did any man in his right wits (think we) ever expound Scripture on this manner? Yea but he hath a singular piece of Scholarship by himself to justify his Exposition. For all learned men (saith he) know that the word Testament is apt to import, not the dying man's Will only, but the deed wherein it is contained, and the legacy conveyed by it; which here in the Chalice is our Saviour's blood, to cleanse and inebriate devout souls, etc. If he had been himself inebriated when he writ this, he could not lightly have been more absurd. For, 1. By this exposition of his, our Saviour should say, This Cup, that is, this blood contained in the Chalice, is the New Testament in my blood. And so * Not unlike Hugo Card. on Luke 〈…〉. Hic est calix in sanguine m●o, i. sanguis meus in chalice. Christ's blood shall be not in the Chalice only, but in his blood; would any reasonable man say, My body is in my body; or, My blood is in my blood? But they care not what absurd language they fasten upon our Saviour, so it may make for their own turn. 2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice, and yet this blood is unbloodily offered. It is unbloodily offered, and yet it is really blood; yea there is nothing there but blood. True it is the ancient Fathers oft term the Eucharist o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. demonstr. l. 〈…〉. c. 6. Chrysost. nomine in Psal. 95. & alii. an unbloody sacrifice; which showeth their speeches, where they say, that p Chrysost. ut supr. the Altar and the people are besprinkled and died purplered with blood, were metaphorical and hyperbolical: and well might they so call it, not dreaming of any such bloody stuff in the Chalice, as these men seem to imagine. But how there can be an unbloody offering, where there is much more blood than flesh; and Christ offered unbloodily, where men drink nothing but mere blood; yea if Chrysostom's speeches were to be taken properly, where all the Communicants are died red with blood, let any reasonable man judge. 3. All learned men (he saith) of which number I hope he counteth himself one) know that a Testament is apt to import, not a will only, or a deed, but a legacy too. Vsus loquendi Magister: Use is the Lord and Master of language. q Loquendun cum multis: sentiendum cum paucis. We should think (they say) as the best, speak as the most; and r Vtendum planè sermone, ut nummo, cuius publica forma est. Quintil. institut. ●. 1. c. 10. use, as such coin, so such speech, as is commonly currant. We ignorant and unlearned Protestanticall Ministers are unacquainted with this learning. But I would request him, if he can here, as well for the saving and saluing of of his own credit, as for our better instruction, to produce any one learned man besides himself and f For from Bellarmine also (it seemeth) he hath this: who to those two significations of a Testament de Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. which all acknowledge: addeth this third, pro bonis à testatore legatis. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 19 his associates, that ever so said, or ever so spoke, that ever called a legacy by the name of a Testament. Such learned men (I see) as he is, may say what they list; we unlearned must speak by rule, when we speak, lest such learned men as he is control us if we do otherwise, for ignorant. 4. Mark (I beseech you) this learned man's Logic, how sound and substantially he argueth. This word Testament may well signify either a Will or a Legacy: ergo Christ's blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed, may well be termed the New Testament. What connexion there is between these two Propositions, the one produced by him to prove the other, let any one, that is not utterly senseless, consider. 5. Let it be observed, how these men that cannot endure at our hands to hear of any figure in the words of our Saviour, though one never so frequent, in signs and Sacraments especially, which both they grant these things to be; yet themselves in the explicating of them are enforced to fly to figures, yea take liberty to themselves to coin and forge such figures, as were never heard of before, either in holy writ, or in profane writer. For let him if he can, show a legacy so termed in either. Lastly, Christ's blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate men's souls, and the s Ex Psal. 23. 5. Hieron. ad Hedyb. q. 2. Ruffin. in Psal. 22. Ambr. in Psal. 1 ●8. serm. 21. & alii. Ancients sometime so speak. But that which is in the Chalice, if it be taken (which the Priest sometime may chance to do) overlargely, will (as t Aquin sum. part. 3 quaest. 77. art. 6. Aquinas well observeth) inebriate the body and not the soul: which I never yet heard that u Albeit the whore of Babylon be said to be drunk with blood. Apoc. 17. 6. blood did, or could do. And therefore we have cause to think, if we see the Priest drunk with it, yea we have reason to believe, because we know he well may, that it is not Christ's blood, but * Mat. 26. 19 the fruit of the x Gen. 49. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sirac. 50. 16. 1 Mac 6. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustath. ad Iliad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. ●…ex. paed. l. 1. c. 6. Vinum sanguinem terrae dixit Androcydes apud Plin. hist. nat. l. 14. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. H●liod. apud Fulgent. mythol. l. 〈…〉. c. 〈…〉. ●…um vuarum sanguis, cruentus liquor, purpura potabilis, violeum nectar. Cassod. ver. l. 12. vine, the blood of the grape, that is in the Chalice, and produceth such effects. § 2. In the next place, like a man in a maze going backward and forward, as uncertain which way to turn himself, Afterward (saith he, relating, but misrelating, as his usual manner is, some things spoken before) confusedly and tediously he endeavoureth to show the bread and wine to be no other than bare signs and types of Christ's body and blood, as Alexander's picture representeth his absent person, as Circumcision is called the Covenant, because it was a sign thereof, etc. True it is, I say these words of our Saviour, This is my body, may as well be understood figuratively, as those speeches are where the Rock is called Christ, and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander (it is the comparison that a Aug. ad simplic. lib. 〈…〉. quaest. 3. Augustine useth) we say, This is Caesar, and That is Alexander. And in Answer to the Objection before recited; I say, that the Cup, that is, the wine in the Cup, is said to be the New Testament, as Circumcision the Covenant, because * Hic calix est nowm Testamentum, i calix quem vobis trado nowm Test. significat, ut Fulgent. vel nowm Test, confirmat. Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. a sign and seal of it. But that the bread and wine are no other than bare signs and types, etc. I no where say: It is his untruth, not mine assertion. I say expressly more than so, that they are not signs only, but seals, and signs and seals so effectual, (as after I show) that by them the things signified by them, and sealed up in them are truly and effectually, yet spiritually, conveyed unto those that do faithfully receive them. He dealeth herein but as Bellarmine (whom he imitateth) doth with Caluine, one while charging him to make the Sacramemt * Nihil nisi symbolum revocans ad memoriam Christi Passionem. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 〈…〉. nothing but a symbol and memorial of Christ's passion, and so no better (saith he) nay nor so good as a Crucifix, and yet elsewhere acknowledging that he maketh it not a sign only, but “ Sigillum obsignans & confirmans promissionem verbo factam. Ibid. l. 1. c. 1. a seal also confirming and sealing up Gods promises made in the Word. But like a dull Scholar (he saith) herein I understood not my Master Caluine. b Mat. 2●. 8. Master in these matters we acknowledge none but Christ; whose Word alone is absolutely authentical with us. Caluine we reverence as a worthy servant of Christ. And as dull a Scholar as I am, I understand him well enough, where in that book he calleth Transubstantiation a device of the Devil; * Eorum consecratio ab incantationis specie nihil differt. their Consecration a kind of Incantation; d Transubstantiatio commentum Diaboli. the Mass an Histrionical action; and the Priest acting it a mere Ape. The signs indeed, saith he, in the Eucharist are not e Nuda signa. f Non tamen quasi pane inclusum, aut signo visibili ●ocanter affixum. etc. naked signs, but such as have the truth of the thing conjoined d Mera fimiae ae mulatio, & actio histrionica. with them, (that which is true of Baptism, as well as of the Lords Supper.) Yet not enclosed in them, nor carnally but spiritually partaked. Nor doth God delude us with bare figures, though there be no such real change of the elements in the Eucharist, more than he doth us now in Baptism, or did the Israelites of old, when he fed them with g 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. spiritual food and water in the Wilderness. § 2. And here again, I cannot say cunningly, but knavishly rather, having falsely related my words, and passing over mine Answer to this very Objection, wherein they challenge us to make the Sacrament nothing but bare bread; which by the instance of the other Sacrament of Baptism, besides other proofs, I show evidently to be otherwise, (as if he thought that like an hare by i●mping and wheeling to and fro, he should keep himself safe from being traced and taken, when either he reported gross untruths, or dissembled those things that it stood him upon to give answer unto, if he would either make good their cause, or overthrow ours.) He runneth back to an allegation of Tertullian, and then forward again to Theodoret, etc. and (if his words may bear weight with us) he would make us believe that this Doctrine of my Master Caluine, if like a dull Scholar I had sooner understood him, would salve many of my Objections, as namely, that of Tertullian; This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body; and the like speech of Augustine; and what I cite out of Gratian to the like purpose, etc. Surely this man was of that opinion that h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyq. hist. lib. 4. Polybius saith some are, who think other men cannot see them, if they wink themselves. The Question is whether our Saviour's words, This is my Body, may not be, or are not to be figuratively understood; not whether the bread and wine be bare Signs or no, which none say, but this shameless wretch contrary to mine express words affirmeth me to affirm. This being the Question I produce Tertullian, who precisely so expoundeth them, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body. I produce Augustine, who not only doth the like; but rendereth a reason also why he so doth, to wit, because Signs and Sacraments are called That which Rib●ra the jesuit also observeth in Apoc. 14. 〈…〉. Pervulgatum est in Scriptura, ut figura nomen habeat rei figuratae. usuaelly by the names of those things that they signify and represent. I produce the Gloss on Gratian, that saith; It is called Christ's body improperly, not in the truth of the thing itself, but in a significant mystery: and that when it is said that it is called Christ's body, the meaning of the words are, that it signifieth Christ's body. All which produced to prove that our Saviour's words are to be understood figuratively, (which how pregnantly they do prove, he cannot but see, that will not wilfully wink) he can give no answer unto; but saith only they may be so●…d with that which Caluine saith that they are not bare signs; which neither is denied, nor is any part of the Argument here in hand. § 4. Thus having leapt a page back, he now jumpeth again as fa●re forward; where he lighteth again upon Pope Gelasius (for so is his work styled in all editions of him, and so by Fulgentius he is proved to be; howsoever they would fain shift him of, because he is so expressly against their Transubstantiation, as he is also against their mangling of the Sacrament, and giving the bread without the Cup, which i Gelas. Papa apud Grat. de consecrat. dist. 2. c. Comperi●us. Sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire he condemneth as gross Sacrilege) and with him upon Theodoret, that speaketh in effect the same with him. Theodoret and Gelasius both aver that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retain still not the same shape and form only, but the same Nature and Substance. Can any thing be more plain? or any testimony more pregnant? Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not * And this also after Morman apud Rid ●eium de Coe●. Dom. hath Bellarmine de Euchar. l. 2. c. 27. And it is as good that that he saith elsewhere that the Accidents are as Substances in the Sacrament. de Euchar. l. 〈…〉. c. 2. anevasion for it, such as it is. For (saith he) Theodoret and Gelasius do not mean thereby that the physical nature and substance, but the Accidents (that is, the shape and outward ●o●me, etc.) only remain unaltered. They say that they retain still the same both shape and substance too. And this shameless fellow sticketh not to tell us that they mean contrary; that they retain the same shape, but not the same substance. It is k Maledicta glossa, quae corrumpit textum. a cursed gloss (they say) that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the gloss that this Sophister giveth Gelasius and Theodoret, not corrupting only, but directly crossing that that they say, & denying them to say that that in precise terms they do. The Substance, say they: Not the Substance, saith he. The Substance, say they: that is, The Accidents, saith he. Not unlike that Gloss on Gratian, that expoundeth, We ordain, l Statuimus. i. abrogamus. Gloss. ad Grat. dist. 4. c. Statu●mus. Et Gloss. ad Cod. lib. 3. de judicus leg. Quoties. Quo magis i quo minus. Et Alciat. parerg. l. 7. c. 13. Imperare, 〈…〉. parere, teste Duareno disput. l. 1. c. 34. that is, We ●brogate, or disannul. If this be not a most sorry and senseless shift, I know not what is. But yet will you see another as gross as the former? By Sacramental Signs (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substances of Bread and Wine; but the Accidents only; for either those then, or else nothing at all. 1. Here is a new distinction between the Elements of Bread and Wine, and the Sacramental signs in the Eucharist. And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true, neither Bread, nor Wine, are ever, or ever were Signs of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, though the Ancients commonly so term them. For before Consecration they are not; and in Consecration they cease to be, as they say: and after Consecration they cannot be, because they have now no being: and so consequently they never are. 2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most abfurd assertion: The Sacramental Signs, that is, the Accidents, retain still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christ's blood in his blood, that we had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeed: and it is no great marvel, if dull pates and shallow brains cannot easily conceive them. 3. Will you see how gross and palpable this evasion is? Theodoret and Gelasius (saith Bellarmine, whom he learned some of this from) m Idem prorsus docent. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. teach the very self same thing. Now look what Theodoret calleth the mystical Signs, that Gelasius termeth expressly Bread and Wine. By the mystical Signs therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant, not the Accidents (as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith) of either. § 4. Yea but if Theodoret had been fully cited, all had utterly been overthrown, and the Ministers heretical and fraudulent purpose of citing him had been defeated. If lying and outfacing would serve the turn, this man would be sure ever to give his Adversary the overthrow. Hear you but Theodoret at large; and then judge, if this man have not either * Quomodò Canus Autorem Legendae (vt● appellant) Aureae, ait hominem fuisse ferr●i oris & plumbei cordis. Loc. come. l. 11. c. 6. Reg. 〈…〉. Sed & frontis aereae, vel aheneae, rectissimè addidisset. a brazen brow, or a leaden brain, or both. The work of Theodoret is a Dialogue, wherein he bringeth in disputing an Orthodox Divine against an Heretic, that held that n Post resurrectionem amisit humanitas naturam suam; & accepit caro mutationem in naturam divinitatis. after Christ's resurrection his Hemanitie lost it own nature, and his flesh was turned into his Deity; in the same manner as these Transubstantiators now say that the Bread in the Euchorist looseth it own nature, and is really changed into Christ's natural body. In debating of this Question they light upon the Eucharist, and fall to dispute how the Bread is there said to be Christ's body, and what change is wrought on it. The Heretic would have it changed to fit his turn, as our Papists now hold. The Orthodox Divine saith it is no more turned into Christ's body, than Christ's body is now turned in heaven into his Deity. But you shall have them both verbatim in their own words. Orthodox. o Theodoret. Dialog. 2. qui & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You may if you will in steed of Orthodox and Heretic put Protestant and Papist. Tell me; the mystical Signs which are offered God by God's Priests, what say you are they Signs of? Heretic. Of the Lord's Body and Blood. Orthodox. Of a body that is truly? or of one that is not truly? Heretic. Of one that is truly. Orthodox. Very well. For of the Image there must needs be some Original. For Painters imitate nature; and draw Images of such things as are seen. Heret. True. Orthodox. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If then the divine mysteries represent that that is truly a body, than the Lords body is a true body still, not changed into the Nature of the Deity, but filled with Divine glory. Heret. You have in good time made mention of the divine Mystery, for even thereby will I show you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature. Answer you therefore my Question. Orthodox. I will. Heretic. What call you the gift that is offered before the Priest's Invocation? Orthodox. I may not tell openly, because it may be there be some here that are not yet initiated. Heretic. Answer then enigmatically. Orthodox. The food that is made of certain grain. Heret. The other Sign, how call you it? Orthodox. By that common name that signifieth some kind of drink. Heret. But after sanctification how do you call them? Orthodox. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. Heret. And do you believe that you are made partaeker of Christ's body and blood? Orthodox. I do believe so. Heret. As then the Signs of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priest's prayer; but after it are changed and become another: So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a divine Substance. Orthodox. You are taken now in a net of your own weaving. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the Mystical Signs do not after Sanctification depart from their own Nature. For they remain still in their former Substance, and figure and form; and may be seen and touched as before: But they are understood to be that which they are made; and they are believed and adored (or “ Quomodo Tertull. adv. Hermog. Adoro plenitudmem Scripturarum. Et Aug. Ep. 164: Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur. reverenced) as being those things that they are believed to be. Compare then the Image with the Original, and you shall see the Similitude. For it is meet that the Figure be like to the Truth. For * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that Body hath indeed its former form, and figure, and circumscription, and to speak in a word, bodily Substance. But since the Resurrection it is become immortal, and such as no corruption or destruction can befall; and it is vouchsafed to sit at God's right-hand; and is worshipped of every creature, as being called the Lords natural Body. Heretic. Yea but the mystical Sign changeth his former Name. For it is not any more called as it was before, but it is called a Body. In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body. Orthodox. Me thinks you are very ignorant. For it is not only called a Body, but it is called, p joh. 6. 35. Bread of Life. So the Lord himself called it. And moreover the Body itself we call a divine Body, and a quickening Body, and the Lords Body: and teach that it is not the common Body of any man, but the Body of our Lord jesus Christ, who is God and Man. For q Heb. 13. 8. jesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same, and for ever. Will you hear more yet of Theodoret? In his first Dialogue; out of which I cite also one or two Sentences, which this scambling Answerer hath not list (it seemeth) to take notice of; he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together. Orthodox. r Theodoret Dialog. 1. qui & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do you not know that the Lord called himself a Vine? Heretic. I know that he said, s joh. 15. 1. I am the true Vine. Orthodox. And how call you the juice of the fruit of the Vine? Heretic. Wine. Orthodox. When the soldiers opened Christ's side with a spear, what saith the Evangelist did then issue on't? Heretic. t joh. 19 34. Water and Blood. Orthodox. The Patriarch jacob then calleth Christ's blood the blood of the Grape. For if Christ be called a Vine, and the frnite of the Vine; and streams of blood and water issuing out of Christ's side trickled down his whole Body; he is fitly u Gen. 49. 11. Hinc Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 4. Ita & ●unc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sangine figuravit. said by him to wash his coat in wine, and his raiment in the blood of the Grape. For as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood; so doth he call the blood of the true Vine, the blood of the Grape. Heretic. That which was propounded hath both mystically and clearly been shown. Orthodox. Though the things said be sufficient; yet I will add another proof. Heretic. You shall do me a pleasure, because the more profit in so doing. Orthodox. Do you not know that God called his body Bread? Heretic. I know it. Orthodox. And elsewhere again he called his Flesh wheat. Heretic. I know that too. For, x joh. 12. 24. unless the wheat corn, saith he, fall into the ground, etc. Orthodox. Now in the delivery of the Sacraments * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he called Bread his Body; and that which is poured into and mixed in the Cup, Blood. Heretic. He did so call them. Orthodox. Yea but “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that which by nature is his Body is also justly termed his Body; and in like manner his Blood. Heretic. It is acknowledged. Orthodox. Our Saviour indeed, '' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he changed the Names, and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbol and Sign of it: and on the Symbol or Sign he imposed that Name, that is the Name of his Body. And so having named himself a vine, he called that that was a sign Blood. Heretic. It is true that you say: But why did he thus change the Names? Orthodox. Because his will was, that those that are partakers of those divine Mysteries, should not attend the nature of the things that they see; but for the change of the Names believe the change that by grace is wrought. For he that y joh. 6. 32, 33, 35. called that that by Nature is his Body, wheat and bread, and again, named himself a Vine; * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he honoured the Symbols and Signs that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not changing Nature, but to Nature adding Grace. And at length, the Orthodox Divine thus concludeth: * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is clear that that holy Food is a Symbol and a Sign of Christ's body and blood, the name whereof it beareth. For our Lord when he had taken the Symbol or Sign, said not, This is my Deity; But, z Matth. 26. 26, 28. This is my Body; and again, This is my Blood: and else where, * joh. 6. 51. The bread that I will give, is my Flesh that I will give for the life of the world. You have heard Theodoret at large. It remaineth now to consider how he overthroweth that which I produce him for, to wit, that the bread & wine in the Sacrament remain for substance still the same; and that the Bread is called Christ's body figuratively; as his body is elsewhere called Bread; and the wine his blood figuratively, as himself is termed a Vine: Or to consider rather, if you please (because that any one at the first sight may see) how fitly this man's explication of Theodoret agreeth with Theodoret's own words. By Sacramental Signs (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine. 1. He understandeth by the mystical Signs that that is offered to God by God's Priests. And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents only? Indeed they tell us that a Gen. 14. 18. Quo loco tamen vulg. versio, non, Obtulit, sed, Protulit. Et Card. Caietan. in Gen. Nihil scribitur hîc de sacrificio seu de oblatione, sed de prolatione, qua● josephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores. Melchisedech offered bread and wine; and that their Priests are b Vide Bellar. de missa. l. 〈…〉. c. 24. & 25. & Rhemens'. in Heb. 7. 12, 17. Priests after the order of Melchisedech, and so c Rhemens'. ibid. offer such offerings as he did. And the ancient Fathers, alluding to that story by them allegorised, say, d Offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech. Aug. de civet. Dei l. 17. c. 17. i panes & vinum: ut Theodoret. in Psal. 109. Vide & Clem. Strom. l. 4. Tertull. adv. judaeos. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 34. etc. that Bread and Wine are offered to God in the Eucaarist. But in the Popish Mass according to their opinion of it, no such thing can be offered, because no such thing is there present. 2. More particularly explaining himself he saith that by the one sign he meaneth the food that of certain grain is made, and by the other the fruit of the Vine. And is there any such food or fruit at all that is no physical substance, or that consisteth of e Accidentia tamen mera nutrire corpora humana; & Species tantumdem facere quantum alias substantias, asserunt Patres Inquisitores in Indic. Belg. expurg. lit. B. Nec id mirum esse debet: cum Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. non accidentium sed substantiae rationem velit habere, uti sunt in Sacramento. mere accidents? He deserveth to be fed, till he starve, with such food, that would feed or infect rather men's souls with such draffy stuff as this is. Yea in precise terms he saith, that Christ called Bread (not the accidents of bread) his Body, as he called his Body elsewhere bread. 3. The very main drift and scope evidently manifesteth his meaning; which is to show that the Lords Body, though it be not a common body, but hath glorious endowments, yet remaineth a true body still; as the Sacramental bread though it be not common bread, yet retaineth still it former nature and substance, and is true bread still. 4. If we ask Theodoret himself what he meaneth here by Substance; and whether he take the word in such sense as it is usually taken; he telleth us himself a little before he entereth into this discourse, that f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Corpus ergò substantia vocandum: Accidentia, non substantias, nominate convenit, quae corpori & accidunt & recedunt. Theodoret, dialog. 2. by Substance he understandeth a body; and by Accidents (which he opposeth to Substance) such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them. And they may as well say, that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents, when he saith that Christ's body retaineth still the same bodily substance; as they may say he so meaneth, when of the bread, which he compareth therewith, he saith the very same. But what take I so much pains g Super vacuis laborat impendiis qui solem certat facibus adiware. Anaclet, apud Grat. c. 6. q. 1. In rebus vero apertis argumentari tam sit stultum, quam in clarissimum Solem mortale jumen infer. Quintil. institut. l. 5. c. 12. to set up a light when the Sun shines? (the proof is so plain, and his meaning so perspicuous, that it may seem h Ipsius solis radio putes scriptum; ita claret. Tertul. de resurr. car. written, as Tertullian speaketh, with a beam of the Sun) save to lay open a little this man's shameless carriage and senseless shifts, who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader, that his Adversary both here and elsewhere showeth how learned and judicious he is in the choice of his authorities; as if this allegation made wholly for them and against us, were it read all out, or were nothing pertinent (at least) to the purpose. § 5. In conclusion, for Gratians Gloss, acknowledging the truth by us maintained that our Saviour's words are figuratively to be understood; and Cardinal Caietan confessing; that they may well bear that sense: having nothing (and that is marvel, for he dare say any thing) to except against; either he excuseth himself that he hath not the books by him, as if they were not commonly in Paul's Churchyard to be had, if he had listed to look after them. A bad excuse (as we say) is better than none at all with him. Only he addeth that they are both of small account with them; Caietan especially: In regard whereof he wondereth that I should so much magnify him, as if he were the Oracle of their Church, etc. For the former, none can be ignorant, what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses have: and in the place cited the rather, because he buildeth upon Augustine's own words. For the latter, I cite him only by the name of Cardinal Caietan (nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals) one of our Adversaries: that is all my magnifying of him. But mine Adversaries lips must need overrun. Yet of what repute and esteem Caietan was for both kinds of learning, as well Philosophy as Divinity; to omit the titles commonly given him in the Inscriptions of his works by those that set out some of them, styling him i Professor Theologiae eminentissimus. the most eminent Doctor and professor of divinity; his Commentaries on Thomas (whence this testimony is taken) k Luculentisma & planè divina. most luculent and even divine Commentaries; his smaller Treatises l Aurea opuscula. golden works; I may refer you to the works themselves, so many, so learned, so elaborate; and to the story of his life written by Antonius Fonseca, and set out with some of them. It is apparent, and it is enough, that a prime Cardinal of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously, that the words of our Saviour, This is my body, may be siguratively taken for aught in the text, were it not that their Church, * Nam Papa virtualiter est tota Ecclesia. Herv. de potest Papae. Vide Bellar. de Concil. & Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Sed & Georg. Dounam Derens. Ep. de Papa Antichrist. l. 4. c. 6. that is, the Pope, will have them otherwise expounded. Division 5. HE concludeth his first Discourse thus, page 5. Thus they; and thus we: and yet neither do they, nor N. P. we therefore make the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine. Which Corollarium of his plainly so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truly anathomized and plainly showed to have nothing holy, heavenly and divinely (as the Fathers speak) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, which any man may eat when and where he pleaseth, remembering withal our Saviour's passion, Never Caietan, never Bellarmine, never Gratian, never Father or other Catholic Divine of our Church believed or taught this gross and sacrilegious doctrine as my Adversary in his words, They, and We, falsely pretendeth. Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Divine of their Church speak at least, whatsoever they think, so poorly and grossly of this Sacrament; but they endeavour with Epithets and words to cover the bready nakedness thereof, making it seem mysterious at least, if not miraculous. Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholar of Saint Paul himself, I will here presume to ask thee. If the Sacrament of the Altar be but bare bread and wine, why dost thou so absurdly speak and blasphemously praey unto it, in this manner? m S. Dennis Hierch. Eccles. cap. 3. part. 3. O most divine and holy Sacrament, vouchsafe to open those signifying signs, and appear perspicuously unto us; and replenish the spiritual eyes of our soul with the singular and clear splendour of thy light, etc. Why likewise, thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christ's Church Saint Itaeneus, living so near the Apostles times, as to know great Polycarpus S. john's disciple, and deeply seen in the knowledge of heavenly verities, dost thou deny this bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, heavenly and earthly; that being received into our bodies they may be no more corruptible, having the hope of resurrection? If no more than bare bread and wine be in this Communion, as my Adversary affirmeth, why did ye, noble Confessors of the first Nicene Council will us, n Patres in votis primi Nicen. Con●. in this divine table not to regard only bread and wine proposed, but to elevate our mind by faith, and behold on this table the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world by Priests unbloodily sacrificed; and receiving his body and blood to believe them to be symbols and pledges of our resurrection? etc. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctity, as Saint Jerome testifieth thy writings to have been read in the Church after the holy Scriptures, why dost thou will us not to search after these inscrutable mysteries, etc. but to receive with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the Lord, and the Lamb himself entirely? adding those words which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth; The mysteries of Christ are an immortal fire: search them not curiously, least in the search thou become burned, etc. telling us that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech, which Christ our Saviour the only begotten Son of God hath instituted for us. Finally why do other ancient ●nd chief Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadful mysteries, the food of life and immortality, hidden Manna, and infinitely excelling it, a heavenly banquet, the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered, and devoutly adoring it, etc. If there be no more but bare bread and wine therein received in memory of our Saviour's passion; as my Adversary affirmeth of his Protestanticall Sacrament. THe next Diuisi●● he maketh entrance into with a T. G. gross and shameless depravation; and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression. Having cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Objection brought commonly against us, as if by a denial of such a real presence as Papists maintain we should make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread; I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these words; Thus they, (to wit Gelasius and Theodoret) and thus we: and yet neither do they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine. Now this shameless wretch wanting matter to be dealing with, turneth me NOthing into ANY thing (a man able indeed with his shameless & senseless shifts to pick any thing out of nothing) and relateth my words in this manner to a clean contrary sense; Thus they; and thus we: and yet neither do they, nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine. Had either I or my Transcriber, for the truth is, i Yet I remember now that the Marginal notes were of mine own writing; which peradventure occasioned his gird at mine hand. it was not mine own hand-writing that he had: I write a worse hand I confess, than he is aware of, that accounteth that so bad an one: If either I or he, I say, had slipped here with the pen, as I suspected he might have done, till I saw the copy again that this Answerer had; yet the whole tenor of my speech, wherein I show that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine, than the water used in the Sacrament of Baptism is bare water, would sufficiently have showed my meaning. But when the copy that was delivered him, remaining in the custody of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written, is found apparently to have the words in the very same manner as I have before cited them, I cannot devose k Dic aliquen, dic, Quinti●●ane, colorem. juven. sat, 6. what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salve his own credit with, and excuse his corrupt carriage. It argueth not a bad, but a desperate cause, that without such senseless and shameless shifts cannot be upheld. And I beseech your Ladyship well to consider, what credit is to be given to these men alleging Authors, (Fathers, Counsels, etc.) which they know you cannot yourself peruse and examine, when they dare thus palpably falsify a writing that you have in your own hands, and may have recourse to when you will. § 2. Now having thus laid a lewd and loud untruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse: 1. He falleth into an Inuective against our Protestanticall Communion, as acknowledged by me to have nothing holy, heavenly and divinely (for so it pleaseth him to speak) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, etc. adding withal, that never C●ietan, never Bellarmine, never Gratian, never Father or other Catholic Divine believed or taught this sacrilegious doctrine (a lie he meaneth, of his own forging) as my Adversary in these words, They, and we, falsely pretendeth. In which words first (for he cannot forbear falsifying for his life, no not then and there where he chargeth others with falsehood) he intimateth that in those words, Thus they; I should have reference to Caietan, Bellarmine, and Gratian: whereas my words evidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret, whose own words in precise terms I had next before cited. 2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish, that neither I, nor any of our Divines ever said: yea which being by way of Objection before produced, I not only disavow and disprove, approving freely and at large proving the contrary; but in this place in plain terms conclude the direct contrary unto in the very words by him foully falfified. 3. He runneth out (to give us some taste of his rolling Rhetoric as well as his loose Logic) into a solemn invocation of his forged S. Dionyse, together with some of the Ancients, (as if he were raising of Spirits with some magical enchantment, to fight with a shadow, and to skirmish with a man of straw of his own making) to testify in that against us that he would fain put upon us, but none of us (by his own confession) ever said or do say. Thus he hath nibbled here and there, cavilled at by-matters, coined lies, forged and faced; but given no direct Answer to the Argument, whereunto he should have answered, and whereby it was proved that these words of our Saviour, This my body, may well bear a figurative sense; so expounded by the Ancient Fathers, and confessed by their own writers; not so much as attempted to prove the contrary thereunto. § 3. Now howsoever I might very well let pass, as impertinent, those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to give in either testimony or sentence against that that none of us avoweth, and which therefore, though all, that either they do say, or he would have them say, were true, did no way cross us, or once touch us in aught that is herein affirmed of us; and I had sometime therefore determined wholly to pass by them, for fear of overcharging this Discourse: yet considering that some weak ones peradventure may stumble at some passages in them, especially as they are unfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated: I have thought good now ere we part with them, to examinine what they say, that may seem to make in any sort not against that here charged on us, which we utterly deny, but against that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise. The first testimony is S. Dennis his, showed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession even of Popish writers themselves. But whosoever he were (for l Illum esse de quo in Acts fit mentio, soli, in hac luce literarum, imperiti, & cum linguae Graecae, tum antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae penitus rudes audent affirmare. Casaub, ad Baron. annal. exerc. 16. ss. 43. certain enough it is that he was not the party whose name he beareth, but one of a far later time, unknown utterly to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Jerome, though curious searchers and enquirers after the works of those that were before them, m Scripta Dionys●i ante tempora B. Georgij non videntur fuisse cog●ita mundo Bellarm. in Indic. Scrip. MS. apud Rob. Cocum in Cens. Patr. Qui & u●dendus de Dionysio isto. Et Anastasius Biblioth, ad Carol, Reg. apud Andr. Rivet. in specim. Critit. l. 1. c. 9 nor known commonly to the world before Gregory's days, as Bellarmine also himself acknowledgeth) he maketh little for them in this point, either in that that here is alleged, or in aught else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him. His words in the place here cited are these and no more: O most divine and holy Mystery, symbolically discovering those n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. enigmatical ensoldments, be declared brightly unto us, and replenish our intellectual eye sights with o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. single (or immixed) and unenueloped light. These (I say) his words are as near as I can express them: Which I so do to give you a taste of this Dennis his style, writing rather like p Dithyrambos concinit. Ma●sil. Fi●in. Genus dicendi cothurno Tragi●o vel Dithyrambicis ampullis non multum distat. Casaub. ubi sub. a Dithyrawhicall Poet (the boldest sort of them) then like a sober and sound Divine; as q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2. 18. De his rebus magno supercilio pronuncians, de quibus Paulus è coelo tertio reversus non ausus est hiscere. Eras. de ver. Theol. taking upon him to determine the degrees, orders, and offices of the Angels in heaven, which other r Iren. count. Valent. l. 2. c. 55. Cyril. nomi. catech. mystag. 2. Aug. enchit. c. 58. De Athanasio vide Sixt. sen. biblioth l. 3. de Greg. & Bern. Eckium hom. 4. de Michael. & Riber in Heb. c. 1. the Ancients durst not do; so discoursing of them and such other matters as he entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse strain, and coining a world of strange words and phrases no where else to be found. And no more they are then these; which I add, because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an, etc. as if the Author had in that place used some longer discourse of that kind. Nor is the sp●●ch (as he would have it) a prayer; but a mere prosopopoei●, or rhetorical compellation, directed not to the Elements alone, but to the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper (if with the s 〈…〉 Cor. 11. 20. vide Casaub. ad Baron. exer. 16. sect. 32. Apostle t Caluinistae sinè scripturae autoritate, sine veterum exemplo, si●e ratione, sine iudici● coenam vocant. Maldonat. in Math. c. 26. they will give us leave at least so to term it) the whole Mystery, or mysterious rite, as u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the word there used properly importeth. Which Pachymeres the Greek paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregory Nazianzenes of the same nature; (and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant have alleged the one as the other.) Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festivity itself, and then from it to Christ himself, the substance of it, as Nicetas also well observeth; O great and holy Passeover (saith he) the purgation of the whole world. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For I will speak to thee as t● some living thing. O word of God, and light, and life, and wisdom, and might. For I take delight in reckoning up all thy titles. Have thou this Oration as well●g●atul●torie as supplicatory, and so forth. And Nicet as thereupon; Those * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words, O Pasch or Passeover, z Ad festum ipsum perinde ac vita praeditum refert. he speaks or referreth to the Feast itself. But those, O word of God, and so forward, by way of acclamation he directeth to Christ the spiritual Passeover. Nor is it unlike to the speech that Ambr. makes * Ad Christum spi●itale Pascha per acclamationem dirigit. in general to the Element of water, though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptism: f O qua, quae Sacramentum Christi esse mesuisti: quae omnia lavas, nec lavaris. Ambr. in Lue. l. 10. c. 22. O water that hast merited (that is, in the usual language of those Auncieuts, too much abused by our Adversaries, hast been vouchsafed the grace) to be a Sacrament of Christ: that washest all, unwashed of any. Thou bringest in the first; thou closest up the last Mysteries. The beginning is from thee; and the end in thee: or rather thou makest us to be without end. And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element, which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray unto. Nor any more had this Dennis g Tu incipis prima, tu comples perfecta mysteria. A te principium; in te finis. vel potius tu facis ut finem nesciamus, &c when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist; the rather to be admitted and so conceived in him, considering his Poetical and enigmatical vain and manner of discourse. I might well put them in mind of that Hymn of theirs, wherein they thus if not invocate, at least parley with the Cross: h O have, Crux, spes unica: Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis iustitiam; Reisque dona veniam. All hail, O Cross, our only Hope; This Passion time [thy power set open:] In righteous Persons grace increase: To sinful souls their sins release. Which howsoever they would fain salve with such a prosopopoeia i Gabr. Vasquez de Adorat. l. 2. c. 4. dis. 3. num. 430. & Bellar. de cult. Sanct. l. 2. c. 24. some of them; yet k Thom. Aq. sum par. 3. quae. 25. art. 4. Crux adoratur adoratione latriae. Aquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they give divine worship to the wooden Cross: or of the like speeches that in a form both of praise, and prayer, they use to l Salue sancta facies nostri Seruatoris, Impressa panniculo nivei candoris, Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris: Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum: Atque nos consortio iunge beatorum, etc. Oratio à loanne Pp. 22. instituta. Antidote. animae. the Veronicke or the print of Christ's face in a towel; and m O veneranda Zona, fac nos haeredes aeternae & beatae vitae, etc. Oratio ab Euthymio composita. to our Lady's girdle, and othèr the like, wherein they crave ●o less of them, beside sundry other graces, then to be cleansed from all sin, and to attain eternal happiness: in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words; n O quam magna & mira petit a veneranda Zona. Lipoman. O how many, and how marvelous things are requested of that holy girdle! To which I might well adjoin also, what Aquinas saith, that o Crucem alloquimur & deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum. Thom. ubi sup. they speak & pray to the Cross as to Christ crucified himself: and what Bellarmine telleth us that their p Sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, etc. Bellar de imagine. c. 23. Priests and Friars in the pulpit are wont to say to the wooden Crucifix, q Tu nos redemisti, etc. Thou hast redeemed us, and reconciled us to God the Father. Which he thus salveth, that this they say to it, not as it is a piece of wood, nor as it is an image neither, but as it supplieth the place of him whom it representeth, that is, r Dicuntur Christo, cuius imago vicem gerit. they say it to Christ, whose Deputy & vicegerent the Image there is. And yet from all this (though too too bad and gross indeed, yea absurd and blasphemous by this man's own grant) will no man infer, that they hold either that girdle to be the Virgin Mary, or either the wooden Cross, or the stained towel, or the carved Crucifix to be Christ himself. So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeed, which yet plain it is that it is not, yet were it not, by their own grounds and grants, sufficient to prove that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himself. I add only what s Ex Aug. de civet lib. 18. c. 28. Bed. in 1. Cor. 10. from Augustine venerable Bede hath, that holy t Omnia significantia videntur quodammodo earum rerum quas significant sustinere personas. Signs not only are called by the names, but do in some sort sustain the persons also of those things that they represent. Which as being well considered it may help to clear many speeches of the Ancients wherein they speak those things of the sacred Elements, which cannot be understood but of the things by them signified, so it occasioned them to take the more liberty to themselves for such Rhetorical compellations, as before have been spoken of. Yea, but elsewhere (may some say,) and that but a little after, he turneth himself to the Host, which is said there to be his better or above him, and therefore u At certè purus panis non supra nos est. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 2. c. 3. not bare bread; excusing himself to it, that he presumeth to deal with it. Indeed so it pleaseth x Bellarm. Ibid. Bellarmine to cite him as if he had said; y Pontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet, etc. The high Priest, that he sacrificeth the saving Host, that is above him, z Se excusat ad ipsum exclamans, etc. excuseth himself to him, or to it, crying out; Thou hast said, Do this; etc. But let Dennis speak in his own language, or but a Perionii versio à Lansselio Soc. jes. subornata & suppleta. as their own writers translate him, and both Bellarmine's misalleadging of him will soon be discovered, and the force of his reason drawn from thence utterly dissolved. That which he saith is word for word thus; b Dionys. Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. part. 3. The divine Hierarch standing at the divine Altar, c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. celebrateth (that is, praiseth and extolleth) Christ's holy divine works out of his most divine care of us for our salvation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated. Which having celebrated, and by contemplation with intellectual eyes taken a venerable and spiritual view of them, he passeth unto d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sacrificium quod signis continetur. Lauss. the symbolical celebration (or, holy administration) of them, and that e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. according to divine Tradition: Wherefore religiously and hierarchically (that is, as becometh an Hierarch, or a Bishop) after the holy celebration (or, f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Divinorum operum laudes. solemn praise) of those divine works, g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat se purgat. Laus. he maketh an Apology for himself in regard of that boly service (or, sacrifice, as they translate it, though * It is used by this Author oft. speaking of Baptism. chap. 2. the word be more general) that is to worthy for him to deal with, crying out to him, (to whom but to Christ jesus before mentioned?) Thou hast said, Do this in remembrance of me. And then h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. having requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and divine service in holy manner, and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it, he performeth the most divine service, etc. For uncovering i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the bread that was hitherto covered and undivided, and dividing it into many pieces, and k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. distributing to them all the one only Cup, be doth symbolically, further their unity, l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. thereby performing his most holy service. Now where is there here any mention of an Host? or affirming that Host to be above him or better than himself? or making any speech at all to it? And yet if it were Christ, to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it? what should he speak to him as sited elsewhere, when he hath him corporally there present? The rather if, as they tell us, * Corpus Christi, sive Christus, ibi videt & audit, quamuis non loquitur, ne deprehendatur. Bonauent. in sent. I. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2. he seeth there what we do, and heareth what we say, though he say nothing himself, because he would not be discovered. Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy service then and there to be performed, to be too worthy for him to deal with? And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministry of the word; that m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 2. Cor. 2. 16. no man is sufficient, or n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ut Math. 3. 11 & 8. 8. Luke 3. 17. & 7. 6. worthy enough for such a work? Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptism, and the administration of it? There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all help to establish the Popish Transubstantiation. And yet this is all, that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce. Who though indeed otherwise not free from sundry fantastical conceits, yet is so far from inclining to that prodigious fancy, that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament (as the ancient Scholiast also hath well observed on him) runneth clean another way. He calleth the Eucharist, (as you have heard) o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a symbolical service; and p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a distribution of bread and a Cup: and the bread and the Cup used in it, q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. symbols or signs, and r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. images, or s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pictures, and t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. patterns u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. resembling the truth of their principals, to which he doth also there oppose them. And not we, but the Monk Maximus anciently expounding him, x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Maxim. Scholar in Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3. Mark you (saith he) how still he calleth this divine service a Symbolical service; that is, y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a service (saith he) consisting of Symbols or Signs; and z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Maxim. ibid. the holy gifts themselves signs or symbols of the true things above. And again, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. He calleth them pictures and images of true things unseen. And if we ask him what that word Symbol or Sign signifieth; a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in interpret. nom. A Symbol or Sign (saith he) is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible, as bread and wine for the spiritual and divine food and refection, and the like. Yea hereupon he inferreth that b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in schol. because these things are Symbols and Signs, they are not therefore the truth itself. For c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in cap 4. the image (saith he elsewhere, and that from Dennis himself too) albeit it have never so near a resemblance, yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance. d Dionys. eccles. hierar. c. 4 The thing indeed itself (saith this Dennis) that by an exact image or picture is represented, is, if we may so say, thereby e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. doubled, while f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the truth is showed in the type, and g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the precedent or principal in the picture or pattern; but yet there is for all that a diversity of substance in either. From this Dennis his own grounds therefore, we may well reason and conclude thus against the Popish doctrine which they would have him to uphold. No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is: But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images (so he termeth them) of the spiritual food, to wit, the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it. Or as Maximus directeth us; No type is the Truth: * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Maxim in lib de diuin. nomin. c. 4. for it were then no type: But these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. are Types: and consequently other than the Truth. The second allegation is out of Irenaeus: 1. Irenaeus (saith he) denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread, but 2. The Eucharist, consisting of two things, heavenly and earthly, that being received into our bodies they may be no more corruptible, having the hope of resurrection. These words indeed are found the most of them in Irenaeus, but are foully disjointed, and related in other manner than they lie in Irenaeus his context. As the bread (saith he) that is from the earth after divine invocation is no more common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly: So our bodies receive the Eucharist are not now corruptible, having the hope of resurrection. 3. Where first, He denieth the bread after consecration, to be any more i Non iam communi pani, etc. common bread: as before him justin Martyr, that they received those creatures k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. apolog. 2. not as common bread, or common drink. And doth not their Cyril (as before you heard) deny the oil also after it is consecrate, to be any more l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril catech. myst. 3. common oil? Or may we not say truly as the Ancients also oft do? yea dare any Christian man say otherwise, but that the water in Baptism being once consecrated, is no more * Non iam aqua communis. Chrysost. hom. in Psal. 22. & Greg. Nyssen, de Baptism. 〈…〉 Irenaeus contr. Valent. l. 4. c, 34. common Water? There is nothing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread, but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature: since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expel either other. Secondly, he saith that the Encharist consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. And do not all Sacraments the same? Or doth not Baptism the like? you may be pleased to consider, what out of their own m Ambros. nom. de initiat. mist c. 3. Ambrose was before said of it; as also out of Gregory Nyssene is here after related. For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine objecteth, that no man would say that the water of Baptism consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly: For neither * Greg. Nyssen. de baptis. doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist itself of such two things consisteth. But I n Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 6. would fain know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should, when the bread is once consecrated, consist at all of any earthly thing, when the substance thereof is (as they say) thereby utterly abolished? Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly, and theirs having none at all such, are not one and the same. Thirdly, Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more now corruptible; in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection, which thereby they are assured of and sealed up unto: (for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible?) as he afterward expoundeth himself. And what is said more here of the Lords Supper, than o Ad spem resurrectionis Baptizatur corpus quae nisi corporalis, non alias sic baptismate corporali obligaretur. etc. Tertull. de resurr. carn. Hinc Hilar. de Trinit. l. 9 Regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus. Tertullian and others say of Baptism, to wit, that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternal? yea let them look back but a line or two, and they shall soon see, how little Irenaeus favoureth their cause? p Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire etc. quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34. How (saith he) say they that the flesh perisheth and liveth not everlastingly, that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which he calleth the body and blood of Christ. And elsewhere more plainly: q Quando mixtus cali● & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Idem l. 5. c. 4. When the Cup mixed, and the bread broken receiveth the word of God, it becometh the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth. r Idem ibid. Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternal, that is nourished with Christ's body and blood? And again, s Ea dispositio quae est secundum hominem, quae ex carnibus & neruis & ossibus consistit, de chalice, qui est sanguis eius nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus eius augetur. Ibid. That part of man that consisteth of flesh, sinews and bones, is nourished by the cup that is his blood, and groweth, or is increased by the bread that is his body. The same with that, which out of justine we shall hereafter further consider of, that t Ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. apolog. 2, our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharistical food by a change thereof, that is, it being changed and turned into them. But to say so u Eucharistia nutriri corporis nostri substantiam nih●l fingi potest absurdius. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2 c 4. of the very body and blood of Christ is, by these men's own grants, most absurd. That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus, and before him justine, speak thus of, is not the very flesh and blood of Christ itself, but x Offerimus ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. Irenaeus l. b. 4. cap. 34. the creature sanctified, as he himself termeth it; or y Primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturatum offerentes. the first-fruits of God's creatures, which in way of thankfulness, z Offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius. Ibid. with thanksgiving, he saith, they offer unto God; why so termed, is out of Augustine and others showed elsewhere. The third allegation is (as he saith) out of a Patres in votis primi Niceni Consilii. the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Council. Where I might well out of Cardinal Baeronius except, that there are b Baron. annal. tom. 3. anno 325. num 62. & 63. no● Acts of that first Nicene Council now extant: and that the work out of which this allegation is taken, is c I'd ex Photio, ibid. et annal. tom. 6. anno 496. no record of those Acts, but a story only of that Council, written by one that lived long after it, d Baron ibid. & Greg. de Valent. de transubstan. l. 2. c. 7. whom they themselves account to be but a sorry obscure fellow, and one of no great credit. But let the Author, or the Relator rather, pass; and let us hear his relation. Those holy Confessors (saith he) will us at the divine Table not to regard only bread and wine proposed, but to elevate our mind by faith, and be hold on the holy Table the Lamb of God, etc. by Priests unbloodily sacrificed; and receiving his body and blood to believe them to be symbols and pledges of our resurrection. here is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause. First, they acknowledge “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist: which these men utterly deny. Secondly, they will us * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not basely to regard therein the bread and cup, or the elements only. And the very same in the same place of Baptism they say, that e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gelas. Cyzic de act. Conc. Nic. diatyp 4. we must not so much regard in it the water that we see, as the power of God accompanying it; of which we shall speak more upon another the like occasion f Diuis. 8. sect. 4. hereafter. Thirdly they will us g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Ibid. diatyp. 5. to lift up our mind, and by faith to consider (for so their words are) the Lamb of God lying on the Table. And by faith we grant that he is not seen and considered only, but received also in the Eucharist. Fourthly, they say, not (as this man translateth it) that he is unbloodily there sacrificed, but that he is h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. without sacrificing there sacrificed; that is not really, but i Mysticè immolatur, & in mysterio Christi passio traditur. Paschas. Pp. apud Grat▪ de cons. dist. 2. c. Iteratur. mystically and symbolically sacrisiced; or k Non rei veri●●te, sed significante mysterio. Aug. ibid. c. Hoc est. not in truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying the same: as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselves speak. Fiftly, they say, that we receive his body and blood in the Encharist; yea they are reported to say (which he omitteth here) that we do l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. truly receive them: which that we do truly also and effectually (according to our doctrine) though spiritually and not corporally, hath m Discourse Argument 〈…〉. Answer to Objection. already been shown, and shall n Division 12. in his due place again be further confirmed. And lastly, that these are o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. symbols or pledges of our resurrection; which how they was are was before showed out of Tertullian, who p Caro abluiter, ungitur, signatur, manuum impositione adumbratur, corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, etc. Tertul. de resur. carn. from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in general (as well other as these) that the body partaketh in, draweth r Quam Deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestivit, cuius munditias amat, castigationes probat, passiones adpreciar, haeccine non resurget? Ibid. Arguments to confirm the faith of the resurrection of it. The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem, whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from s Bella. de Euchar. l. 3 c. 19 Bellarmine: which Bellarmine when he hath cited, addeth withal in a bravery, as if the proofs were so pregnant that there were no gainsaying of them, t Idem ibid. To this testimony our adversaries neither do answer, nor indeed can answer aught. That none had then answered, was not much to be marvelled: as u Harding answer to jewel. art. 10. Sect 6. Harding saith of their Cyrill; few had yet the q Sacrificia Deo grata de bonis carnis adolentur Deo. sight of him. One of that name indeed wrote many things x Hieron. in catolog. Script. in the Syriac tongue long since, having no skill at all in the Greek. And under his name our Popish Fatherbreeders have of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises, that have no testimony at all from antiquity the most of them; translated (as they tell us) out of Greek, which he good man never spoke; quoting some of them Greek Authors at large, whom he never understood; wanting all of them that a A cumen sublimis ingen i. Hieron. cattle. scr subtlety and sublimity of wit, that Jerome commendeth in Ephrems works, and b Hieron. ibid. & Sozom. hist. l. 3. c. 16. appeared even in the trarslations of them, as both he and others affirm of them; very sorry and silly things a great part of them; not free from gross untruths and c In his last Will and Testament, that he never in all his life spoke foolish word, nor cursed any one, nor was contentious, etc. And yet the direct contrary in his Relation to the Monks of his Conversion. contradictions, yea and ridiculous too, if not impious assertions; as that d Saluete omnes Sancti, saluete Apostoli, Prophetae, etc. De poenit. c. 7. the damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19 & Sozom. l. 3. c. 16. heaven, and by name the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, the patriarchs, Monks, and the Virgin Mary: and lastly their e Tot ferè mutationes, inversiones, & additiones, dum iste omittit quae ille habet, & contra, quot verba. Rivet. specim. Criti. l. 3. c. 21. several editions of them so chopped and changed, mangled and made up again, cut off or pieced out, as they pleased that had the breeding of them, that scarce any one of them is any whit like another. The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered, before the Author himself was hatched, and his works abroad in men's hands, that they might be seen and known what they were. And now that they are seen and known what they are, they appear plainly to be such, that they are not worthy of any answer. Unless it be deemed equal that we be tied to answer to every saying that is alleged out of any counterfeit, that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapped on his Frontispiece. And yet neither are this Author's words (what ever he be) by the Cardinal's good leave, for all his great brag, so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be given to them. He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable: and who denieth it? this follow himself f Division. 12. bringeth in Calvin and Beza saying the same: and that men ought not to g Curiosè rimari. pry over curiously into them: wherein not we, but their * Qui tamen ipse in Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Dennis is faulty, & their h Vide Eras. in moria, & in enchirid. Sarcer. de vanit. Scholar Theolog. Statum lacessunt omnipollentis Dei calumniosis litibus: Fidem mintuis dissecant ambagibus: Vt quisque lingu● nequior; Soluunt ligantque quaestionum vincula Persyllogismos Plectiles Quid non libido mentis humanae stru●t? Quid non malo●um prutiat? Prudent. apotheos. Schoolmen who with their wanton wit have therein exceeded all bounds as well of modesty as of measure: * Pa●ticipa corpori Domini tui fide. that we partake with our Lords immaculate body by faith: (for so in Uossius his edition are his words distinguished) which we may well without any such corporal presence of it, as i See Division 12. num. 2. by their own Authors is confessed: that k Certum quod agnum ipsum integrum comedis. we must be assured that we eat the Lamb himself whole: which is contrary, not to our doctrine, who say and show evidently, that l See Division 6. Sect. 6. the Fathers did as much that lived even before Christ was incarnate, but to m Ibid. Sect. 1. num. 4. the doctrine of their Pope Nicholas, as elsewhere is showed. So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at, or that should be deemed so unanswerable: unless he will press us with that that followeth, that n Ignem & spiritum manducandum ac bibendum praestitit nobis, corpus sci●. & sanguinem suum. Ephren. ibid. Christ giveth us fire to feed on, when he giveth us his body: as Chrysostome saith sometime that o Chrysost, de Euchar. in encaen. fire floweth from the Lords table, and it is a coal of fire that we receive in the Eucharist. Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually, as I suppose they must needs, let them give us the like liberty to understand the former words in like manner. I will add only and so leave this Ephrem, what in the very same discourse himself saith: p Quaenam sit ista potio atque perceptio disc●re nostrum est. Ephrem de non scrutan not. Dei. what this potion and perception is (saith he) it is our part to learn: (And it is lawful then belike, yea and our duty too, to make some kind of inquiry into it.) Mark diligently, how Christ taking bread into his hands, q Benedixit & fregit in figuram corporis sui. blessed it, and broke it, for a figure of his immaculate body; and how he r In figuram sanguinis sui benedixit. ib. blessed the Cup, for a figure of his blood. Which words (I take it) incline rather to our doctrine then to theirs. And yet further in the same Treatise: s Fidei oculis etc. Dei agnum sincere intuetur. With the eyes of faith, when like light it shineth bright in a man's heart, doth he clearly see the Lamb of God, that was slain for us, and that hath given us his holy and immaculate body t Vt eo perpetuo vescamur. perpetually to feed upon, and to partake of unto remission of sins. u Si quis hunc side● oculum possider, patenter & lucidè con●picit Dominum. This eye of faith he that hath, doth clearly and openly see the Lord, and x Fide agni immaculati corpus manducat & sanguinem bibit. by a sure and full faith eateth of the body of that immaculate Lamb, the only begotten son of the heavenly Father, and drinketh his blood, etc. By faith (saith he) we see the Lamb of God, (as expounding that that was said out of the story of the Nicene Council before) and by faith we seed on him, and his body and blood, and partake of him, perpetually; and not in the Eucharist only. Which as it fitteth not their oral manducation, which without faith may be effected, so it agreeth well with that spiritual feeding, that we expound our Saviour's words of. So little doth this their Ephrem further or avail them in this Argument. Lastly, for the high terms and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers give the Eucharist; let him but compare them with s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. hier. eccles. c. 2. Punici Christiani Baptis. salutem, Sacramentum corporis Christi vitam vocant. Aug. de pecc. mer. l. 1. c. 24. those that they give to its elder sister, the other Sacrament of Baptism, and I suppose he will find little odds between either. Only for what he saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it: let the places be produced, and they shall then be answered. That they are present oft, (and if present, no doubt present with much reverence) as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper, as at other parts of God's worship; and z Heb. 1. 6 that they adore him who is therein represented, (which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by * De Euchar. l. 2. c. 22. Bellarmine) we deny not: and of Baptism in effect their “ In praefat. ad Catechis. Cyrist saith as much. But that they do adore as y 1 Cor. 11. 10. God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake, as the Papists do in their Mass, therein committing as gross idolatry (it is * Talis error qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt statuam auream aut argenteam, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel pannum ubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis, etc. Coster. jesuit, enchirid. de Transubstan. their own grant, if it be not Christ, which we well know it is not) as ever any was in the world, that we utterly deny, nor will this Defendant ever be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that ever so said. And thus much for his allegations, though produced here to no purpose, to disprove (as they might well enough without hurting of us) no assertion of ours, but a fiction of his own framing; nor was it necessary therefore that they should have been answered. Let us now proceed to the next part of his Answer. Division 6. HIs next ground for overthrowing our literal understanding of Christ's words and real presence of his true N. P. body and blood in the Sacrament, is an unlearned and slender manner of proving our Saviour's large discourse in S john. 6. not to be at all understood of sacrament all manducation, but spiritual eating his flesh and blood by believing in him. And first he quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech, making Berengarius in the abjuration of his heresy to affirm not only the sign, but the body itself of Christ to be handled by the Priest's hands, and rend and bruised with the teeth of the faithful, etc. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Council of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting heretic make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning our Saviour's being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament, and mouths of such as receive him impassable now in his own corporal nature glorified, and uncapable of renting or any kind of corporal mutation, as being not with the sacramental signs also quantitatively extended, but indivisibly and after a spiritual manner existing, yet really handled and received as Angels in assumpted bodies are said to be seen, and felt, and as S. john Baptist likewise joh. 1. said he saw the holy Ghost, when he only saw a Dove the sign of his presence, etc. which manner of speech is not unusual with the holy Fathers. Thou seest him, (saith S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ in the Sacrament) Thou touchest him, Thou eatest him, etc. Which is the same in sense which Pope Nicholas affirmeth, only he explicateth somewhat more particularly the division and fraction of the sacramental forms containing the very body and blood of Christ, under them all and each particle of them entirely and undevidedly remaining. Insomuch as john Husie falsely wont by our Adversaries to be claimed for Patron and faithful witness of their doctrine, singeth thus in certain verses of Christ's presence and manner of being received in the Sacrament, which he with us to his dying day constantly believed, as now also his disciples do after him; Non est panissed est Deus Qui in cruse pependisti Non augetur consecratus; Nec divisus in fractura, Homo liberator meus: Et in carne defecisti: Nec consumptus fit mutatus; Plenus D●us in statura. It is not bread, but God and Man my Redeemer, who hanged on a Cross, and died in flesh for me. He is not increased on multiplied by Consecration, nor divided in breaking of the Host, but God full in stature. So likewise S. Andrew in his passion authentically (as l Lib. 2. de Euchar. Bellarmine proveth) written by the Clergy of Achaia present thereat, told the Procounsul Egeus; I daily offer to God, who is one and omnipotent, not the flesh of Bulls & blood of Goats, but the immaculate Lamb upon the Altar, whose flesh when all the multitude of faithful people hath received, the Lamb sacrificed integer persever at ac viws; doth live and remain entire, etc. So as Pope Nicholas doctrine understood of Christ's flesh being eaten in the Sacrament, needeth not Gratians Gloss to save it from heretical blaspemy and the danger of a worse opinion than Berengarius renounced, unless he had taught Christ's flesh in itself to have been torn with teeth and bloodily eaten, as the Capharnites imagined; and m S. Aug. in Psal. 98. the Gentile persecutors were went to object against poor Christians, that they did eat the flesh of a certain man in their synaxes and meetings; calling them men eaters, etc. to wit, because they did eat bread and drink wine consecrated by the miraculous force of Christ's words into his natural flesh and blood; as Saint justine that holy Martyr and great Christian Philosopher told Aurelius the Emperor in his second Apology for Christians; where he describeth (as much as it was fit for him to open the heavenly mysteries of our faith to the Gentiles) the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by us: this being the new Oblation of the New Testament, as n Lib. 2. c. 32. S. Irenaeus termeth it, instituted by Christ in his last Supper, and that clean Sacrifice which Malachi foretold should succeed in place of the jewish Sacrifices, and be offered by the Gentiles in all places. IN the next place I proceed to discuss the words of T. G. our Saviour concerning the eating his flesh and drinking his blood. john 6. Where first I quarrel (he saith) at P. Nicholas his manner of speech devised purposely (as this mine Adversary here informeth us) in a Council of learned Bishops to make a slippery shifting heretic, make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning the real presence. His words are, as I have related them, that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with men's teeth, not sacramentally only, but sensually. Which palpable absurdities, and carnal and Capernaitical assertions this Defendant would fain salve if he could; (but he showeth himself therein but a sorry Quacksalver.) 1. By citing (besides some of his own counterfeits, of which more anon) a saying of S. Chrysostome, affirming that the faithful see, and touch, and eat Christ in the Eucharist: which neither they nor we deny; nor is it ought to the purpose, unless Chrysostome should also say, that he is eaten in such sort as Pope Nicholas averreth, not sacramentally only, or spiritually, but even sensually: so he saith. For so t Galat. 3. 1. the Galathians also saw him crucified (as the Apostle telleth them) in their sight: and some of the Ancients say that even u Quotidiè nascitur Christus. Hieron. nomine in Ps. 86. Quotidiè nobis crucifigitur: quotidiè resurgit. Idem in Psal. 95. Quod Bern. explicatius, in vigil. nativ. ser. 6. Immolatur adhuc quotidiè, donec mortem eius annuncia● us: 〈…〉 videtur, dum nativitatem eius fideliter repraesentamus. at this day he is crucified. 2. By telling us that Christ's glorified body is incapable of renting: which if it be so, how saith Pope Nicholas that it is torn in pieces? This is a strange manner of saluing him, to tell us that that cannot be done, which he in precise terms saith is usually done. And mark here (I pray you how these men * Quod Cardano Seal. de su●ti●. exerc. 149. More Cingarorum in Alpinis mercatibus intus foras mitt●nt corrigiolam. play fast and loose with us. They tell us, when we press them with the indignity of the thing, that Christ's body cannot be bruised now or broken: and this is (it seemeth) when they speak mystically or shiftingly, as he speaketh. But when they make a plain and direct confession (for so he saith Pope Nicholas did when he thus spoke, and no forms are more exact, saith `` Nullae sunt exactior●s formulae loquendi in materia fide●, quam eae, quibus utuntur, qui haeresin abiurant Bellar. de imag. c. 22. Bellarmine, than those forms of abjuration are) than they acknowledge that according to their saith and belief (if they believe at least as they speak, and do not dally with us and delude us) Christ's very body is sensually rend and torn in pieces in the Sacrament. 3. By granting that if he had taught that Christ's flesh in itself were torn with teeth, etc. it were indeed heretical blasphemy. And what other thing (I pray you) doth Pope Nicholas affirm, when he saith that * Non solum sacramentum, sed verum corpus & sanguinem Christi in veritate sensual●ter, & none in sacramento tantum tracta ●i & frangi Durand. ex Nicol. in ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 2. ad 6. p. can. Christ's very body not in the Sacrament only, but in very truth and sensually is torn in pieces with men's teeth? This is not to excuse him, but to accuse and condemn him both of heresy and blasphemy. 4. By affirming that the Pope's words need not Gratians Gloss to save them from any such imputation. Yet Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman (whom we rather believe) freely confesseth that Pope Nicholas in so saying u Veritatem excessit Gabr. Biel in Can Miss. lect 80. exceeded the truth; (as another Gloss on Gratian also x Gloss. ad Grat de consecr dist. 2. c. utrum. elsewhere acknowledgeth) and while he sought to shun one error ran into another: wherein * Quae nec Roffensis contra Oecolamp. l. 2. c 12. nec Caietanus lib. de coena Domini ab errore liberare potuerunt. Canus loc. Commun. l. 5. c. 1. others also of their own writers dare not defend him. So that the Pops sitting in his Chair, yea and in Council too, with all his learned Bishops, like himself, round about him, consistorially to censure and to determine truth in matter of faith, may yet err for all his infallibility, so much & so oft bragged of. And it was not unwisely done of Bellarmine to let this pass, y De Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. where he relateth and refuteth as well as he may, the several errors and heresies that their Popes are charged with. §▪ 2. here by the way (though little to the present purpose, to wit, the clearing of Pope Nicholas) that he may fill up his Discourse with some show of allegations; 1. He telleth us that john hus was of their judgement concerning the Sacrament; and allegeth a sorry Rome to prove it; which whence he hath, I know not, nor am able to say, what Husse sometime held: But sure I am that in the Council of Constance one of the Articles, wherewith he was charged, and for which condemned, and (contrary to the Emperor's safeconduct granted him) perfidiously burnt, was a Concil. Constant. Sess. 15. art. 17. the denial of Transubstantiation as a device invented to delude simple people with: and the teaching and maintaining as well publicly as privately that the substance of bread, and material bread, remained after Consecration in the Sacrament; deposed by many that had heard him, and that had argued about it with him. 2. He citeth a few Fathers, some forged, as the Author of the Passion of S. Andrew; some falsified, as that of justine Martyr; (which shall by and by be examined) some saying nothing but what we will willingly yield him, as both Irenaeus, and that also out of the apocryphal Story of S. Andrew: which howsoever he saith that Bellarmine (which is his wont manner of proof) hath proved to be authentical: Yet neither are his proofs pregnant; no just antiquity being produced for it; and by b To which add Card. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ann. 44. nu. 42. & 43. & ann 69. num. 34. acknowledging as much. others of their own (as we showed before) it is confessed to be apocryphal: and, if we may believe Bellarmine himself, there is some gross untruth in it. For this uncertain Author affirmeth that S. Andrew was not nailed with nails, but with cords eyed to the cross, (as their counterfeit c Abdias Babylon. histor. lib. 3. Abdie also saith) that he might live the longer in pain, as he did preaching two days together as he hung there alive: Whereas, if d Bellarm. de cult. Sanct. l. 2. c. 27. Bellarmine may be believed, it was not so, but he was with nails fastened, as e joh. 20. 25. Christ was, to the Crosse. But to leave that, as saying nothing that we need stick at; no more than we do at aught that out of Irenaeus is alleged. I may not let pass his falsifying of justine Martyr; whom having so little occasion to allege here, he may well seem for no other end to have alleged, but to falsify what he saith of this Sacrament; in which kind he hath the best gift one of them that ever I knew any. justine Martyr (saith he) in his 2. Apology, where, as far as was fit, etc. he describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by us, telleth Antoninus the Emperor that they did therein eat bread and drink wine converted by the miraculous force of Christ's words into his natural flesh and blood. Now hear Justines' own words: Having spoken before of Baptism: After this (saith he) is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the Prelate of the brethren: Who receiving the same sendeth up praise and glory to the Father of all, by the name of the Son and the holy Ghost; and at large giveth thanks to him for being vouchsafed to be by him reputed worthy of these things. And when he hath ended his prayers and thanksgiving, all the people answer, Amen. Now when the Prelate hath given thanks, and all the people have answered, those that we call Deacons, give to each one of those that be present to partake of f Eucharisticatum. i. sanctificatum & benedictum. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10. the blessed Bread, and wine and water, and they carry of it to those that be not present. And this food is with us called the Eucharist; which none may partake of but those that believe, have been baptised, and live as Christ taught. For we receive not these things as common Bread and Wine; but in like manner as Christ our Saviour being by the word of God incarnate had flesh and blood, so have we been taught that the food g Eucharistiam factum. Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. blessed by the word of prayer that is from him, whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus Christ incarnate. For so in the Gospels have the Apostles delivered that jesus enjoined them, having taken the bread and given thanks to say, Do this in remembrance of me; This is my Body: And taking the Cup likewise, and having given thanks to say; This is my blood; and to give it to such only. Now first tell me (I pray you) where there is any mention of a Sacrifice in justine, distinct especially from the Sacrament, that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with, should say; justine describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament. True it is that the Father's term the Lords Supper oft a Sacrifice; (as we also in our Liturgy:) partly in regard of the h Vnde & Eucharistia dicitur. jansen concord. cap. 131. Vide Aug. epist 120. & Euseb. demonstr. Euang. l. 1. c. 10. spiritual Sacrifice of praise therein offered; and partly because it is a lively representation and commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice i Heb. 13. 15. once offered on the Cross; (as their k Lombard. sent. l 4. d. 22. Master of the Sentences himself explaineth it;) and partly also because l Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 4. Ambr. in Luc. c. 1. Gaudent. in Exod. tract. 2. & Aug. contr. Faust. l. 6. c. 5. & l. 20. c 21. & contr. advers. leg. & proph. c. 18. it succeedeth in the room of the Passeover, and those other Sacrifices, that in the old Testament were offered. But that they ever dreamt of any other Sacrifice distinct and diverse from the Sacrament, no Papist shall ever be able to prove. Nor either out of our Saviour's words, or justines' report can be gathered. 2. Observe how justly justine describeth the whole order of this Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament, as it is celebrated by them. Yea, mark and judge (I pray you) whether his description of it come nearer unto ours or unto theirs. 1. Where are all those cross and bend, and ●ringes, and turnings, and elevations, and adorations, and mimic gestures, and apish sooleries that their Masse-bookes enjoin? 2. As well the cup as the bread is given to all present; which justine also saith that Christ enjoined them to give; and which Pope Gelasius m Divisio unius eiusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenice. Gelas. Pp. apud Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. ●ōperimus. saith cannot be severed from the Bread without great Sacrilege. Whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it. How many toys are there in theirs that are not touched at all in justine? And again, what is there in justines' relation, that is not found in our Protestanticall (as he termeth it) communion? that sending of it home ordinarily only excepted, which neither they themselves use ordinarily when they celebrate, and the danger of repair hindering access (it seemeth) then occasioned. 3. Where doth justine say, as this corrupt corrupter reporteth him, that they eat bread and drink wine converted by the miraculous force of Christ's words into his natural flesh and blood? No one word in him of a miraculous conversion, nor of their being the natural flesh and blood of Christ. There is mention indeed of a change, and that a natural change, not of the creatures into Christ's natural flesh and blood, but of the blessed food, Or the food made the Eucharist (as n De Eucharist. lib. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine translateth it) into our flesh. Which words though o Bellarm. ibid. Bellarmine would fain wrest awry, because they wring him, yet no Grammar will admit any other sense of them. From whence it is apparent that the blessed food that justine speaketh of, is not really, but symbolically and figuratively Christ's body. For p Eucharistia nutriri substantiam corporis nostri, nihil absurdius fingi potest. Bellarm. Ibid. there can nothing be devised more absurd (saith Bellarmine) then that the Substance of our bodies should be nourished with Christ's flesh. But our flesh and blood (and that, I hope, is the substance of our Bodies; as Irenaeus also expressly speaketh) are nourished (saith justine) by the blessed food, or by the Bread and Wine made the Eucharist, and that q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. N. P. by a * Ex quibus augetur carnis nostrae Substantia. Iren. l. 4 c. 5. change of the things received. The blessed food therefore that justine speaketh of, is not really Christ's natural Body, as this mis-reporter and mis-expounder of him affirmeth. NEither can ever the Minister prove his ensuing Assertion, that Christ's corporal presence in the thing eaten must necessarily infer and enforce a corporal and carnal manner of eating him, unless his body had therein a corporal extensive and sensible manner of existing; which is by no Catholic Author affirmed; and so no heinous and unseemly thing is in such a manner of receiving Christ's body committed: For avoiding whereof we should be enforced to run to a figurative interpretation of our Saviour's speeches, joh. 6. So as to exclude the real receiving of our Saviour's flesh and blood in the Sacrament; as out of an obscure place of S. Austin, cited by him page 7. and fully o Lib. 2. de Euchar. answered by Cardinal Bellarmine, he falsely gathereth; the place proving no more but that our Saviour's speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figurative so far forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten, but after a Sacramental and invisible manner, as the signs of bread and wine do contain them; the chief end of his being so received by us being indeed to communicate with Christ's passion, and profitably to lay up in our memories that his flesh was wounded for us, as S. Austin in that place affirmeth. Whose p Vide apud Bellarm. l. 2. de Euchar. plain places for the real receiving of our Saviour's body and blood in the Sacrament my superficial Adversary taketh no notice of, but as Eels love rather to hide themselves in dirt then to swim in clear waters; so are he and his companions glad to hide themselves and their heretical novelties, in dark and obscure places of the holy Fathers, not regarding their pregnant and plain testimonies for us, and against them, unanswerably in other places expressed. § 3. AT length he pleaseth to recollect himself and T. G. return to the matter in hand. Christ's corporal presence (saith he) in the thing eaten, doth not necessarily infer and enforce a corporal and carnal manner of eating him, unless his body had therein a corporal, extensive and sensible manner of existing. To pass by these mystical and metaphysical terms, wherewith he and his Associates are wont to enwrap and involve themselves, like Eels in mire and mud (as himself speaketh) that their absurd and senseless doctrines, or dotages rather, may not be discerned; nor to insist upon the implication of contradiction, when he saith that Christ's body is corporally, that is, bodily present in the Eucharist, and yet hath there no corporal, that is, bodily existence: a body bodily present, and yet not bodily existing; like the Marcionites riddles in Tertullian; A man no man; Flesh no flesh; r Vide Tertull. de carn. Christi, & contr. Marc. lib. 4. & 5. a body no body; blood no blood: or, A body; but not as a body; with blood, but not as blood; in a place, but not as in a place; with qualities, but not qualitatively; with quantity, but not quantitatively. Such strange fancies and prodigies are these men's brains possessed with. 1. If the one do not follow upon the other, Pope Nicholas was much to blame, when he inferred thereupon that Christ's very body was sensually (that is as much, if not more then corporally) chewed and eaten in the Eucharist. 2. If it be true that Bellarmine telleth us, that s Carnaliter in nobis manner per Eucharistiam, Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 12. by the Eucharist Christ remaineth carnally in us: which he citeth also, but with a foul hand, and * Per Eucharistiam. some of his own words foisted in, as a saying of S. Hilaries: then sure he must needs carnally be eaten of us. And to see how inconstant error is, and how contrary to itself: one while he saith that there is t Manducatio corporalis. Ibid. a corporal eating of Christ's body in the Sacrament; as their common tenant is: (and how is he not then corporaelly eaten?) and that Christ carnally thereby abideth in us: And yet again another while; out of Athanasius, that u Manducationem corporis Christi non debere carnaliter accipi. Ibid. c. 11 the eating of Christ's body is not carnally to be taken, nor is x Carnali modo. Ibid. c. 14. in a carnal manner to be understood. In a word; 1. Either Bread or Christ's body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist: but not bread, if we believe them; for there is none there: and to say that mere accidents only are chewed and fed upon is most senseless and absurd: It remaineth therefore that Christ's body, if that alone be there, be corporally eaten there, as Pope Nicholas before affirmed. 2. Either Christ's flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiritually only. If corporally, why doth this fellow stick at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually only, why urge they those passages of john 6. to prove 〈…〉 corporal and bodily manducation of Christ's body in the Eucharist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft urged to prove such a carnal eating of Christ. § 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth us, that his superficial Adversary hath in an unlearned and slender manner endeavoured to prove that our Saviour's discourse there is not to be understood of Sacramental Manducation, but of spiritual eating his flesh and blood by believing in him. I propound two Propositions to be proved. 1. That the words are not to be understood of any such corporal eating and drinking, as they hold. 2. That Christ doth not in that whole discourse speak of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was not as yet instituted, but of such spiritual feeding on Christ, as is performed, not in the Sacrament only, but out of it also. The former I prove by a plain place of S. Augustine; which this Adversary, referring us still for an answer to Bellarmine, (from whom he borroweth the most that he hath) saith is an obscure place, and is pleased a little after to term it no better than dirt, which we Protestants, like Eels, desire to hide ourselves in. 1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speak obscurely there, where he giveth rules for the opening and right understanding of places obscure? where should he speak more plainly and perspicuously then there; where his main aim is to make things clear? 2. This shifters answer borrowed from Bellarmine is but a bare shift; to wit, that the place proveth no more, but that our Saviour's speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figurative so far forth, as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten, and in a bloody manner, as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten, etc. As if flesh bought in the shambles used to be eaten raw and in bloody manner. Here is a deal of dirt indeed and mud raised to trouble Augustine's clear water. The Question is whether our Saviour's words be to be understood properly or figuratively. y Non possunt figuratè accipi sed propriè. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 〈…〉. They say properly; and not figuratively: Augustine saith figuratively; and so consequently, not properly: which is as much as is here required. z Caro Christi verè ac propriè manducatur. Bellarm. de Euchar. 〈…〉. 1. c. 11. Christ's body (saith Bellar mine) is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist. But it is no proper, but a figurative eating, saith Augustine, that Christ speaketh of john 6. It is no such eating of Christ's body therefore, as they imagine to be in the Eucharist. Yea so contrary to them, and so pregnant for us is that passage of Augustine, that in Fulbertus his works, where those words of his are related, they have with a foul insertion branded them for a Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo, ●…icet hereti●us, etc. Apud Fulbertum in excerp●is post Se●m ●o tr. jud. p. 168. heretical. Yea but (saith mine Adversary) there are many plain places in Augustine, cited by Bellarmine, for the real receiving of Christ; which my superficial Adversary taketh no notice of. Bellarmine is still much in this man's mouth; and the superficialness of his silly and unlearned Adversary. But this (I am sure) is a very unlearned, slender and superficial proof of points questioned, to turn his Reader over still for satisfaction to some other. Yet I will do him the couttesie, since he telleth us of other plain places in Augustine to present him with one of them, though such an one (it may be) as will not easily go down with him. Augustine speaking of this place in john on Psal. 98. saith that Christ having used those words, b joh 6. 35. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. When some understood them c Stultè carnaliter. foolishly and carnally, he taught them to understand them d Spiritaliter intelligere. spiritually; saying, e joh. 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak are Spirit and life. As if he should have said; understand you spiritually what I have spoken. f Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatur, iestis & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. You are not to eat that body which you see, and to drink that blood which they will shed that shall crucify me. g Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oport●t tamen invifibiliter intelligi. N. P. I have commended a kind of Sacrament unto you; which being spiritually understood will quicken you. Though it must be visibly colebrated, yet is it invisibly to be understood. Thus Augustine in plain terms: and yet if we believe these men, the very same body of Christ that was then seen, and that very same blood that was shed on the Cross is orally eaten and drunk in the Eucharist. ANd surely if the Authority of holy Fathers might prevail with the Minister further than himself listeth, he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the ancient Doctors expounding or treating of Christ's words, joh. 6. have literally understood them of the Sacrament, as learned q Tolet in c. 6. joan. Tolet, r Saunders in lib. de illo cap. Saunders, s Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. Bellarmine, and other of our divines have particularly proved; collecting from them invincible Testimonies also, to prove the verity of our Saviour's body and blood really in the Sacrament contained and received: Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. john purposely to have emitted all mention of the Sacrament in our Saviour's last Supper, because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospel so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heavenly fruits thereof: and many evident and unanswerable Arguments are by Catholic expositors of that Chapter made to prove the same; which with silence my Adversary overpasseth. First, (for example) our Saviour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had given to the jews loving the world so as to give his only begotten Son for it, and the gift which himself meant to give to them, speaking of the one as a gift already past; but of the other as of a gift afterwards to be given unto them. Secondly, He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert; which was a corporal food really eaten by them. Thirdly, If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Saviour meant no other thing then that they should believe in him, it had been a strange course in him, who so thirsted after the salvation of souls by an obscure manner of speaking to drive away so many, such persons especially as had formerly followed him, without any word added, which might open this obscure doctrine unto them; as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole process of our Saviour's doctrine. § 5. MY second Proposition is, that Christ in that T. G. whole Discourse john 6 doth not speak of the Eucharist. That Augustine and diverse others of the ancient Fathers do expound it of feeding on Christ, yet not corporally, but spiritually in the Sacrament (for so h jansen. harmony. Euang. cap. 59 Sed & Gabr. Biel i● Can. Miss. lect. 36. Bishop jansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be understood of seeding on Christ spiritually, not corporally; yea and so * De comestione sacramentali ait Dominus; Accipite & comedite; Hoc est corpus meum: de comestione spirutuali dicit; Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, etc. non habebitis vitam in vobis. Innocent. Pp. apud Durand in ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 2. ad p. 6. Can. & Biel in Can. lect. 36, Pope Innocent himself, witness Durand, and Biel, and “ Magister apud Bonaven. in l. 4. sen. d 9 q. 1. Peter Lombard also, witness Bon●uenture, expound it:) I deny not; nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the main point here in question of Christ's corporal presence. Yet the rather herein we are enforced (together with divers Popish writers) to depart from them in that their exposition; so far forth as they understand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist, (as for the one moiety of that discourse also even * See below Bellar. de Eucharist. l. 1. c. 5. Bellarmine himself doth) in regard of some erroneous consequences that they were by that means enforced unto, which even the Papists themselves now condemn, and for other weighty reasons, as in my first writing I show. Yea but Catholic Expositors (saith this Answerer) by many evident and unanswerable Arguments have proved that it is so to be understood; which his Adversary also (saith he) everpasseth with silence. And say I, A Catholic Expositor (in their language) to wit, Corn. jansenius (no jesuit now, for so this Answerer hath informed me, and yet) a Bishop of Flanders, in a work of his by common consent of the learned among them well approved of (they are the Popes own Censurers words of it) hath by evident and unanswerable Arguments proved that it cannot so be understood; which this mine adversary also overpasseth with silence: And the like also doth Friar Ferus: and Gabriel Biel at large in the place above recited. But he will at length (I hope) say somewhat himself. 1. Our Saviour (saith he) maketh a difference there between the gift which his Father had ●iuen the jews, and the gift that himself meant to give, speaking of the one as past, of the other as to come: This out of Bellarmine. I marvel where this man learned his Logic. He never is lucky in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference between the gift that God the Father had given; and the gift that Christ would give: Ergò Christ's words must needs be understood of his corporal presence in the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what necessity of consequence doth the one follow from the other? For first, Are they divers gifts that God the Father had given and that Christ would give? then the words are not meant of Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gave is given to the faithful, as we say, spiritually; to both faithful and unfaithful, as they affirm, corporally. And therefore the gift is not diverse, as he saith, but the self same. 2. If he say that the gift is diverse in regard of the diverse manner of giving: who knoweth not that Christ, who had been given by his Father (and yet by himself also) in his incarnation; was after i Mat. 20. 28. Ephes. 5. 2. given also by himself (and yet k Rom. 4. 23. and 8. 32. by his Father also) in his passion. So their own jansenius expoundeth his words, that l Quam & in mortem dabo. jansen. ubi sup. he would give his b●die also unto death: and Friar Ferus that m In mortem ad crucem. Fe●us in joan. 6. he would give it unto death on the Cross: for n Illic coquetur panis iste. Fer. ibid. there (saith he) was that bread to be basked: and there that flesh of his (saith Bonaventure) was to be boiled. Yea so Gregory of Valence, My flesh that I will give, p Quam dab● 1. quā●fferam pro mund● vita. Greg. de. Val. de sacr. Mis. 1. 1. c. 3. that is, that I will offer for the life of the world: Where (think we) but on the Cross? 2. Christ (saith he) compareth the eating of his flesh to the jews eating of Manna; which was a corporal food really eaten by them: and he must needs therefore speak of the Eucharist. Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to o In cruse facta est de●octio ca●●is, etc. Bonaven. in sent. l 4. c. 9 q 2. argue on this manner. As if the Manna were not also a spiritual type of Christ: and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth; as the type with the counter-type; the type of the Manna q 1 Cor. 10. 3. a spiritual food then really taken with the spiritual eating of Christ that was therein figured. Or 〈…〉 ●f he might not compare our spiritual feeding on him with some corporal food really eaten (which both here and elsewhere it is confessed, as shall presently be showed, that he doth) and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all. Bellarmine saith indeed that r Bellar. de Euchar. li. 1. c. 5. Christ compareth there with the Manna his body, not as it is received by faith alone, (and then belike by Bellarmine's grant it is truly so also received, even out of the Sacrament) but as in the Sacrament it is received. But how doth he prove it? 1. From the Apostle, where s 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3. he compareth Baptism with the red Sea, and Manna with the Eucharist. But how doth this follow; The Apostle doth so there: therefore our Saviour doth so here? especially considering how diverse the scope of either in either place is. The Apostles scope is to show that t 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. the old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of God's favour and love as we Christians now have; and yet “ Vers. 5-12. were not spared when they provoked him to wrath, for all that. Our Saviour's scope is to prove that the spiritual food of his flesh, which u joh. 6. 27. he there tendered them and advised them to seek after, was much more excellent and of far greater virtue and efficacy, than the Manna that their Fathers did once eat in the Wilderness. For, that x Vide quae ex Cyri●lo jansen. concord. cap. 59 that (considered as corporal food) was itself corruptible, and could not y joh. 6. 49. preserve them that eat of it from death, whereas this was z Vers. 27. food incorruptible, and being spiritually fed on would cause them a Vers. 50. 51. to live for ever. For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it, as with our Baptism he had paralleled the Red Sea before. But for our Saviour so to do there was no necessity at all: Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament, no more than the jews did, that there mentioned it to him; nor doth he speak cught of the Sacrament where he speaketh of the Manna, as b Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5. & 7. see below. Bellarmine also himself acknowledgeth. His speech to them occasioned by the c Vers. 26. bread that they had eaten of, and d Vers. 31. the Manna that they spoke of, is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritan woman, occasioned by e joh. 4. 7 10. the water that he had asked of her; f Vers. 13. 14. He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but he that drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst more, etc. Which had it been considered, would easily have assoiled those difficulties, that (as g Vide jansen. in joan. 6. 49. jansenius observeth) so much troubled Augustine, and Caietan, yea and jansenius himself too. Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should be more mentioned in the one place, than the drink of it in the other. 2. Because h Quia corpus Domini ut sumitur sola fide, non defuit veteribus. Bellar. ibid. Christ's body, as by faith it is received, was not wanting to those of old time, that lived before Christ's Incarnation. What he giveth us here we take, that Christ's body was by faith received even before he was incarnate. But how proveth this that Christ therefore spoke there of a sacramental eating of it? and not rather that he called home those his carnal followers, from the corporal feeding, either on i joh. 6. 26. the bread that they had eaten of, or the k Vers. 31. Manna that they mentioned, and l Vers. 34. would feign still have been fed with, that they might live without labour, not to an eating of sacramental bread, which they would not have much misliked, but to that t Vers. 27. spiritual feeding, u Verse 50, 51. which as well their holy forefathers, as all true and faithful Christians now, were eternally saved by. Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmine's own grants: Who first confesseth this as x Constat in magna parte capitis de Eucharistia non agi. Solun quaestio est de illis verbis, Panis quem ego dabo, etc. & sequentibus Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5. a certain truth, that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Saviour's discourse, before those words, (which were spoken after he had done y Vers. 3, 49. speaking of the Manna) z Vers. 51. The bread that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world. 2. He granteth expressly that those words, a Vers. 35. I am the brad of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger, etc. do b Non pertinent ad Sarramentum propriè Ibid. c. 7. not properly belong to the Sacrament. 3. He observeth c Triplicis panis mentio fit. Bellar ibid. a three fold bread spoken of by our Saviour: the first, that d Panis materialis. material bread, e Vers. 11. 12. that Christ had fed them withal: the second f Secundum panem dicit seipsum esse. spiritual bread, g Vers. 33. 41, 51. himself incarnate, h Verse 27. which he wisheth them to get, and must i Vers. 29. 35. by faith be apprehended, that it may feed and refresh ●s: the third (he might well have said k Vers. 49. M●nna, which he omitteth, termed also l Vers. 31. ex P●… l. 78. 24, 25. bread there, but) m Panis Eucha●…st cousin. Ibid. the sacramental bread (saith he) expressed in those words. n Vers. 51. the bread that I will give, is my fl●sh that I will give for the life of the world: as if this were not the same spiritual bread that he spoke of before. 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist o De pane quem da●u●us erat in coena. Ibid. c. 6. (as they say) & therefore it cannot be the sacramental bread that is there spoken of, neither can it be meant of the bread that Christ was to give in the Supper, as he elsewhere had said: he saith that p Non significat panem triticeum. Ibid. c. 7. bread there signifieth not wheaten bread, q Nec corpus Christi absolutè. nor Christ's body absolutely, but r Cibum generatim. meat or food in general: and so the sense of it is this; The bread, that is, the meat, that I will give, is my flesh itself, that is to be crucified and stain for the salvation of mankind. And he addeth that s Pan●s, i. cibus, etc. Ibid. peradventure our Saviour called his flesh sometimes bread, to show that under the species of bread it was to be eaten. So that all the force of Bellarmine's Argument is but merely conjectural, and dependeth upon a peradventure, which he cannot certainly aver. But t Fortasse ideò carnem suam aliquoties panem appellavit, etc. Ibid. without all peradventure he affirmed before that the bread of which our Saviour said; u joh. 6. 32. My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven; and x Verse 33. The bread of God is he that came from heaven and giveth life to the world: and y Vers. 35. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst: and z Vers. 41. I am the bread that came down from heaven: and again, a Vers. 48. I am the bread of life: and b vers. 50. This is the bread that came down from heaven, that whosoever eateth thereof should never die: and c vers. 51. I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: that the bread I say, of which he said all this, was not the Encharist, or the sacramental bread, and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it. And well may we put it out of peradventure, that the bread of which our Saviour saith d vers. 51. it is his flesh that he will give for the life of the world, and e vers. 54. whosoever eateth of it, hath life everlasting; f vers. 53. which no man also can have without it; is no other than that of which he had before said, that g vers. 35. 48. it is himself, and that h vers. 33. it giveth life to the world, and i vers. 50. 51. life everlasting to every one that eateth of it: the rather also for that our Saviour himself so informeth us when he saith, (not k Transitum facit ad panem Euchar. Bell. ibid. passing as Bellarmine would have it from a second bread to a third, but more particularly expressing what the second bread was, and repeating more fully what before he had said) m vers. 51. I am the living bread that came down from heaven: 〈…〉 vers. 35, 41, 50. if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: n verse. eodem. and the bread that I will give (what bread, think we, but the same that he was even then speaking of? which yet was o Bellar. ubi sup. c. 5. & 7. none of the sacramental bread, saith Bellarmine) is my flesh that I will give for the life of the world. Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramental bread or the Eucharist, no more than the former. But leave we Bellarmine, and return we to this our Defendant, whom we are principally now to deal with. His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist, as against the spiritual eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood by faith. If our Saviour had meant nothing but that they should believe in him, it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking p joh. 6. 66. to drive away so many that had formerly followed him and believed in him, without any word added that might open this dark doctrine. To omit that here again he departeth from Augustine, who q Aug. in joa. tract. 26. saith thus expressly; Our Lord being about to give the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting us tobeleeve in him. r Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem viwm. For to believe in him is to eat that living bread. He that believeth in him feedeth on him, s Qui credit in eum, manducat. In●…sibiliter sa●…r, quin invisibiliter renascitur: iuf us nows in●us est: ubi novell●…r, ibi satiatur. he is fatted invisibly, because he is invisibly bred again: he is there filled, where he is renewed. And again, t Sang●… 'em fuderunt cum saeuire●t, biberunt cum crederent. Aug 〈…〉 joan. tr. 1. Saevieutes ●ude●u●t, credentes biberunt. de temp. 74. & de verb. Dom. 59 They that shed Christ's blood, drank his blood when they believed in him; and u C●edendo biberunt, quem saeviendo fuderunt. Idem. in joan. tr. 8. they drank it by believing in him. 1. It pleased our Saviour sometime, as to x joh. 3. 3. Nicodemus, and to y Math 13. 10, 13, 14. the people ofttimes, to speak things in obscure Parables, which yet to them he did not explicate. “ See Chrys. on joan. hom. 46. Nor may any tax the wisdom of Christ without impiety for so doing. Yea * Sic oportebat ut diceretur, quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur. Aug. in joan. tr. 27. so (saith Augustine) he spoke that here which he would not have all to understand. 2. Those that went away from him upon it, were (as our Saviour himself intimateth) z Read joan. 6. vers. 26. 36, 64, 69, 67, 69. such as followed him only to be fed; and did not believe in him. 3. If his meaning had been that they were to eat of his very flesh itself miraculously made of bread, as these men would make us believe, had it not been as obscure and as difficult for them to have conceived it? 4. It is not true that our Saviour added nothing to explicate himself. Augustine in the place before cited * Exponit quomodo id fiat quod loquitut; & quid sit manducare corpus cius & sanguinem bibere. Aug. in joan. tr. 26. Citante etiam Biele in Can. ject. 36. Beda in 1 Cor. 11. & Fulbert. in excerpt. Exposuit modum attributionis & doni sui. Aug. ibid. 27. showeth that he did. And both in the beginning, when a joh. 6. 32. 33 he first told them of this bread: and ᵈ they desired him ever to give them of it; he maketh them answer in these words; c Vers. 35. I am the bread of life: He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst: and in the process of his speech again, d Vers. 47. Uerely, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, hath life everlasting: Whereby e jansen. harmony. cap. 59 saith jansenius, they might well have understood, in what manner he would give them his flesh to eat. Who also thence gathereth (agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients) that * Idem esse manducare se, & credere in se. Et Biel. Idem est in Christum credere, & in Christum ite: & qui credit in Christum, incorporatur Christo; & per hoc manducat Christum. it is all one to feed on Christ, and to believe in him: As also in the Conclusion and shutting up of all, when he saw how they mistook him: “ Verse 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh availeth nothing: the words that I speak are spirit and life. In which words saith f ●ansen ubi sup. the same jansenius (out of Chrysostome, Theophylact, and b Vers. 34. Augustine) he showeth how they should understand what before he had said. MY Adversary's Arguments to the contrary are merely N. P. topical, and prove nothing. For first it is false, that the faithful jews before Christ did sacramentally receive our Saviour as well as we: which he barely affirmeth and proveth not, page 7. Secondly, those words of Christ, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you; was a precept respectively given and only obliging such persons to an actual receiving of the Sacrament as they were to whom it was uttered; such persons (to wit) as are by age capable of Sacramental manducation. And surely if Christ's words be only understood, as my Adversary would have them, of spiritual eating Christ by faith, they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receive him. For sooner may children receive the Sacrament, especially drink of the consecrated Chalice (as anciently in the Greek and Latin Churches they were went to do) then actually believe in him. His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more (if this Minister had wit to discern the force thereof) against his own exposition of Christ's words, than it doth against our understanding of them. For as all that receive Sacramentally Christ's flesh and blood, are not saved; no more are all that spiritually and by faith eat him. This being sufficient for the verity of our Saviour's speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and heavenly effects which Christ's promises there import in the souls of such as worthily receive it; and such centrarily as come unworthily thereunto receive death and judgement to themselves by it. As for those few Catholic writers who have denied Christ's words in that 6. Chap. of Saint john to have been understood at all of Sacramental manducation; I answer, that their number is not great, and their authority of no weight at all against a numberless multitude of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of better note contrarily understanding them; yielding better reasons for that their literal true explication, and easily soluing all heretical Objections gathered from the literal sense of our Saviour's words in that Chapter against our communion under one kind and other points of Catholic doctrine. And since my Aduersaerie will not stick to contemn these very Authors in their other known Catholic doctrines, why doth he so highly value and mainly urge them in this opinion, wherein without any heretical intention or obstinacy of judgement they differ from us? § 6. AT length he cometh to refute mine Arguments; T. G. which he saith are topical, and prove nothing. My first Argument is this: None are saved but such as so feed on Christ, as is there spoken of. But many are saved that never fed on Christ in the Eucharist; as the Fathers before Christ; the children of the faithful that die infants, etc. Ergò it is not spoken of the Eucharist. To this he answereth. 1. That I barely affirm that the jews before Christ did sacramentally receive Christ as well as we, but I prove it not. It is true; I say obiter that they fed on Christ's flesh spiritually as well as we now do: though that be no part of mine Argument. And I add a place or two of Augustine for the proof of it grounded on the Apostles words, 1. Cor. 10. 3, 4. Which seeing that this shifter overslippeth, let him hear Bishop jansenius himself (not to go any further) relate a little more at large, to wit, that g jansen. ibid. Boni manna manducando vivificati sunt: eo quod sub visibi●● illo cibo etiam spiritualiter manducaverunt ve●um panem vitae per manna significa●um quem & nos ede●…do vivificamur. the good jews in the old Testament were quickened by eating of Manna, because under that visible food they also spiritually did eat the true Bread of Life by Manna signified. Or if jansenius will not serve, let him hear their great Albert; h Albert. Magn. de Sacram. Euchar. serm, 17 Modus manducationis triplex, Sacramentalis tantûm, spiritualis tantùm, sacramentalis & spiritualis simul. There is (saith he) a threefold eating of Christ; sacramentally only, spiritually only, or sacramentally and spiritually both. In the first sort * Omnes saluandi ab origine mundi. all that ever were saved did eat: in the second sort evil Christians eat him in the Sacrament: in the third sort, good communicants only. And again, alleging those words of the Apostle; i Idem ibid. se●m. 18 omnes ●oni veteres in Manna cibum invisibile. n. s●…. Christum spiritu●…ter in●…exerunt, crediderunt, gustaverunt, etc. All those good Ancients in the Manna understood believed and tasted Christ himself, and were thereby saved. And this no Papist (I suppose) will be so absurd as to deny. But this is but a bymatter, no part of the main Argument; and therefore I forbear here to insist further on it. 2. That is as impossible for children to eat Christ by faith spiritually, as to receive him sacramentally in the Eucharist. Not to run out into more Questions than needs must at the present, I answer: 1. Many young ones die, though at years of discretion, when in ordinary course they may well have faith, and believe actually, yet ere they be admitted to the Eucharist: and yet is not their salvation at all thereby preindiced. 2. By the doctrine of their Church even k Bellarm. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 11. ex Concil. Tr●dent. sess. 7. can. 13. Et Biel. in Can Miss lect 36. De pueris eti●m quod spiritualiter manducant corpus Christi in susceptione baptismatis, patet de consecr. dist. 2. Quia passus Infants have an habit of faith infused into them in Baptism. 3. Neither is it a thing impossible for the Spirit of God by an extraordinary manner to work faith in such infants as are to be saved dying before years of discretion; no more than it was to regenerate john Baptist l Luk. 1. 15. in his mother's womb: of whom Gregory therefore saith that he was m Prius quam nasceretur renatus Gr●g. mor. lib. 3. cap. 4. new bred yet unborn. 4. The speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other; n joh. 6. 47. & 3. 18. whosoever believeth in me, hath life eternal: And, o john 3. vers. 36 Whosoever believeth not in the Son of God. shall never p ●…tam, pro vivere; uti videre mortem pro mori. Psal. 89. vers. 48. & john 8. 51. live, but q joh. 3. vers. 18. Mark. 16. vers. 16. shall be damned: and the like; which comprehend those only, to whom it appertaineth actually to come unto Christ, and to believe in him, r jansen. ubi sup. saith jansenius. And that is enough for my purpose. § 7. My second Argument was thus framed. All that so feed on Christ, are eternally saved: our Saviour so s joh. 6. 50, 51, 58. saith. But many feed on the Eucharist that are eternally damned. Ergò Christ speaketh not there of oral eating in the Eucharist. Now this Argument (saith he) if I had wit to discern the force of it, maketh more against us then against them. And why so? Forsooth, because all are not saved that spiritually and by faith feed on Christ. This is like B●llarmines bold assertion, that t Aliquos credentes in Christum in aeternum perire, quod ante moriantur, quam à Sacerdote absolui potuerint. Bellarm. de poenit. l 3. c. 2. some that believe in Christ perish eternally, because they die before they can have a Priest to assoil them. And what is this but to say that all that do truly believe in Christ are not saved? Yea what is this (not to repeat all the allegations both of Scripture and Fathers produced for the proof of the Proposition, which he purposely passeth over, not being able to answer) but to give our Saviour himself and the holy Ghost the lie, who so oft say; u joh. 3. 14, 15, 16, 18, 36. & 6. 47. & 7. 39 Rom. 10. 11. etc. Whosoever believeth in him shall be saved. Nor is it sufficient (as he addeth) for to verify our Saviour's speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the Souls of such as worthily receive it, though the contrary befall those that do unworthily renceive it. For (to answer them again in the words of one of their own Authors) our Saviour's words imply manifestly x Manducationis & potus certum effectum. jansen. concord. c. 59 a certain effect (as he speaketh) not a matter that may be: (as Augustine and Cyril also in the places cited by me there show,) whereupon also he concludeth that y Hinc manife stum evadit, non omnes. etc. Idem ibid. it is apparent thence that all are not there said to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, that receive the Sacraments of Christ's body and blood. § 8. To their own Authors, Cardinals, Schoelemen, Canonists, public Professors, or Readers of Divinity in their Universities, ( a Feius in joan. 6. & Mathias Doring in replic. super. Lyr. in Psal. 110. Friars I might have said too,) and in steed of Jesuits (being better informed by him) I now say, Bishops, which will not much mend the matter. 1. He answereth that they be but few in number, and their authority of no great weight, in regard of those that hold the contrary. Yet one of their own Bishops (though of an other mind himself) confesseth, that there are b Ex ipsis Catholicis perm●lti ●unt, qui totum is●um sermonem ad spiritualem manducationem referunt: Sebastian oxonians. Epi●c. ad part. 3. Thom. q. 76. nu. 28. very many of them that are of this judgement. But had there been but one or two of them (especially of note, as some of them were) of some one sort, it might well have weighed much on our side. For c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isidor. Pesus. ep. 228. l. 2. the witness of an adversary is of no small weight. How much more, when so many of all sorts, of so special repute, shall so uniformly speak for us, and herein accord with us? 2. He demandeth of his Adversary, why he doth so highly value them and mainly urge them herein, when in other points he will not stick to contemn them. Had he any wit in his addle brain, he would never have asked this idle Question It is as if in a Lawsuit, because a man taketh hold (as he may well do) of somewhat that falleth from his Adversaries, or is granted him and confessed by them, because it furthereth his own cause, he were therefore bound to believe or admit all that ever they say to the prejudice of his right. The greater differences are between them and us, yea in the present controversy concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, the less cause there is to suspect that they should speak partially for us; and the greater cause to suppose they were by evidence of truth enforced to confess that, that should take away some of those grounds, whereby the cause that themselves stiffly maintained, is ordinarily upheld. 3. He addeth in the end: These men herein without heretical intention, or obstinacy of judgement differed from us. Whom he meaneth by that, Us, I leave to himself to explain: And the less heretical their intention was (as he understandeth heretical) the less suspicion there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratify us; and so much the stronger therefore is their testimony for us. * Confessio propria testimo●is quibusnis; ●estesque non familiares domesticis praeferuntur. Menoch. lib. 2. a●b. cas. ●26. & Althus. dicaeolog. l. 3. c. 45. The testimony of a mere stranger, or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment. But when he speaketh of obstinacy of judgement, he glanceth at a secret in their Church, which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discover. It is no matter what a man hold or maintain among them, so long as he acknowledgeth the Pope's Supremacy, the main pillar of their faith, and submit himself and his works wholly to his censure, and so be ready to unsay what he saith, when he will have him so to do. For his censure indeed alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church. And to this purpose they confess that many of their writers have held the very same points, for which they condemn us now as Heretics, of whom yet they say that they were not Heretics, because they submitted themselves to this Censure. I will add an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine. 1. In this very particular; he confesseth that d Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 5. many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of john as the Heretics do: but they submit themselves (saith he) and their writings to the Censure of the Counsels and Popes; which the Heretics do not. 2. In the present controversy, Durandus held not a Transubstantiation, but a transformation in the Sacrament: e Idem ibid. lib. 3. cap. 13. which opinion (saith he) is heretical; and yet was he no Heretic; because he was ready to yield to the judgement of the Church. 3. Ambrose Catharines' opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament, differeth not ( f Idem de Sacram. in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 27. saith he) for aught I see, from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretics, save that he in the end of his book submitteth himself to the Apostolic Sea and Council. 4. Durandus in the point concerning merit of works g Idem de iustific. lib. 3. cap. 16. held as we now do, that no reward was due to them but out of God's mere liberality, and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say, that God were unjust, if he should not so reward them: And yet was he also no Heretic for the cause beforementioned. And thus are we at length arrived (after much winding to and fro, while we follow a shifting wind) at the end of the former part of my Discourse: wherein hath been showed, beside other Arguments, confirming the same, by the confession of their own Authors, that those places of Scripture do not enforce any such corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintain, which they commonly produce to prove it. Division 7. PAg. 9 My Adversary becometh a more formal N. P. Disputant then before: and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and real presence of our Saviour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument; Look what our Saviour took, that he blessed: what he blessed that he broke; what he broke that he delivered to his Disciples; what he delivered, of that he said, This is my Body: But it was bread that he took: And bread therefore that he blessed; bread that he broke; and bread that he delivered; and bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body. Which is a formel●sse and fallacious kind of arguing, wholly forceless, if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true, that Christ's words have force now as then they had, when himself uttered them, to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood: As if after the like manner of the water converted by Christ into wine, I should make this deduction: The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: therefore that which they drew and carried was water. If the Minister shall tell me, that they drew water; but carried it made wine by our Saviour's omnipotent operation: so I will tell him, that Christ took bread and wine, and converted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his own body and blood before he distributed them, as he by his plain words pronounced of them, saying, This is my Body, etc. HItherto, if you will believe this worthy Doctor, his Adversary hath disputed without form or figure, T. G. that you may not marvel why his Answer is so diffused, deformed and mis-figured; for the fault (it seemeth) was in his Adversary's misshapen Syllogisms; which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them. Here (he confesseth) he becometh a more formal Dissutant; and I hope therefore we shall find him a more formal Defendant. Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs have a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real presence (corporal, he should have said for more perspicuity; for so I speak) ignorantly the one with the other. I perceive well what his drift herein is; to make some believe that howsoever Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times; yet a real, that is a corporal presence was ever acknowledged. But if we will believe Bellarmine, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent, the one of them is every jot as ancient as the other, yea the one cannot possibly be without the other. h Concil. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 4. Et idem Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. This, (the Council of Trent telleth us,) was always the faith of the Church, that by the consecration of Bread and Wine, the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christ's body, and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood. And, i Thom. Aq. sum part 3. q. 75. art. 3. A body, (saith Aquinas) cannot be, where it was not before, but either by local motion, or by the conversion of some other thing into it. But it is manifest that Christ's body beginneth not to be in the Sacrament by any local motion: And therefore it must needs come there by the conversion of the bread into it. Yea, k Idem ibid. art. 4. by local motion it cannot be there, nor by any means but by this. And Bellarm. clean contrary to himself elsewhere, l Bellar. in Apolog. contr. Praefat. monitor. Reg. jacob. c 1. It cannot be, that the words of Christ should be true, but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholic Church calleth Transubstantiation. It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversy to confound those things, which those we deal with conjoin, yea which they tell us cannot be dis-joined. To overthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist; I first reason from the Context, m Mat 26 26. Mark. 14. 22. Christ took bread, and blessed it, and gave it, and said; This is my body. Whence I thus argued: What Christ took, he blessed; what he blessed, he broke; what he broke, he delivered; what he delivered, of that he said, This is my body. But it was bread that he took, blessed, broke and delivered; ( n Steph Durant. de ritib. Eccles. l. 2. c. 38. It is bread, saith Durant a Popish writer, that all those verbs are referred to.) It was bread therefore of which he said, This is my body. Now this (saith mine Adversary forgetting, it seemeth, what he had said but even now, that here I began to dispute formally) is a formless, fallacious and wholly forceless kind of arguing, if we suppose with the holy Fathers (who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a real and corporal presence, if this worthy man upon his bare word may be believed) that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christ's words turned into Christ's body and blood. That is, as if he should say, this Argument is of no force at all, if the point in Question be granted, or if that be yielded, that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of o joh. 2●… the water that Christ turned into wine; The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: Therefore that which they drew and carried was water. How formal a Disputant soever this man's Adversary is; sure I am he disputeth neither in form nor figure. But let us help him a little to bring his Argument into form; and then he shall have an Answer. Thus, it seemeth, he would argue, if he could hit on it: What the Ministers drew out of the well, they carried: But they drew water: Therefore they carried water. And now I deny his Proposition: The Ministers carried not that that they drew: They drew water; they carried not water but wine. And for his addition hereunto, that Christ after he took the bread and wine, and before he distributed them, by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his own body and blood, as he showeth by his words plainly pronounced of them, This is my body. Though it be nothing to the Argument, and a mere begging of the point in Question, yet let us consider a little of it, where in the Text he findeth that Christ thus converted them: for the words, This is my body (as was formerly showed) do not evince it. But he findeth it (it seemeth) in the benediction or the blessing of the bread; which is yet against the common conceit of his Associates, that say there was no conversion at all till Christ uttered those words, This is my body. Hear we Bellarmine a little p Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19 arguing this point against Luther. Having acknowledged (as was said formerly) that Christ's words, This is my body, may bear either the sense that we give them, or the sense that they give them, but not that sense, that the Lutherans give: For (saith he) the Lord took bread, and blessed it, and gave it his Disciples, saying, This is my body. Bread therefore he took; bread he blessed, and of bread of he said, This is my body. Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truly and properly, or he changed it improperly and figuratively, by adding signification (or as Theodoret rather, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by adding to nature that grace) which before it had not. If he changed it truly and properly, than gave he bread changed, and of that bread so changed he truly said, This is my body, that is, that which is contained under the shape of bread is no more bread, but my body: and this we say, If it be said that he changed the bread figuratively, then shall there be that bread given the Apostles, that is siguratively Christ's body, and those words, This is my body have this sense, This is the figure of my body: and so the Protestants hold. Yea so indeed (as you have heard before) did Augustine in precise terms after Tertullian expound them, who belike then by Bellarmine's ground was in this point a Protestant. Now let either Bellarmine, or this Answerer prove that our Saviour by his blessing wrought any other conversion, and we will yield unto them. But they will as soon prove that Christ turned the children that r Mar. 10. 16. he blessed into bread, as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his natural body. Yea run over all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine s De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19 wherein he propoundeth to himself to prove Transubstantiation out of God's word, in the entrance whereunto he confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way, but not Luther's way; and you shall find that there is never a word in it, much less any sound proof, either to prove that Christ's words are so to be understood as they say, or that they are not to be understood as we say; but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luther's opinion, to wit, that bread remaineth together with Christ's body in the Sacrament. Which opinion also b I indan. in di●…og. quam Ruew rd sive pacificum ins●…psit. themselves confess that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died. He beginneth with c Primum autem argumentum ducitur ex illis Domini verbis, etc. a first Argument, without any second, the sum and substance whereof was before related: Either his second (he saw) was unsound, and it seemed best therefore to suppress and conceal it, or else he wanted a second, and thought to let the first though without a fellow, stand still as first by the rule of the Civilians, who say, d Primus est, quem nemo praecedit, e●iāsi nullus sequatur. Reg. jur. That is first, that hath none before it, though no other come after it: or, that is first that hath none before it, that is last that hath none after it. And so is this Bellarmine's both first and last Argument there. And e Primus est, quem nemo praecedit: ultimus, quem nemo sequitur. Ibid. in Conclusion he is fain to fly to the Counsels and pretended Fachers. s Bellar. ubi sup. in fine cap. Though there were some ambiguity (saith he) in our Saviour Christ's words, yet it is taken away by Counsels; (what Counsels think we? Surely none but such as themselves held within these 300. years as himself afterward showeth) and the consent of Fathers: which remaineth yet to be showed. As for the benediction, the best, nay the sole Argument, whereby he can prove such 〈…〉 conversion wrought there is this; g Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ is not wont to give thanks but when he is about to work some great and marvellous thing: For he is read only to have given thanks, h joh. 6. 11. 23. when he would multiply the five loaves; and again i Mat. 18. 26. when the seven: k joh. 11 41. and when he was to raise Lazarus from the dead; and lastly, l Mat. 26. 27. Mar. 24 23. Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 24. in the institution of this Sacrament. And in like manner he is not wont to bless insensible things, but when he was to work some admirable thing with them: For he is never read so to have done, but m Luh. 9 16. Mark. 6 7. when he blessed the bread to be multiplied; and n Mat. 26. 26. Mat. 14. 22. in the Encharist. As on the contrary o Mat. 21. 19 when he cursed the figtree: for it withered away instantly. For God's blessing is a well-doing; not a praying, as ours; but an effecting, as appeareth, when p Gen. 1. 22. he blessed the beasts: for by that blessing he bestowed fruitfulness upon them. Nor do we read that Christ ever blessed the water in Baptism. And what of all this? Therefore (forsooth) it must needs follow that Christ by that blessing turned the bread into his own natural body. Where to omit that it is not true, that Christ is never read to have given thanks oftener than is here said: for at q Mat. 11 25. Luk. 10. 21. other times also he is reported to have r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Mat. hom 38. Confiteor hic gratiarum actionem significat. Ex Beda Thom. in Luc. 10. given thanks, and that when he was not about to work any miracle neither: Nor is it truly said, that Christ's blessing was not a prayer, (which that it was, not s Dei beneficentiam & potentiam super panem invocavit, etc. jansen. concord. c. 131. Galat. 4. 3. jansenius only, but * Sanctumque precatus. junenc. l. 4. i. prece Sanctificans. Maldon. in Mat. 26. Maldonat the jesuit from some of the Ancients also confesseth) being conceived by him as man, but effected by him as God: and beside, that it is absurd to reason à non scripto ad non factum, he is not read oftener to have blessed or given thanks, therefore he never oftener did either: yea it is impious to imagine that Christ, who for our sakes made himself subject to the Law, did not ordinarily t 1 Tim. 4. 4. bless and sanctify the food, that he took commonly, by thanksgiving and prayer: who denyeth but that Christ went about a marvelous work, when he was to institute this Sacrament? or who doubteth but that Christ's benediction was a most effectual benediction, and as effectual as that of Gods was in the Creation, whereby u Gen. 1. 22, 28. he blessed the creatures? by virtue whereof yet the creatures so blessed were not transformed into new shapes, but had a natural faculty only conferred upon them which before they had not, nor of themselues could have; and so have the elements a spiritual and supernatural (by our acknowledgement) in the Sacrament. But who seeth not what a silly and senseless consequence this is? Bellarmine could not be so silly and sottish as not to see it himself. Christ gave thanks and blessed the bread ere he gave it: therefore he wrought such a miracle on it as we would have; or, therefore (if you will) he turned it into the very substance of his body. It may as well be said that Samuel wrought some miracle by x 1 Sam. 9 13▪ blessing the sacrifice, as our Saviour here by blessing the bread. For the water in Baptism it is easy to answer, though it be little to the purpose: It is not to be marvelled if he be not read to have blessed it: for we are told expressly that y joh. 4. 2. he never baptised, save as he doth. z joh. 1. 33. spiritually baptise to this day. But dare any say that his Disciples were so profane as to baptise without blessing? or must a bald, yea a Baal's Priests blessing of bread at this day be needs more effectual than their blessing of water than was? Or do not e Tertul. de bapt. H●eron. ad Ocean. de bapt. Episc. Ambrosium quem volunt esse de initiat. c. 3. the ancient Fathers compare the blessing of the water and the effect thereof in Baptism with the blessing of the waters and “ Gen. 1. 〈…〉▪ the moving of the Spirit upon them in the Creation? And why must the blessing then of necessity import such a change more in the one Sacrament then in the other? Division 8. AS for the names of bread and wine after given by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of N. P. the Sacrament; which with this Minister is a great argument tediously urged, page 10. he cannot be ignorant (I suppose) as not to conceive the little source of the Argument. For if Aaron's red after it was converted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, be notwithstanding called so; with much more reason may the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them Christ's body and blood, retain their old names: especially with articles superadded, importing the singular and divine excellency of them, still used by Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as this bread, this Chalice; the bread which we break, etc. willing them to prove themselves, etc. before they come to eat of this bread; lest eating it unworthily, they eat their own damnation, not discerning the body of Christ; or (which is all one) not distinguishing it from other common bread, it being indeed bread blessed and converted into the very body of Christ, and therefore not irreverently and unworthily to be received by any Christian under pain of damnation; as the ancient Doctor and holy Mariyr of Christ's Church a S. Cyprian serm. 5. S. Cyprian affirmeth: b S. Basil. l. 2. de bapt. c. 3. S. Basil also, c S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. ad Corinth. & hom. 83. in Mat. & hom. 45. in Joan. S. Chrysostome, d S. jerom. in 〈…〉. cap. Malac. S. Jerome, e Origen in Psal. 37. Origen, and f S. Aug. l. 5. de bapt. c. 8. & l, 8. contr. Crescon. c. 25. S. Augustine, with other Fathers expressly teach the sin of such as come unworthily to the Sacrament to be heinous, and equal even to the sin of such as betrayed and killed Christ, because they presume unworthily to eat that bread wherein the Son of God himself is contained. MY second Argument was taken from the express T. G. words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the Sacrament. 1. The little force of this Argument (he saith) I cannot be so ignorant as not to conceive: because Aaron's rod after it was converted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, yet was notwithstanding so called, etc. And he cannot be so ignorant as not to conceive that this very Objection is there by me propounded and answered: yea, and that Bellarmine himself rejecteth it as g Haec solutio non videtur solidissima. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 14. not very sound, but such as just exception may be taken unto. Did he think that any one not void of common sense would not soon see this? 2. He saith that the accidents of bread and wine remaining retain still their old names. To what purpose? For who doubteth but that the accidents, that is, the colour, savour, shape, size, etc. of the elements, remain still in the Eucharist, not without a subject, as they say, (for how can accidents so do, when the very * Accidentis esse est mess. essence of an accident, as it is an accident, is to be in some subject?) but in the self same subject, wherein formerly they were? And what should hinder but that remaining so, they should retain still their old names? But neither are the accidents of bread and wine, bread and wine: and it is absurd to say either that the Apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread only; when he said '' 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread which we break, etc. and, “ 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man eat of that bread, etc. Or that by the fruit of the vine our Saviour meant nothing but the acci dents of wine, when he said, * Mat. 26, 29, I will drink henceforth no more of this fruit of the vine, etc. So that his reason is ridiculous, The accidents remaining retain still their old names; therefore the substance that is gone retaineth it own name still: or, the colour, savour shape and size retain their old names, and that which is in the Eucharist what ever it be, is said still to be white, round, thin well tasted, etc. and that with good reason, since it is so still as it was; therefore though it be no more bread now, yet is it said to be so still. Sure reason and this man's brain were far asunder, when he writ this. 3. He addeth that the Apostle when he calleth it bread, (for so I suppose he would say, and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread only) speaketh with such articles superadded, as may note the singular and divine excellency of it, This bread, and so This Chalice, and The bread which we break: and requireth men to examine themselves before they come there: lest they sin in not distinguishing it from other common bread, etc. And that the ancient Fathers show what an horrible sin it is to come unreverently to it, etc. because they presume to eat that bread, wherein the Son of God himself is contained. And is not this a most silly Argument to prove that that he should prove, unless you take in withal his lie at the last, where he saith that the Son of God himself is contained in the bread, which he falsely also fathereth upon those Fathers, as would have appeared, had he cited their words; and which being the point in Question (had it been propounded as it should have been) unless you grant him he sticketh fast still and cannot go forward? For may not a man say as much of Baptism, that the holy Ghost speaks of it with such h Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. Tit. 3. 5. Gal. 3. 27. eulogies superadded, as may note the singular & divine excellency of it; that those therefore that are of years i See Bellar. de bapt. l. 1. c. 25. ought with great care to address and prepare themselves unto it, when they are to be baptised, and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water, or use it irreverently, commit an heinous sin even against Christ himself? And yet who ever dreamt therefore of any such Transubstantiation in Baptism? yea the very same Authors here produced by him so plentifully (though by their bare names only out of Bellarmine) in a point for the general not at all denied, to wit the heinousness of their sin that abuse this Sacrament: yet distinguish expressly some of them (as in mine allegations I have noted) between the bread of the Lord, (as k 1. Cor. 11. 27. the Apostle termeth it) and the Bread the Lord; of which l joh. 6. 32, 33. our Saviour in the Gospel; between the body that was on the Cross, and the bread that is on the board: Which he taketh no notice of. 4. And yet neither is it true that so confidently here he affirmeth, that all those Fathers in all those places, yea or that any one of them, in any one of those places that he quoteth, (nor as I verily believe, in any place of their writings elsewhere) do (as he saith) expressly and purposely teach that the sin of unworthy receivers is equal (for the heinousness of it) with the sin of those that betrayed and killed Christ. Which no sober Divine will say; nor can it be justified, unless the Stoical parity of sins (charged m Aug. de haeres. c. 82. upon jovinian by some, n Nihil enim eiusmodi I●●uiniano Hieronymus obiicit. how truly I know not, o Campian rat. 8. Sed & ●occius idem ferè, Thes. Cathol. tom. 1. l. 8. art. 3. upon us by some of their side, falsely I am sure, p Lutherani non dicunt paria esse peccata. Bellarm. de justif. l. 3. c. 16. Bellarmine himself therein acquitting us) be in Theologie admitted. Bellarmine indeed q De Euchar. l. 1. c. 13. in the Chapter, whence he took all these quotations as he found them there mustered together, hath somewhat out of Oecumenius that may seem to look that way, ( r Oecum. comparat indignè communicantes cum eis qui Christum crucifixerunt. He compareth unworthy communicants, saith he, with those that killed Christ) which this man having strained more than an inch further, ascribeth unadvisedly and untruly to them all. Whereas only Basil (if those ascetica at least be his) and Chrysostome, (who is wont to press far in reprooving of sin) the one of them willeth us to repair holily to God's board, lest we incur the judgement of them that killed Christ: the other of them in one of the places there quoted saith, that as those that defile the prince's robe are t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. in joan. hom. Grae. 46. Lat. 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel ut alii, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; punished in like manner, as those also that rend it; so it is not unlikely or unequal that those that with an unholy heart receive the Lords body, undergo x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the same punishment with those that tore it with nails; that is, that the one be damned for so doing as well as the other; which may well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil de bapt. l. 2. c. 3. be, albeit their sins be not equal. The rest of them, to wit, Origen, Hierome and Augustine have not any one word at all in any of all those places of the sin of those that killed Christ; yea the places well weighed utterly overthrow the ground of that y Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 13. Argument, which from the words of the Apostle, and their application of it, they would frame to prove a real and essential presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the Eucharist, because such unworthy receivers are said to be a 1. Cor. 11. 27. guilty of wronging Christ's body and blood, and thereby b Ibid. ●9. to acquire judgement c De baptism. l. 5 c. 8. Vide & eundem contra Faust. l. 19 c. 11, 12. or condemnation to themselves. For beside that in the one place Augustine saith nothing but this, that the Sacrament of Baptism, as well as that other of the Eucharist, is a true Sacrament even to those that use it otherwise then they ought: which is nothing at all to that for which here it is alleged. In d Contra Crescon. l. 1. c. 25, 26. the other place he saith nothing of the Eucharist, but what he saith also both of e Rom. 7. 7. 13. 1 Cor. 8. 1. the Word of God, or the Law, and Baptism expressly in the same place; to wit, that even f Obsunt sancta & divina malè utentibus. holy and divine things hurt those that use them otherwise then they ought. Yea Hierome goeth further in the place alleged, and g In Malac. 1. applieth what he speaketh not to the Sacraments only of the New Testament, but to the Sacrifices also (which were Sacraments too) of the old. For commenting on those words, h Malac. 1. 7. Wherein do we pollute thee? i Dum Sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt Sacramenta violatur. When the Sacraments (saith he) are violated, he is violated whose Sacraments they are. And that is all he saith there. Now were not the k Colos. 2. 17. Heb. 10. 1, 〈…〉▪ 10. & 13. 11, 12. Talium figurarum obseruatio, Christi fuit praefiguratio. Aug. ad Faust. l. 19 c. 11. Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the old Testament (as the ˡ Paschall Lamb at least) Sacraments of Christ, yea * Heb. 10. 10. & 9 7, 11, 12. and of his body and blood too? If they were, as no doubt can be but they were, then by Hieromes Rule was Christ and his body and blood wronged in them, when any wrong was done to them, albeit it were not essentially or corporally present in them: nor doth such wrong therefore or guilt acquired by evil usage of the Eucharist imply any such corporal presence thereof in it. 5. Let me add only, that this Defendant telleth us, ●hat the Son of God is contained in that bread that is eaten ●n the Eucharist: and yet by their doctrine there is no bread at all there. How is he in bread where no bread is? Or how is there no bread there, where in bread the Son of God is (as he telleth us) contained? What is this but that which Bellarmine condemneth in the Lutherans, to forge us m Christum impanatum. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. a Christ impanated, or enclosed in bread? Nor doth their own doctrine any whit mend the matter. For as Bellarmine saith of Rupert us and some others that they make Christ have n Corpus panaceum, non carneum. Ibid a breaden body: so may we as truly say the same of them. For what is a body made of bread but a breaden Body? But that (you see) this Doctor here swerveth from and saith, that Christ's body is but couched in Bread. ANd I marvel not to find this Minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy Fathers to his heretical purpose, sithence N. P. he maketh Bellarmine himself page 10. to speak like a Protestant, and seem to say against his own express doctrine, that the bread blessed and consecrated on the Altar is not, nor cannot be called Christ's body: Whereas Bellarmine only disputeth against Luther teaching natural bread to remain still in the Sacrament, and making the sense of Christ's words, This is my body, to be the same as if he had said, This bread is my body; saith this and no more, that Natural bread cannot be otherwise then figuratively and significantly affirmed to be Christ's body: Speaking not at all of bread consecrated, and by consecration converted into the true body of Christ, yet still retaining the name of bread for the Accidents of bread still remaining, as this false fellow would have; frequently citing Authors which he vnderstandeth not. § 2. ANd here again, as one running the wild goose T. G. race, he windeth back to a passage in the former Argument: and saith, he marveleth not to find me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers (he thought sure every one would believe whatsoever he said, though he never assayed to show it) since I make Bellarmine himself speak like a Protestant. No: I make him speak nothing but what o De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1. he saith of himself: and by his own grants prove that either the ancient Fathers spoke very absurdly, or else they meant as we mean. The Argument is this: The ancients Fathers say oft, that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christ's body. But this saying (saith Bellarmine,) This bread is my body, must either be taken figuratively, or else it is absurd and impossible. The Fathers therefore when they used such speeches, showed evidently thereby that they meant as we mean, (that is, they understood Christ's words figuratively) or else (by Bellarmine's confession) they spoke very absurdly. Nor is it enough to prove that I corrupt Bellarmine, to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther, who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament: For what is that to the purpose? much less to say untruly, that he spoke not of bread consecrated; when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread. But I cite Authors (he saith) that I understand not. It is true indeed; In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine, that neither I, nor any such dull-heads as I am (I think) can easily understand; as for example, where p De Euchar. l 3. c. 24. he saith, as I here cite him, that The Priest maketh Christ's body of bread; and yet Christ's body is not made by the Priest: And again, q Ibid. that the body of Christ that was crucified, was truly or verily made of Bread: And yet confuting Rupertus he saith elsewhere, that r De Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. it was not a breaden body that was crucified for us; as Tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the Marci●nites; and as we may well infer from theirs. He waiveth s De Euchar. l. 3. c. 9 elsewhere Metaphysical subtleties in disputing of this Sacrament. And t Inepta Caluini Metaphysica. Idem de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10. taxeth Caluine for his fond and foolish Metaphysics. But these are such transcendent subtleties, if not absurdities, as any Metaphysics will afford. And this deep Metaphysical Doctor, that hath no want of wit, and vnderstandeth him so well, should have done well to unfold to us these mysteries, and arreade us these riddles: whereas he very uncharitably passeth them by, and only controlling us for our ignorance, leaveth us sticking still in the briers with them, not vouchsafing to help us out. PAg. 12. He affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirm, as N. P. we do, that a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that which succeedeth only in the room thereof; Whereas in every substantial conversion one substance is destroyed and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action: as where wood is converted into fire, etc. The difference betwixt Transubstantiation in the Sacrament, and other substantial natural conversions chiefly consisting in this, that the whole substance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance, Christ's body, to wit, introduced in place thereof, so as nothing thereof remaineth; whereas in them the same matter, albeit receiving a new form and so made a distinct substance from what it was before, still remaineth: which is to the Ministers purpose wholly impertinent, unless he will falsely and foolishly withal affirm that God can destroy no substance entirely leaving the Accidents thereof still remaining, to introduce an other substance in place thereof. And albeit we cannot say of Christ's body, that it was bread, (which is another Argument of the Minister, ibidem) yet may it be said to have been of bread, as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christ's words, whereby bread looseth natural being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present. And this is without any difficulty affirmed by us, who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantial and accident all conversions, howsoever his poor judgement will not serve to consider it: heat (for example) was never cold, albeit in place thereof produced; fire was never wood, but as a substance (as natural understanding might teach him) essentially different, and produced by the others destruction. §▪ 3. AFter he hath thus recoiled back a little, now he T. G. beginneth to make again forward. And 1. whereas they not knowing well how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily upon this their senseless conceit of the conversion of bread into Christ's body, affirm that Christ's body is therefore said to be made of bread, and the bread said to be turned into Christ's body, because the bread ceasing to be there, Christ's body (as they say) doth only come in the room of it: For they dare not say that Christ's body is produced of it, or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the material cause Christ's body is framed, as ashes are made of wood, or glass of some ashes: And I thereupon reply, that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth only in the room thereof. (That which u Suarez in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. disp. 50. sect 5. Per ●olam actionem adductivam. non explicatur vera conversio substantialis, sed solum translocatio quaedam. Quando una substantia solum succedit loco alterius, non potest dici una converti in aliam, Ibid. Suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation, than a transubstantiation, or a true & substantial conversion. He telleth me, that, if my poor judgement would serve to consider it, such a succession is to be found in every substantial conversion, whereby one substance is destroyed, and another succeedeth in the room of it.) And consequently (for that or nothing must follow) that it is not absurd so to say. Did ever man (think we) either sober or in his right wits thus reason? In every substantial conversion one thing succeedeth in the room of another, and is turned into it. Therefore whatsoever thing doth succeed only in the room or place of another, is converted into it. Suppose a puppy should get up into the Chair that this Disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse, after he quitted it: would he not take it evil, if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy, because the puppy were got into his place. Or suppose some light-fingred person having picked his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it, should put in a copper counter or two in the room of it; would it follow that his gold were really turned into copper, because the one is gone, and the other is come in the room of it? Or suppose an old house pulled or burnt down, and an other raised up again in the room of it, and that just of the same proportion with it: would any man say, that the one were turned into the other, because the one succeeded in the room of the other being destroyed? But idle and absurd consequences are no strange matters with this Disputant for all his great learning, that which a little learning will serve to discover. 2. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs, that Christ's body is called bread still after Consecration, as Aaron's rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent, because it had sometime so been; I say (among many other things, which he here overslippeth) that the case, by their own confession, is not alike: for that, of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent, but of Christ's body it cannot be said that ever it was bread; he replieth; that albeit we cannot say of Christ's body that ever it was bread, no more then of heat that ever it was cold, nor of fire we can say that ever it was wood, though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced, Yet it may be said to have been of bread; because in this their prodigious y Transformatio. Metamorphosis or z Transmateriatio. methyleosis, or what ever you will term it; (for new inventions require new names) the whole substance (to use his own terms; that is both the matter and form) of bread passeth into a preaexistent substance, to wit, Christ's body, in the room of it introduced, so as nothing thereof remaineth, whereas in other natural conversions the matter remaineth still, though receiving another form. In which few lines it is not easy to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmine's doctrine, and to his own assertions. For first, If it cannot be said of Christ's body that ever it was Bread; here is it affirmed by them, as a Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c 14. Bellarmine himself also acknowledgeth, that b Vocari panem, quia auteà suit panis. Christ's body is therefore called Bread, because it was bread before. Neither doth Bellarmine at all control them therein: yea c De Euchar. l. 3. c. 18. he confesseth, d In Thom. p. 3 q. 75. a. 4. with Caietan, that it may truly be said, e Quod fuit panis, nunc est corpus Christi. That is now Christ's body, that once was bread. 2. If it may be said to have been of bread, why may it not be said that once it was bread? as of Adam because he was f Gen. 2. 7. 1. Cor. 15. 47. of the earth, it may truly be said that once g Gen. 3. 19 he was earth. As for his instances, they are idle: the one is of an accident not made of, but succeeding only in the room of another, or in the same subject whence it hath expelled the other; and for the other we may say truly that a fire made of wood, not only was wood once, but is wood still, till the form of the wood be utterly destroyed, and the wood turned into coals, or dissolved into ashes; whereof we may also truly then say, that those coals or those ashes were once wood; in such sense as they say, that the rod was sometime a snake. 3. If it may at any time be said, Christ's body hath been of bread, it might at sometime be said, Christ's body is of bread: and if of bread, why not h Corpus panaceum. a breaden body? which yet i Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 15. Bellarmine will by no means admit. For what is a body of bread (as was said before) but a breaden body, as a pot of earth, an earthen pot, a dish of wood, a wooddendish? etc. 4. Not to demand if nothing remain of the bread, what figure, and colour, and weight, and taste it is that we discern in the Eucharist, whither the breads or Christ's body; because for those things they tell us that they hang, I know not how nor where, neither in the bread that now is not, nor in Christ's body neither, * Neque enim potest verè dici, hoc album & rotundum est corpus Christi. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c 19 the accidents whereof they are not: and in that answer we must rest (though it be hard for any man endued with reason so to do) for them; since no other from them can be had: I ask, if the whole substance of the bread be utterly abandoned, so as nothing thereof remaineth; how saith k Panis in Eucharistia verè non annihilatur. Bellarm. ibid. Bellarmine, and l Quod panis substantia in nihilum vertatur, nemo dicit. Roffens. contr. Occolamp. lib. 2. c. 14. other of them, that the bread is not annihilated, or m We do not say that the substance of bread is clearly consumed to nothing; as many have dreamt, Harding ag. Apolog. part. 2. is not clearly brought to nothing? and check us for n Idem ibid. belying them when we say that any such thing is maintained by them? albeit their great o Vel in praeiacentem materiam solui, vel in nihilum redigi. Lombard. sent. l. 4. d. 11. D. Master of the Sentences say as much. For how is it not annihilated, if nothing remain of it? 5. If no bread be left in the Eucharist, how said he before, that Christ is there contained in bread; and that the ancient Fathers so affirm? For how can he be contained in that that is not? 6. If the whole substance of it be destroyed so that nothing remaineth of it, how doth the whole substance of it pass (as he saith) into Christ's body? For how can that pass into it, that is not at all? Or how can that substance pass into the substance of some other thing, that utterly perisheth and ceaseth to be, so soon as ever that other substance approacheth? 7. If the very substance of bread passeth into the substance of Christ's body, than Christ's body (belike) doth not barely succeed in the room of it, (as before was affirmed) but is produced therefore and consisteth of it, which yet p Non est producti●a, sed adducti●a conuersio. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 18. they usually deny. Else how doth the substance of the one pass into the substance of the other? 8. If the whole substance of bread (that is, both matter and form) passeth into Christ's body, why may it not as well be said of Christ's body, that that body was once bread; as of q Exod. 4. 3. Moses his rod it might well be said, that that rod was once a Snake; or of r joh. 2. 9 the wine that our Saviour so miraculously produced, that that wine was sometime water? the rather since that but part of the substance, to wit, the matter only of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there, whereas the whole substance (as this fellow beareth us in hand) that is, both matter and form of bread, passeth into Christ's body here. 9 To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting; is to say, that that is made, that already is, or that is produced and hath being given it, that is in being already, when as a thing cannot be in making and being at once; nor can being be given to that, that already is; or to say, that a creature is now s Actum agere. Cic. de amic. made, that was fully made before, or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it: Yea (to speak more plainly) it is all one to as say, that a man is t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sophocl. Antig. killed, when he was dead before; or is quickened when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83. An ignoras nudum nec à decem palaestritis despoliari posse? Apul. metam. l. 1. Itaque maximas nugas agit, Nudo detrahere vestimenta qui iubet. Plaut. Asin. 1. 1. he was alive before; or is now stripped, when he was stark naked before, or is now bred or begotten, when he was borne before. Lastly, to say that Christ's body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three days past had no existence itself, is all one as to say, that wine of a twelvemonth old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed, and were yet growing the day before; or that an Oak having stood upward of an hundred years, and yet standing in the Forest is sprung up this year of an acorn of the last year's growth. And consider we now how well these things agree together: The body of Christ is contained in the bread; and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist: The body of Christ succeedeth only in the room of bread; and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christ's body: The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it, and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christ's body: Christ's body was in being before: and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not: yea Christ's body that was bread and borne above a thousand years since, is now made of a wafercake of yesterday baking: The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christ's body; and yet we cannot say of Christ's body, that ever it was that wafercake. But like x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. v●l. ar●…a fine calce. ropes of sand (as we are wont to say) do these things hang together: and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed (I fear) as y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys de diuin nomin. c. 8. ridiculous, (to use their Dennis his terms) as to stand seriously and curiously pulling down by piecemeal such castles as little children have in sport built up of sand. NEither is it a good or Christian kind of Argument N. P. which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh; Other substantial conversions are sensible and easily discerned, albeit miraculous, as when Aaron's rod was made a Serpent, etc. Whereas in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary: therefore we are not to believe therein any such conversion; citing thus for proof thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margin, which directly if he had marked it, overthroweth his own doctrine, and purpose of citing it: That which you see (saith this Father) is bread and a Cup: but that which your faith requireth you to be informed of, is, that the bread is Christ's body, and the Cup his blood. Could he affirm any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensual and absurd Argument; which were it good, would lead us to believe nothing; g Ad Heb. 11. faith being only of things which appear not to our understanding or senses. How far is this carnal, poor, unlearned man from the holy Father's spirit and doctrine, as I have formerly cited their assertions? wherein they teach us to renounce the natural judgement of our understanding and senses, and with the Apostle to captivate our understandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith, humbly to be upon the warrant of God's word assented unto, and not over-curiously searched after by us. h Lib. 8. Trin. We are (saith S. Hilary, that great Doctor of Christ's Church, and victorious Champion of his deity) not to dispute (as my Adversary doth) in a secular and sensual manner of divine things. For of this natural verity of Christ in us (speaking of the Sacrament) unless we learn of Christ himself, we speak foolishly and impiously. Wherefore sithence he saith, i joh. 6. 55, 56. My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me and I in him: there is no place of doubting left concerning the verity of Christ's body and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord and faithful belief which we have thereof, it is his true flesh and blood: and these being received by us do make us to be in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this truth? Surely it is; but to those that deny jesus Christ to be true God, etc. With a cloud of such ancient and uncontrollable Testimonies of the holy Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensual Adversary, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heavenly and divine Mysteries instituted by the Son of God with equal wisdom power and goodness for us; wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them. § 4. NOw further, whereas I allege among other things that in every miraculous conversion of bodies T. G. there is a sensible change; whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament: Our eyes, saith Augustine, inform us that it is bread that is there. He telleth me, this is no good, nor Christian, but an absurd, secular, and senseless arguing, and such as would lead us to believe nothing but what we see: and that Augustine, if I had marked him, whom I cite in the margin, (as if his very words were not in the text) utterly overthroweth it: as also Hilary and other Fathers, when they teach us in divine mysteries to renounce the natural judgement of our understanding and senses, which this poor, carnal, unlearned man his Adversary is so far from, etc. And withal as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity, (Oh how far is this poor etc.) He telleth his Reader, that he could with a cloud of such ancient and uncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fathers confound this his sensual Adversary, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heavenly and divine mysteries. Well, when he doth this, you may believe that he can do it: and his poor puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it. But mean while let us see what Pyrgopolinices here saith. 1. Augustine telleth us that something is seen in the Sacrament, and something else is to be believed. But doth Augustine tell us that we must not believe that there is bread there, though our eyes inform us, that there is? No: He telleth us expressly, that there is bread there, as our eyes do inform us. And what can be more evidently or plainly spoken? Yea but he addeth withal, that our faith informeth us that the bread is Christ's body. Yea but, saith Bellarmine, that sentence is most absurd and impossible, if it be not meant figuratively. In which manner Augustine (as before was showed) expoundeth himself elsewhere. 2. Do the Fathers tell us that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth us, as what our faith apprehendeth? And do they not say the same of Baptism, and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general? Hear we one or two of them speak for all. The Fathers of the Nicene Council, whom before he alleged: * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gelas. Cyzic. act. Conc. Nic. diatyp. 4. Our Baptism (say they) must not with bodily eyes be considered, but with spiritual. Seest thou water? understand the power of God hidden in it: conceive it full of the holy Ghost, “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. and divine fire. And then will they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table. That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite, as making so much for them: t Ambrosii nomine de sacram. l. 1. c. 2, 3. & de initiand. c. 3. You are come (saith he) to the Font: consider what you there saw; consider what you said, etc. You saw the Font; you saw water, etc. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect. You saw not those things that work and are not seen. The Apostle hath taught us that we are to behold not the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen. For far greater are the things that are not seen, than those that are seen. Believe not thy bodily eyes alone. That is better seen that is not seen. So Gregory Nyssene: u Greg. Nyss. de sacr. bapt. Both the spirit and water concur in Baptism. And as man consisteth of two parts, so are there medicines of like like appointed for either: for the body water that appeareth and is subject to sense; for the soul the spirit that cannot be seen, nor doth appear, but is called by faith, and cometh in an ineffable manner. Yet the water that is used in Baptism, addeth a blessing to the Body baptised. Wherefore do not contemn the divine Laver: neither make little account of it as common, because of the water that is used in it. For it is a greater matter that it worketh: and marvelous effects proceed from it. And a little after of the Eucharist: The bread also is at first common bread: but Idem ibid. when the Mystery hath sanctified it, it is called Christ's body. And in like manner the wine, though it be a thing of small price before the blessing, yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit, both of them work excellently. And so in many other things, if you regard it, you shall see the things that appear to be, contemptible; but the things wrought by them, to be great and admirable. And so Chrysostome speaking of those words of our Saviour, a joh. 6. 63. The words I speak are spirit and life. b Chrysost. in joan. hom. 46. Lat. 47. Graec. To understand (saith he) things carnally, is to consider the things simply as they are spoken, and no otherwise. Where as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. all mysteries (and then not the Eucharist only) are to be judged not by the external things that are visible, but are to be considered with the inward eyes, that is, spiritually. And in particular of Baptism c Idem in 1. Cor. hom. 7. elsewhere: The Gospel is called a mystery, because we believe not in it what we see; but we see somethings, and believe other things. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For that is the nature of our mysteries: which myself therefore and an Infidel are diversely affected with, etc. He when he heareth of a Laver, thinketh it but bare water: but I consider not the thing seen simply, but the purging of the soul by the Spirit, etc. For I judge not the things that appear by my bodily sight, but with the eyes of my mind. Again, I hear Christ's body. I understand the thing spoken one way, and the Infidel another. And as children or unlettered persons, when they look on books, know not the power of the letter, nor know what they see: but a skilful man can find matter in those letters contained, lives, or stories and the like, etc. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So it is in this mystery: the Infidels, though hearing, seem not to hear; but the faithful having spiritual skill, see the force of the things therein contained. Nothing then in this kind is said of the Eucharist, but what is said of all Sacraments, and of Baptism by name. Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other. Nor doth it follow that we would have men to believe nothing but what they see, because we refuse to believe that that we see is not so. e Tertul. de anima. cap. 7. Non licet nobis in dubium sensus revocare: ne & Christo de fide eorum deliberetur. etc. We may not (saith Tertullian) call in question our senses; lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himself, as if he might be mistaken when f Luk. 10. 18. he saw Satan fall down, or g Mat. 3. 17. & 17. 5. heard his Father's voice from heaven, or h Mat. 26. 27, 28, 29. mistook the smell of the ointment that was poured upon him, or the i Vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. taste of the wine that he consecrated for a memorial of his blood. Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles. Faithful was k 2 Pet. 1. 17, 18 their sight, and their hearing on the mount: Faithful was their taste of the l joh. 2. 9 wine that had been water: Faithful was m joh. 20. 27. the touch of incredulous Thomas. (And yet, as n Aug. in joan. tract. 79. Augustine well observeth; o Non hoc credidit quod vidit: Sed aliud vidit aliud credidit. Vidit enim hominem credidit Deum. Thomas saw one thing, and believed another thing: He saw Christ the man, and believed him to be God: He believed with his mind that which he saw not, by that which appeared to his bodily senses. And when we are said to believe our eyes, p Idem. ibid. saith he, by those things that we do see, we are induced to believe those things that we do not see.) In a word, q Tertul. ibid. Rehearse me (saith Tertullian) john's testimony: r 1 joh. 1. 1. That which we have heard and seen with our eyes, and felt with our hands, that declare we unto you: s Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur. A false testimony (saith he, an uncertain at least) if the nature of our senses in our eyes, ears, and hands be such. But these men would have us as t Num. 16. 14. the sons of Eliah speak, to thrust out our eyes, and as the jewish Rabbins say (abusing u Deut. 17. 11. a place of Scripture to that purpose) that a man must believe the High Priest in all things, yea x Talmudici Glossatores in eum locum. teste Lyra in Deut. & Hieron. à S. Fide Hebraeomastig. l 2, c. 2. though he shall tell him that his left hand is his right, and his right hand the left: so they would have us to believe whatsoever the Pope or they say, though they tell us that, that both our sight and sense informeth us to be most false. § 5. But to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish; he citeth a place of Hilary, where he affirmeth, that concerning the verity of Christ in us (not speaking, as he here saith specially of the Eucharist, but of our union and conjunction with him in general) unless we speak as Christ hath taught us, we speak foolishly and impiously: that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of Christ's body and blood; that the Sacraments being received cause that Christ is in us, and we in him. Now who (I pray you) doubteth of, or denyeth aught that is here said? who teacheth men to speak otherwise then Christ ever taught, but they that tell us of bread transubstantiated, and of a body of Christ made of bread, of Christ's flesh contained in bread, or under the accidents of bread, and of his blood in the bread, and his body by a concomitancy in the Cup, & c? Who doubteth with us of the truth of Christ's body and blood? For of the corporal presence of either in the Sacrament, Hilary hath not here a word. Or who denyeth but that by the receiving of those venerable mysteries, Christ is (spiritually) in us and we in him; Doth not the Apostle say of Baptism that by it y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 6. 5. & Pachymer. in Dionys. hire eccles. c. 4. we are ingraffed into Christ? and Chrysostome, that z Chrysost. in Ephes. hom. 20. by it we become flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone? Hilaries scope is to show that a joh. 10. 30. Christ is one with God and his Father, and b joh. 17. 21. 23. we one with him, not by consent of will only, (as some Heretics said) but by a true and real union, yet c 1 Cor. 6. 17. spiritual; as his words imply when he saith, d joh. 6. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Upon whinch words their own Bishop jansenius. e jansen. concord. evag. cap. 59 They (saith he) that thus eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood either by such faith alone, or in the Eucharist, are said to have Christ abiding in them, and to abide themselves in him, in regard of the true union of our nature with the divine nature by the spirit of Christ, whereby we are made * 2 Pet. 1. 4. partakers of the divine nature. Yea those words of our Saviour cannot be meant of Christ corporally received in the Eucharist, nor could Hilary so mean, if he were otherwise of their mind, appeareth. For Christ's body so taken as they imagine, doth not abide long in those that so receive it, but by their own doctrine goeth away again, I know not whither, a while after. Whereas by virtue of such receiving Christ as our Saviour there speaketh of, We do abide in him, and he in us; that is, we are most inwardly and inseparably knit unto Christ, and he unto us (they are still f jansen. ibid. jansenius his terms, and * Per honorem nobis datum 〈…〉 Dei, & Permanentem in nobis carnaliter filium, & in co nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter unitis, mysterium verae & naturalis unitatis est praedieandun. Hilar. de Trin. l. 8. Et Ibid. Vt nos quoque in eo naturaliter inessemus, ipso in nobis naturaliter per manente. Hilary also saith the same,) and obtain therefore thereby not a transitory life, as we do by the eating of corporal meat, that passeth eftsoons away and abideth not in him that eateth it, but life permanent and eternal. g Idem ibid. Whence it is manifest also (saith the same Author) that all are not in this place said to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood that receive the Sacraments of his body and blood, since that all such have not Christ abiding in them. But they eat his flesh and drink his blood, as he there speaketh, who believing that his flesh and blood were given on the Cross for the Salvation of mankind, and that by virtue of the hypostatical union they have a power to give life, do either by such faith alone, or in the holy Eucharist also, receive the Lord himself within themselves, & embrace him, and by faith fast clasping him so keep him within them, as one by whom whatsoever we desire, cometh to us, and is conferred on us. Thus he; by whose words it plainly appeareth, that our abiding in Christ and Christ in us, which Hilary from our Saviour speaketh of, dependeth not upon any such corporal presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament, nor doth necessarily require the same: which h Ideircò voluit Christus à nobis manducari, ut nos sibi incorporaret, quod non intelligitur nisi de spirituali manducatione; quia in sacramentali tantum non fit haec incorporatio. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 36. by their own doctrine also it doth not effect. Division 9 HIS next Argument drawn from the Nature of Signs N. P. and Sacraments is idle and forceless. For we deny not (as there he supposeth) the Sacramental Signs containing the body of Christ under them to signify somewhat distinct from themselves, to wit, the spiritual nutrition of souls living by grace that worthily receive them. They signify likewise Christ's body and blood dolorously severed in his passion. And so a thing considered in one manner may be a sign of itself in another manner considered, as Christ transfigured represented his own body as now it is in heaven glorified: his triumphant entrance into jerusalem on Palm Sunday figured his own entrance into heaven afterwards, as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach: and as an Emperor in his triumph may represent his own victories, etc. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signs and Sacraments: whose nature is to signify T. G. one thing, and to be another. The Argument is this: No Signs or Sacraments are the same with that that they signify: But the bread and wine signify Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist: They are not therefore essentially either. To this idle and forceless Argument (as he pleaseth to style it) he thus answereth: 1. That the Sacrament all Signs signify the spiritual nutrition of souls living by grace; as also Christ's body and blood dolorously severed in his Passion. Now 1. what is this to mine Argument? was this man (think we) ever a disputant, that answereth Arguments on this wise? which part of my Syllogism (I pray you) is this Answer applied to? I had thought that a Syllogism being propounded, the Answerer should either have denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions. 2. It is not true, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signs of these things. Some affections of them and Actions used about them indeed are. The bread and wine themselves are signs of spiritual nutriment, not nutrition. The eating and drinking is a sign of it. Signs they are of Christ's body and blood; not of the dolorous severing of them in the passion, though their being apart is a sign of it also. 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Sign of itself in another manner considered: as Christ transfigured of himself now in heaven glorified; his triumphant entrance into jerusalem of his triumphant entrance into heaven; and an Emperor in his triumph may represent his own victory. But 1. If signum & res signata, the Sign and the thing signified by it be relatives (as without all Question they are) a Father may as well be a father to himself, as a sign may be the sign of itself. Not to add that the Ancients (as hath formerly been shown) are wont to call the Sacraments pictures, and pledges: and it is against common sense to say that aught is either a picture, or a pledge of itself. 2. I might well put this Defendant to prove that Christ's transfiguration was a representation of his present a Math. 17. 24 glorification, or that b Math. 21. 7-10. his entrance into jerusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heaven, whatsoever his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it; whose authority is no better than his own. 3. Let him have what he would; that the one was a type of the other: Doth it follow; Christ's transfiguration was a type of his glorification: therefore Christ was a type or a sign of himself? 4. An Emperor and his victory (I suppose) are not all one; no more than Christ's body and the glorification of it; nor again the transfiguration, & the present glorification. The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forceless for aught that he hath yet showed. Division 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossly carnal and unfit N. P. indeed to be answered. For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there, make such an inference? Christ's hands and feet were visible and palpable after his passion (which tediously and needelesly he proveth,) But they are not so in the Eucharist: Ergo, the natural parts of Christ's body are not at all in it. For if the Argument were good, we might rightly infer that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus (for example) after he had blessed and broke bread, he vanished out of the Disciples sight; when he hid himself from the jews, who would have stoned him, in the Temple, not by running into a corner (as this gross fellow peradventure may of Christ basely and unworthily imagine) but by becoming undiscernible by them; as he became also invisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there City was built, whence they meant to tumble him. As if local extension, visibility, palpability and other natural Accidents and sensible properties could not by God's omnipotency be severed from his own body without the total destruction thereof. This is a gross kind of Philosophy and Divinity fit for such a stupid Professor. MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of T. G. Christ's Body, which hath flesh, blood and bones, is an organical body, endued with limbs and lineaments, yea and life too. Whereas that which is given and received in the Eucharist, is (as Epiphanius well observeth) liveless and limmelesse, etc. Now here, (according to his usual manner) he letteth the Argument go, and falleth to rail down right; that it is an argument grossly carnal, and unfit indeed to be answered, of a babbling and ignorant person, and a stupid professor. He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him. Yet that he may not seem to say nothing to it; he frameth me an Argument of his own on this wise: Christ's hands and feet were visible and palpable after his Passion: But they are not so in the Eucharist: ergò Whereas I tell him that Christ's body hath flesh, blood and bones, and sense and life, and limbs and lineaments of a body organical. But their silly sorry wafercake hath none of all these. And then he telleth us that I might as well affirm that Christ had no body when c Luk. 24. 31. No more was done with Christ here, then with Philip. Act. 8. 39 at Emaus he vanished out of the sight of his Disciples; when d joh. 8. 59 he hid himself from the jews that would have stoned him in the Temple; when e Luk. 4. 30. he passed through the midst of them that would have thrown him down headlong, etc. 1. Let him prove unto us that at any of these times those that had Christ's body in their hands to feel at their pleasure, as his Disciples had, f Luk. 24. 39 when he appeared unto them after his passion and resurrection, (which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and press) did find it and feel it to have neither hands, nor feet, flesh blood, nor bone, life nor limb; and the consequence shall then be granted him; but never till then. And look what limbs and lineaments our Saviour then had, when he was here on earth, the same he retaineth still. Augustine demanded whether Christ's body had bones and blood still, and other bodily limbs and lineaments; g Aug. epist. 149. Ego Domini corpus ita in coelo esse credo, ut erat in terra, etc. I believe (saith he) that Christ's body is now in heaven as it was on earth, when he went up into heaven. For so h ●uk. 24. 38, 39 when the Disciples doubted, whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw, he had them see and feel his hands and feet: for that a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw that he had. So he was on earth; so he was seen to be when he went to heaven; and so shall he, as i Act. 1. 11. the Angel told, come again from thence. But such (we are sure) their little breaden God is not. It is none of Christ therefore. 2. Look how this man argueth, so did the Heret●kes of old, to prove our Saviour Christ to have an airy, spiritual, and fantastical body. k joan. Hieroscls. Ep in Fpist Hieren. contr. error. 〈…〉. Let it not deceive you, you simple sots, (saith john of jerusalem) when you read that l joh. 20. 27. Christ showed Thomas his hands and his side, or when you hear him say, that he hath m L●k. 24. 3●. flesh and bones: These things he made some show of indeed to strengthen the saith of his doubting Disciples. But he showed that he had an airy and spiritual body in truth, when n joh. 2. 19 he came to his Disciples while the doors were shut, and o Luk. 24. 31. he vanished out of their sight. And to the like purpose did p Tertul. contr. Mare. l. 4 & Hieron. ad Pammachi. the Marci●nites urge his q Luk. 4. ●0. escape from those of Nazareth. Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer? r Tertul, x Marc lib. 4. That Christ's body (saith Tertullian) is no fancy ever, hereby appeareth, in that it end●red violent handling, when he was taken and held, and haled to the hill-brow. For s Etsi per medios evasit, sed ante iam vim expertus, & post à dimissus scil. soluto, uti assolet, tumultu, vel etiam irrupto, non tamen per caliginem eluso etc. albeit he made an escape through the midst of them, being first forcibly held, and after let go, either the throng being dissolved, or forcibly broken through; yet was it not by any fantastical delusion. For he had a true body still, and hands that he touched others still with, and were by them felt; (and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was.) And again, t Idem contr. eund. lib. 5. when Christ showeth his Disciples his hands and his feet, without doubt he hath hands, and feet, and bones, which a spirit hath not. And Jerome refuting john of jerusalem; u Hieron. ad Pammach. contra error. joan. Hieros'. As Christ showed his Disciples true hands and a true side; so he ate truly with them, spoke with his tongue truly to them, and with his hands truly broke, and reached them out bread. For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight; as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them, that is, he made an escape out of their hands, * Virtus Dei est, non umbtae aut phantasmatis. it was done by his divine power, not by any fantastical delusion. “ Quod Magis licet, hoc Domino non licet? Apollonius, etc. repent non comparuit. Noli potentiam Domini Magorum praestigiis coaequa re, ut videatur fuisse quod non suit, comedisse sine dentibus, fregisse panem sine manibus, ambulasse sine pedibus, locutus sine lingua, latus ●stendisse sine costis. Could not Christ do as much as some Magicians have done? Apollonius, as he stood in the Court before Domitian, vanished suddenly out of sight. Yet do you not therefore match Christ's power with Magicians jugglings in making him seem to be that that he was not, to eat without teeth, break bread without hands, walk without feet, speak without tongue, show a side without ribs. And whereas it might be demanded how it came to pass that x Luk. 24. 16. those two Disciples did not know him, till a little before he left them; y Hieron. ibid. Jerome maketh answer out of the Text itself, that it was not because his body was not the same it had been, but because their eyes were held that they might not know him. And the same Jerome elsewhere dealing against the same dotages, z Idem in Epitaph. Paulae. Christ (saith he) had hands and sides, had breast and belly too: he that had hands and feet, had arms and thighs too. And seeing he had all the members of the body, he must needs have a whole body that consisteth of those members. Let us reason backward, as well we may. If Christ have an entire body consisting of those limbs, than he hath all those limbs, whereof such a body consisteth. And then let us say to these, as he then to them, a Idem. ibid. You hear of flesh, and feet, and hands, and other limbs. And b Sticorum globos & a●ria quaedam deliramenta. do you forge us some c Globosam sive rotundam formam Diis dabant Stoici. Ex Sen ep. 94. Lips. physiol. Stoic. l. 1. c. 8. Stoical round balls, and airy dotages. (As these do little round wafercakes, which they bear us down to be Christ's body.) He alludeth to the Stoics, who held that the Gods had some shape; and d Nec tamen ea species corpus est sed quasi corpus; nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem. C●c. de nat. Deor. l. 1. that shape was as a body, but yet no body; and had as it were blood and yet no blood. Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them, (and our Romanists at this day with either) imagining our Saviour ( e Tertul. de carne Christi & contr. Marc. saith Tertullian) to have f Vt carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine mus. ulis solidam, sine sanguine cruen●…, sine tunica vestitam, sine same esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lin●…●●quer ten. flesh hard without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clad without coat, speaking without tongue, eating without teeth, etc. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth, that since Christ had all his limbs when he showed them to his Descipl●s, they that imagined such a Christ as this, g Ecce 〈…〉, decipit, circumuenit omnium o●ulos, sensus, access●s, contactus. Ergò Christum non de coelo deferre debueras, sed de caetu aliquo circul●torio, spectaculi artificem, non salutis Pontificem, that deceiveth, beguileth, and deludeth all men's eyes, and senses and touchings, (and taste too he might have said, we at least may say) should not bring him from heaven (from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body, though the Papists dare not say, they have theirs from thence) but fetch him rather out of some h So translate I him, aliuding to our Enlish phrase. His sense is apparent. jugglers box (the Popish pyx, or the like) not to work salvation, but to make sport with. This I have the rather insisted upon to show how the Papists jump in their conceits about this their breaden God; and strange fantastical body, that hath all parts of a man's body, and yet none at all to be seen, felt, heard, yea or understood, with the Heretics of old time; and to confirm these their dotages use and urge the very same Arguments that they then did, by the ancient Fathers long since answered: As also that the ancient Fathers used then the very same Arguments against them, that we do now against these; which yet it pleaseth this vain trifler to term grossly carnal and unworthy to be answered. § 2. Oh but (saith he) it is a gross kind both of divinity and philosophy fit for such a stupid Professor, to hold that local extension, visiblitie, palpability, and other natural accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his own body without the destruction of it. 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to have recourse to God's omnipotency for the justifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage, or in their lying Legends they have endeavoured to obtrude upon the world: To say that God can make Christ's body to remain still in his full stature, and yet at the same time to be no bigger than to enter in at a man's mouth, or go down a child's throat, or to make * Ex vi Sacramenti sub specie panis continentur, non solum caro, sed totum corpus Christi, soil. osla & nerui, & alia huiusmodi; non enim dicitur, Haec est caro mea, sed, Hoc est corpus meum. Thom. Aq sum. part 3. q. 76. a. 1. ad 2. a man's body consisting of flesh, blood and bone to have no dimensions or extension at all, not other accidents and properties of a natural body; is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be, to be a body and no body; which implieth contradiction. And i Quae contradictionem implicant, sub divina omnipotentia non continentur. Idem ibid. part. 1. q. 25. a 3. those things that imply contradiction, they themselues grant that God cannot do. For it were to make falsehood truth; which he that is k Elohim emeth Deus veri●as. jer. 10. 10. joh. 14. 6. Truth itself can never do. 2. In this very manner also did the Heretics reason as appeareth by Theodoret, to maintain their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians, who likewise answered them then, as we do these now. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eranista apud Theod. dial 1. & 3. There is nothing (saith the Heretic) that God cannot do. We say, that n Mar. 10. 27. all things are possible with God. And job saith, that o job. 42. 2. God can do all things, and there is nothing impossible with him. There is nothing therefore but he can do, that is able to do all things. Now how doth the Orthodox disputer answer this? p Theodoret. ibid. 3. God (saith he) can do q Psal. 115. 3. & 135. 6. whatsoever he will: But r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God neither can do, nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his own nature. As for example s jam. 1. 〈…〉. he cannot sin; t Tit. 1. 13. he cannot lie, u Psal. 92. 15. nor do any unjust thing, being justice and truth itself. x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Many things there are therefore that God, that can do all things, yet cannot do. Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot do them, no argument at all of any impotency in him. This was deemed a sufficient answer to those Heretics then; and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries, fight with the same weapons that they then did, for points as absurd as ever any of them held. Division 11. ANother Argument is by my Adversary tediously prosecuted N. P. pag. 12. wherein from Christ's local being still in heaven, he argueth and endeavoureth to prove an utter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament. Of which kind of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine, a Aug. lib 2●. de Civit. Dei, cap. 51. Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infirmity possessed with vanity, contradicteth God's omnipotency. As if natural under standing were able to comprehend the utmost limit and extension of God's power, which is in itself infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderful miracles: of which (as I have said) no other reason can be given, but that he is omnipotent that did them, and cannot deceive us when he is pleased to testify them. Can we conceive (for example) the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting; the resurrection and repair which God will make of all bodies so utterly by frequent and successive conversions into other things altered and consumed; the personal union of man with God; the torment of souls and devils wholly spiritual by corporal fire; the consubstantial subsisting of the divine nature simply one of itself in three distinct persons; and other like mysteries of faith not conceivable more than the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament; yet upon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christ's Church faithfully by us believed? Can this Minister tell me (to come more nearly to our purpose) how our Saviour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth (as divers plain texts import, particularly by Bellarmine b Lib. de Euchar. produced and discussed) and yet (as himself will not deny) still remaining in heaven? Or can he tell me, how our Saviour's body went out of his Sepulchre, without removing that huge stone, rolled afterward by the Angel from it? Or how he entered the house, the doors being and remaining still shut upon his disciples; as for a great miracle the Evangelist recounted? Or how he pierced the solid and huge Orbs of heaven in his ascension without making any hole in them? Since it is equally above nature for many bodies to possess one place, as for one body to be in many places. And if according to Christian true Philosophy, the soul of man being a spiritual and indivisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of man's body exercising all distinct operations in them, why is it impossible for God to give his humane body distant presences and a spiritual manner of being in the Sacrament? when as by personal union with himself, he giveth to the same body a far higher and more inconceivable manner of being. MY fifth Argument is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and entire T. G. in many places at once, much less in places as far distant, as East and West, Heaven and Earth. Now here again is he fain to fly (as before) to God's omnipotency. That is their d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quem advocabant Comici, ubires haerere videbatur. Deus è machina; as they had wont to speak; that is the knife still at hand to help to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and absurd fantasies they have snarled themselves in. And the better to enforce this e Catholicon Medicorum, sive Panacaeú Papisticum. Catholic Answer, that se●ueth them for the saluing of all sores, he reckoneth up a long bead roll of wonderful works; as the Creation, the Resurrection, the Hypostatical union, the Trinity in Unity, the torment of Spirits by corporal fire, Christ coming out of the Sepulchre without removing the huge stone, his entering into the house while the doors were still shut, his appearing to Paul on earth while he was still in heaven, (which he telleth us Bellarmine hath plainly proved) his piercing of the solid Orbs of heaven in his Ascension, the soul being at once entirely in distant parts of man's body, etc. And then demandeth why God cannot cause Christ's body to be as well one and the same, whole and entire in so many several distant places at once; the rather since that it is equal above nature for many bodies to possess one place, as for one body to be in many places. 1. Here are diverse things that are questionable both in Divinity and Philosophy: which albeit he take pro concessis, will not so easily be granted him, till they be better proved then as yet they are, howsoever we exclude not divers of them out of the reach of God's omnipotency, even as he vnderstandeth them; as 1. The manner of the f Vise jul. Scalig. de subtle. exercit. 307. Sect. 29. Aegidium in l. 2. de anima. c. 2. q. 6. & Hospinian. de sede anim. souls being in distant parts of the body is disputable: nor is there the same reason of bodies and of spirits. 2. The torment of spirits whether it be by corporal fire or no, is not agreed on as a matter of faith; g De purgat. l. 2. c. 11. Bellarmine himself so confesseth. 3. The manner of h Act. 9 17. Christ's apparition to S. Paul is not certain. Neither doth Bellarmine prove that Christ was below on earth, or near the earth in his humanity; nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. i Act. 7. 56. Steven saw him in heaven, the heavens opened: k 2 Cor. 12, 2, 3, 4. Paul was rapt up himself into heaven. Yea l Apparuit illi primum in coelo. Ambr. hom. in 1. Cor. 15. in heaven, and m Superna ei pietas coelos aperuit, seseque illi Iesus de sublim●bus ostendit. Greg. mor. l. 19 c. 5. from heaven it was that Christ appeared to him; if we may believe Pope Gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for Ambrose. Nor can n Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 3. Bellarmine produce any one of the Ancients that saith otherwise. Howbeit neither do we so pen up Christ in heaven, but that he may at his pleasure (though ordinarily he doth not) descend. 4. For o joh. 20. 19 Christ's coming in to his Disciples when the doors were shut. Why might not (as Jerome speaketh) p Creaturam cedere creatori. Hieron. ad Pammach. contr. error. joan. Hieros. the creature give way to the Creator; as q Act. 12. 10. the iron gate did to Peter? r Durand. in senten. l. 4. d. 44. q. 6. ad. 3. It is said, saith Durand, one of their Schoolmen, that Christ came when the doors were shut: but it is not said, that he came in through the doors so shut: he might enter in by some other place; or cause the doors to open suddenly, and shut instantly again. 5. For Christ's resurrection; Let him hear the same Durand. s Idem ibid. ad 2. It cannot (saith he) be proved by any Text of Scripture, that Christ rose again while the Tomb was so shut: and so consequently that his body passed through the stone. Or if Durands authority will not serve; let them hear Pope Leo in one of his decretal Epistles: t Revoluto monumenti lapide caro surrexit. Leo Pp. epist. 83. Christ's body (saith he) rose again the stone being rolled away. 6. For his Ascension; to omit, that this u Vid: Zanc de operibus create part. 2. l. 2. c. 3. Th. 3 Et Keckerm. system. physic. l. 2 c. 2. solidity of the Orbs is in Philosophy a thing questionable; and such a point, as if it be denied, this great Doctor will hardly be ever able to make good: I answer with Durand; that x Durand. ubi sup. ad 1. Whether the heavens be divisible in their own nature, or by divine virtue, (as the one they well may be, and the other certainly they are) there is no necessity that Christ's body in his Ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the Orbs. So that in none of these Examples there is any necessity of two bodies being in one place at once. Which yet if it were proved (if they will believe their own Schoolmen) were not suffiicient. For howsoever this great Doctor tell us, that it is equally above nature for many bodies to be in one place, and for one body to be in many places: yet they say, that it is not so. y Tho. Aqui. quodlib. 1. art. 22. Though two bodies (saith Aquinas) may be in one places at once; yet it followeth not that one body may be in two places at once. The former is not possible but by miracle; the latter not at all. z Durand. in 4. d. 4. q. 6. ad 1. It is not alike (saith Durand) for two bodies to be at once in one place; and for one body to be at once in more places than one. For the one implieth a contradiction; the other doth not, (the former he meaneth) though it may seem so to do. 2. And so he hath a direct answer, why we deny that a body can be in divers places at once; notwithstanding we believe and acknowledge Gods wonderful works of Creation, Resurrection, Christ's Incarnation, and those unsearchable mysteries of the Trinity, and Hypostatical union, etc. because the one implieth a contradiction, those other do not. And here let me entreat the Reader (since that these men so much press us with God's omnipotency) to cast his eye back with me to those manifold a Diuis. 2. sect. 4. num. 3. impossibilities before mentioned, and by themselves acknowledged, even in this very business concerning the Sacrament. Whereby it may appear, that they make use of it only to serve their own turns, urging it then when it may stead them, and denying it then when it doth not. To recite again some one or two of them only, adding one or two more to them b Bellarm, de Euchar. 〈…〉. 3. c. 19 Luther's opinion (saith Bellarmine) cannot be true: because c Nullo modo fierr potest ut una res non mutetur, & ta●en 〈…〉 alia. it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed, and yet should become another. And d Impossibile rem unam converti in aliam, nec tamen in ea parte desinere esse quod erat. Lanfranc. contr. Bereng. It is impossible (saith Lanfranck) that one thing should be turned into another, and not cease to be, so far forth as it is converted. e Supra Diui●. 2. It is impossible (saith this Defendant, that cannot endure here to hear of any impossibility) That a man should be a Rock, or a vine. And f Fieri non potest ut pavis sit corpus Christi. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. 〈…〉. 1●. It is impossible (saith Bellarmine) that bread should be Christ's body. g Non potest esse aliquis simul in diversis temporibus. Fr. Mairon, in sent, l. 4. d. 11. q. 1. It is not possible (saith Maironis) that one should be in two times at once. (And is it not as impossible then, for one to be in two places at once?) And h Idem effectus non potest habere plures causas totales. Ibid. it is impossible that one single effect should have divers total causes: and i Ideò idem a●●idens non potest esse in diversis subiectis. Ibid. impossible therefore that one and the same accident should be in divers subjects. (And why not as impossible for one subject to have divers accidents, as divers seats, sites, qualities, and quantities at once? which Christsbody must needs have, i● it be with us in the Eucharist.) k Vnde & idem non potest simul moveri motibus oppositis. Durand. in sent. l. 4. d. 10. q. 3. It is impossible (saith Durand) that one and the same thing should move two contrary ways at once. And l Impossibile est quod unus motus eiusdem corporis localiter moti terminetur simul ad diversa ●oca. Thom sum. p. 3. q 75. a. 2. It is impossible (saith Aquinas) that the same body should by local motion arrive in divers several places at once. And m Impossibile est idem esse motum & quietum. Ibid. q 76. a. 6. It is impossible that one and the self same thing should both rest and stir at once. And yet should Christ's body, if it were in the Host, or if it were the very Host rather, do all this, when at the same time it both resteth in the Pyx in one place, and goeth in Procession in another place, and is in divers processions, or on sundry several occasions carried contrary ways to several persons and places at the same instant. No more therefore do we curb or restrain God's omnipotency, when we deny that a body can be by any means in two distant places at once, than they do, when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken. And for the reason of our denial, let them hear be side Durands, Aquinas his confession. * V●um corpus non potest esse in lu●bus locis. V●… enim corpus esse localiter in duobus locis implicat contradictionem. Thom. Aq. quodlib. 1. art. 22. For one body (saith he) to be locally in two places at once, it implieth a contradiction: and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once; no not by miracle neither: For those things that imply contradiction God cannot do. n Deus non potest sacere, ut unum corpus localiter sit simul in duobus locis. Idem quodli I. 3. art. 2. God therefore cannot make a body to be locally in two places at once. The very self same saith o Aegid. Rom. quodlib 1. q. 1. Aegidius too: and Amolynus on him; that p Si essent mille miracula, non adaequarent potentiam ad id quod implicat contradictione. Laurent. Amolyn. in eund. ibid. although a thousand miracles were wrought, nothing could be effected that implieth a contradiction; as this doth. Certainly the holy Fathers doubted not to affirm that N. P. Christ left his body here on earth, and yet assumed with him the same body into heaven; he held his body in his own hands at his last Supper, and distributed it severally to his Apostles; as hath been already out of S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, and other holy Fathers formerly by me alleged. Insomuch as Melancthon one of the main pillars of Protestant Religion, understood the opinion of the holy Fathers so well in this point, and attributed so much withal to God's omnipotency, as he writeth thus of this very Argument. c Epist. ad Martinum Ge●ob. I had rather offer myself to death then to affirm as Zwinglians do, that Christ's body cannot be but in one place at once. And S. Augustine (as Bellarmine proveth) was so far from denying this to the body of Christ, as he doubted whether the holy Martyrs may not be at the self same time in several Churches and Memories erected of them; albeit naturally no spirit nor body can be more then in one place, or remain without some certain place of being: which latter is in the places ciced by this Minister out of him only affirmed. And if a perfect substance or nature (as was the humanity of Christ) could want the natural personality and subsistence thereof, supplied by the divine person and hypostasis of the Son of God (as our Christian faith teacheth us) why cannot in like manner by God's omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remain without actual inhering and being in their natural subject? His other Arguments page 15. are drops of an afterstorme, and objections gathered out of S. Augustine, which do only prove that Christ is not visibly but in heaven; not denying his sacramental being in many places; as this Minister would have him. And surely our Saviour himself in the 6. Chapter of S. john, verse 61. solveth this very objection (as S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth him) when perceiving that his Disciples murmared at his promise of giving his flesh for meat, etc. he said to them, Doth this scandalise you? If then you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before, etc. As if he had said; Are you scandalised that I said being now present with you, I will give my flesh for food? what then will you do, or how far will▪ you be from believing that I canso give you my flesh, when I ●…ll ascend to heaven and be absent so far from you? § 2. THe places of the Fathers here pointed at, were before answered, where by him they were a● T. G. large alleged. And howsoever Augustine q Aug. de cura pro mort. her. c. 16. spoke modestly (after his manner) of a difficult Question, not daring peremptorily to determine by what means that was effected, that by diverse other means might be: yet in his books against Fa●stus the Manichie he saith expressly and peremptorily, that r Secundum presentiam corporalem simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in Cruse esse non potest. Aug. contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 11. Christ in regard of his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sun and in the Moon, and upon the Cross also: as they absurdly imagined and maintained that he was. And again in his Comment aries on the Gospel of S. john; not (as Bellarmine corruptly citeth him, as he doth also many others) that s Corp. Christi, in quo resurr. uno in loco esse potest. Bellar. de Euthar. l. 2. c. 24. Christ's body in which he rose again, M AY be; but (as t Vno in loco esse oportet. Aug. in joan. tr. 30. Peter Lombard, u Petr. Lomb. sen. l. 4. d. 10. A and other of their own Authors acknowledge him to say) that x Grar. de consecr. d. z. c. 1. Thom. in 4. d. 10. a. 1. Scot in 4. q. 3. & alii. ibid. it MU be in one place; howsoever his verity (that is, his Deity) be every where. Yea discusing the question at large in one of his Epistles, and having concluded the Negative, he saith that y Cavendum ne veritatem corporis auferamus, August. Epist. 17. they take away the truth of his body, that maintain it to be in many places at once: Whereas though z Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Ibid. immortality be conferred on it, yet nature is not taken from it. To which purpose he disputeth much of the nature of a true body, and delivereth those things, which I press out of him: all which together with the testimonies of other of the Ancients this superficial Answerer passeth over with sad silence; only boldly and b●asen facedly avouching that all that is alleged out of Augustine proveth nothing but this, that Christ is not visibly but in Heaven. Did he think that his Reader would not cast an eye on them, whem they were verbatim set down before him? § 3. Yea but our Saviour himself (he saith) solveth this Objection, john 6. 61. as Chrysostome understandeth him, when he saith, Doth this scandalise you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before, & c? as if he had said; Are you scandalised because I said being now, present with you, I will give my flesh for food? What then will you do, or how far will you be from believing that I can so give you my flesh when I shall ascend to heaven, and be so far above from you? 1. Where Chrysostome thus expoundeth the place, I know not. Upon the place (I am sure) he hath nothing but this, that a Chrysost. in joan. hom. 47. Christ by these words did intimate to them his Deity. Yea so b jansen. concord. Euang. cap. 59 jansenius also saith, that Chrysostome understandeth these words as spoken to assure them that he came down from heaven. The truth is; this exposition it not Chrysostom's, but Bellarmine's, (from whom this Collector hath filched it) who yet to add some grace and procure some weight to an invention of his own, saith that ᶜ Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at some such thing. Indicare mihi videtur Chrysost. Bellar. de Euch. l, 1. c. 6. And what Bellarmine saith cautelously, and timorously, Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at; that this blind bayard saith boldly and confidently, that Chrysostome saith; and upon the Exposition as backed now sufficiently with Chrysostome, he buildeth a peremptory answer to all mine Objections, that will easily remove them all. Did this man think that these things would ever be examined? Or is his credit so mean already that he need not fear to be discredited, that he dare use such sorry shifts as these are? 2. Grant all to be Chrysostom's, and all to be as true, as if not Chrysostome, but Christ himself had said it: what will thence be concluded to prove that Christ's body may be in many places at once? But since he hath cited this place, though to small purpose; let him hear Augustine's words on it, going directly against them, and these absurd fantasies of theirs. d August. in joan. tr. 27. Christ (saith he) doth in▪ these words e High so ●uit, quod eos moverat, etc. solve that that moved them: and openeth that whereas they were jcandalized. For they thought that he would give them out his body: but he told them that be should g●e up whole into heaven. As if he had said, f Aug ibid. When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before▪ certainly than you shall see, that he doth not give out his body in such a manner as you imagine: Certainly even than you shall understand, that his grace is not consumed by bits. And to Augustine addewe Athanasius one as ancient as the Nicene Council and a principal person in it g Athanas. in illud Euang. Quicunque dixerit, etc. Christ disputing (saith he) of the eating of his body, and seeing many thereupon scandalised, thus spoke; Doth this scandalise you? What then if you shall see the Son of Man ascend where before he was? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak are spinit and life. For here he spoke of both, both his flesh and his spirit, and distinguished the spirit from the flesh, that believing not only that that appeared to the eyes, but that also that was invisible, they might learn that those things also that he spoke were h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not carnal, but spiritual. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For to how many men could his body have sufficed to eat of? that it might be the foodalso of the whole world. But therefore made he▪ mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might withdraw them form the corporal understanding; and that then they might understand that his flesh which he spoke of was heavenly meat from above, and spiritual food to be given by him. For, saith he, Those things which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Which is even all one as if he had said; My body that is showed and given, shall be given to be meat for the whole world, k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that it may spiritually be distributed to each one, and become to each one a safeguard and preservative for resurrection to life eternal. So little doth this place avail for this purpose, as the Ancients both Latin and Greek expound it: making much rather against them & this popish doctrine of a carnal feeding on Christ's flesh; which those Fathers gather and prove thence to be wholly spiritual. But thus judicious is he in the choice of his allegations; and so sincere in his citations of the Ancients, putting down their names only, but pointing to no place, that his fraud and forgeries may not be discovered; and fastening upon them his own, or his own associates expositions, wholly differing and dissenting from that that themselves say. Moreover it is a wild kind of arguing from the natural N. P. and local extension of bodies to infer (as my Adversary doth page 16.) that by no possible power of God any body can want this local extension; this being a secondary effect of quantity, and an accidental propriety, which God may therefore easily hinder, and conserve without it bodily substance; as our Saviour himself insinuateth in the Gospel; affirming for a thing possible with God, to make a great Camel to pass through the eye of a needle; by taking (to wit) from it exterior bigness and local extension. Of which Camel so extenuated and straitened in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed, which this Minister accounteth so absurd, by us held of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And supposing truly that the body of Christ hath no extension in place, it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences; as that any part of Christ's body must be as great and greater than his whole body; and his whole body less than any part of it. For if neither the whole nor any part thereof, as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bigness at all, how can one part be said to be bigger than the whole? as of two black things a man should say, one was whiter than the other, when neither had any whiteness at all in them. § 4. TO the recital of their absurd assertions, that T. G. there is l Omnes parts integrales Corporis Christi, caput, pectus, manus, pedes, etc. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 42. Qui & asserit lect. 80. Non esse inconueniens, si ponantur infinitae partes substantiae pu●ctualis paris ante co●ecratio enquod infinities corpus Christi est sub speciebus panis post consecrationem. That Christ's body may be ten thousand thousand times (and why not ten thousand thousand bodies of Christ then?) with head, feet, hands, legs, back, breast, and belly, in one wafer if there be but so many crumbs as big a needle's point in it. Vide & Fr. Maironis in 4. ●ist▪ 10. quest. a. a whole Christ, flesh, blood, and bone, head, hands and feet, belly, breast and back, in every little wafercake, and every least crumb of each; and consequently, the whole body of Christ on earth less than the least limb or finger's end of it in heaven: as also to the allegations out of Augustine that this cannot be; for that in every true body, the parts cannot be altogether, but must have their due distance, and each of them his space or place according to his bigness; and none of them can be bigger than the whole: He maketh answer, that this is but a wild kind of reasoning: (and yet it is Augustine that so reasoneth, whom he might have been pleased to use with better terms:) telleth us what our Saviour saith of a Camel passing thorough a needle's eye: as if what were spoken there by our Saviour of the one did relieve the absurdity of the other: (which no whit it doth, being only m Hyperbole, qua nihil aliud quam hoc difficillimum esse intelligi voluit. Erasm. de rat. ver. Theolog. an hyperbolical speech, used to set forth the impossibility n Mat. 19 26. Mar. 10. 27. with man, of o Mar. 10. 24. such a rich man's salvation as he there speaketh of:) and informeth this ignorant Minister, that neither the whole body of Christ nor any part of it, as it is in the Sacrament, hath any exterior bigness at all. 1. Did any man ever before hear of a body without bigness? or a co●pus non quantum, without those dimensions that are so unseparable from a body, that the very same p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Corpus A●…st. categor. quantit. name is given unto either, and we have no particular name either in Greek or Latin to express the one by, but that which is the usual appellation of the other? But a number of such absurd dreams and dotages doth this prodigious doctrine produce. q Monstra quis tanta explicet? Sen. Theb. 1▪ Accidents without subjects: Bodies without bigness: Parts bigger than the whole: The whole less than the least part: A grown man's entire body with all limbs and toynts of it, couched and cooped up in a thin wafercake and in every crumb of it. The same body that is entire in heaven still, in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth; and yet never stir an inch from the place that in heaven it still holdeth. These are r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Rhaetens. de haeres. magical mysteries indeed, which it is no marvel if this ignorant Minister cannot conceive. 2 Yea but our Saviour's words of s Mat. 19 24. a Camel passing through a needle's eye, sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bigness and local extension: that is as much as if he had said, they show that a body may become no body, and yet be a body still. The speech is hyperbolical: and no more proveth a possibility of the thing therein spoken, (as t Piscat. in Math. 19 Piscator well observeth answering u De Euchar. l 1. c 14. Bellarmine, from whom he here hath it) then of many x Sic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et ex En●io Vairo, Prius pariet Locusta Lucan Bovem, i. Elephantem. other things, spoken commonly in speeches of the like kind. * Quantitas est de veritate corporis. Bonauent. in sen. l. 4. d. 10. q. 2. Quantity (saith Bonaventure) is of the verity of a body: and a true body consequently cannot be without it. And y Quamuis substantia possit abstrahi à quā●itate: tamen quod corpus vivat & sit organicum, & non sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec intelligi potest. Ibid. though it were granted that some substance might be without quantity, yet it cannot be that any quick or organical body (such as a Camels is, and such as he granteth Christ's to be) should be without it. Yea and therefore also z In altari non tantum est corporis Chri sti veritas, into etiam quantitas. Bonaven. ibid. not the verity only (as this fellow would have it) but the quantity also (as Bonaventure avoweth, and this fellow denieth) that is, the exterior bigness of Christ's body must needs be with it in the Sacrament, if it be at all there. 3. To conclude this wild discourse indeed, because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till he be giddy again: when we reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place; we reason no otherwise (howsoever he esteem it a wild kind of reasoning) then wise and learned men, yea Angels too, have taught us to reason. For as the Angel reasoneth with the nomen that came to seek Christ in the Sepulchre; a Mat. 28. 6. He is not here; for he is risen again: which were no good Argument, if his body might have been in two places at once: So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretics, where it stood them upon to speak warily, and not to argue wildly, as this giddy brains termeth it. b Theodo●et. dialog. 2. Christ's body (saith Theodoret) albeit it be now glorified, yet is a body still, and hath the same circumscription that before it had Which (as the c Act. 1. 11. Angels teach) shall come in the same manner as it was seen go to heaven. But they saw it then circumscribed. Yea our Lord himself saith, d Mat. 24. 30. You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds. But that nature cannot be seen, that is not circumscribed. He showeth then that his body is circumscribed. It is not therefore changed into another nature, but it remaineth still a true body, though filled with divine glory. So Fulgentius, e Fulgent. ad Thrasimund. sib. 2. One and the same Christ (saith he) is both local man of man, and God infinite of his Father. One and the same according to his humane nature f Absens coelo cum esset in terra; & derelinquens terram, cum ascendisset in coelum. absent from heaven, when he was here upon earth, and leaving the earth when he went up into heaven: but according to his divine and infinite nature, neither leaving heaven, when he came down from heaven; nor forsaking the earth, when he went up into heaven. Which may most certainly be gathered from his own words, who to show that his humanity was local, said, g joh. 20. 27. and 16. 28. I go up to my Father, etc. Now how went he up into heaven, but because he was local and true man? Or how is he h Mat. 28. 20. yet present with his faithful ones, but that he is infinite and true God? And Uigilius most evidently against Eutyches (to pass by all other places, which are more than one in him) i Vigil. contr. Eutych. lib. 4. If the Word (saith he) and the Flesh were both of one nature, how should not the flesh be every where as well as the word? For k Quando in terra fuit, non erat in coelo. when it (to wit, Christ's flesh, or his body, his humanity) was on earth, it was not in heaven; l Et nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra. and now because it is in heaven, it is not on earth: for that according to it m Phil. 3. 20. we expect Christ to come from heaven, whom according to the Word (that is, his Deity) we believe to be with us on earth. It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature, and is every where indeed according to the nature of his divinitic; but is contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity. And he concludeth his discourse thus; n Haec est fides & confessio Catholica, quam A. postoli tradiderunt, Martyrs roboraverunt, & fideles nunc usque custodiunt. This is the Catholic Faith and Confession, which the Apostles have delivered, Martyrs have confirmed, and the faithful keep to this day. And if this be so, then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the clean contrary to it, is not. Division 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversary wisely after his accustomed N. P. manner undertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christ's body and blood being conveyed unto us in the Sacrament: and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof; whereas o Lib. 4. instit. c. 17. sect. 7. 10. & 32. Calvin himself accounteth it an inconceivable and unexplicable mystery, worthy with wonder and astonishment to be by us believed, how (to wit) Christ's body so remotely distant as heaven is from the earth, can be eaten and received by us. p Beza de re Sacram. q. 9 We confess it (saith Beza) to be an incomprehensible mystery, wherein it cometh to pass that the same body which is and still remaineth in heaven, and is no where but there, should be truly communicated to us who are now on earth and no where else. This indeed is a mystery and true jewel of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived, as Calvin, Beza, and other chief Calvinists seem sometime to mean it, then to conceive all those true miracles, which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and use of this wonderful Sacrament. Yea surely it implieth an evident contradiction that Christ's body should be truly given together with the sacramental signs, as Calvin expressly affirmeth, and so by ut eaten, that is no nearer than the top of heaven is to the mouth of such as receive him. If by faith only and a grateful memory of his passion we eat Christ in the Sacrament, as this Minister solveth the former riddle; no more present therein, nor in any other manner conjoined with the sacramental signs, than the land conveyed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveyed with the seal thereof, or then he is present in the water of Baptism: (they are his own comparisons) then is their Sacrament a bare sign and figure of Christ's body, having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it. For what wonder is it for a man to eat one thing thinking upon another; bread (for example) remembering our Saviour's passion? And then are Calvin, Beza and many more of their learnedest companions mere jugglers and Impostors, who seek to plaster rotten walls, and mask with great words the naked breadinesse of their Protestanticall Sacrament. AT the end of this Argument I answer an Objection, T. G. how Christ's body and blood can be conveyed unto us, or eaten and drunk of us in the Eucharist, if he be not there present. Which Question from the Fathers (as you heard before) may in a word be soon answered. Because our Saviour showed it by those words of his concerning his ascension, & his speech thereunto annexed, to be a spiritual not a corporal kind of communication. And if they will hear one of their own Bishops, jansenius; he will tell them, that q jansen. in concold. Euang. c. 59 to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood is to believe in his Incarnation and in his passion and blood, shedding; and that so by faith either of them are both present with us, and conveyed to us as well in the Sacrament, as out of it. But hereupon this mine Adversary befooling me for my labour, for taking such a task upon me, to answer such a Question; saith, I undertake to declare that by comparisons, as if there were no difficulty at all in it, c All this of Calvin and Beza he borroweth from Bellarmine de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. which Calvin and Beza confess to be a mystery, unconceivable, incomprehensible, inexplicable, yea which (as we hold it) implieth an evident contradiction: affirming that Christ is no more present therein, nor in any manner conjoined with the sacramental signs, than the land conveyed by an Indenture sealed is present with the same, or then he is present with the water in Baptism. Whereupon he worthily inferreth; that this our Sacrament then is but a bare sign or figure of Christ's body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration; and Calvin and Beza, etc. are but jugglers and Impostors. It might well have been one of Hercules his labours to purge this man's writings. Augaeus his stable was not fuller of dirt and dung, than they are of foul and filthy corrupt matter, and of loud and lewd lies. 1. Where do I affirm it to be a matter without all difficulty fully to explicate the admirable efficacy and operation of divine mysteries, or the manner how the same is effected? I show only by some comparisons (and those such as the Apostle warranteth the use of) how Christ may being absent, be truly and effectually conveyed and assured unto us. But followeth it thence that I hold the thing itself for the manner of effecting it to have no difficulty at all in it? Do not the ancient Fathers hold the Trinity an unsearchable mystery? And yet what is more common among them then s See Greg. Naz. ad Nectar. and Aug. de Trinit l. 10, 11, 12, 13. & de verb. Ap hom 1. etc. by Comparisons and similitudes to show how in one nature there may be a plurality of persons? This Disputant himself among other wondrous works reckoneth the resurrection of men's bodies for one: will he say that the Fathers therefore deem that there is no difficulty in it, because t See Tertull. de resurr. carn. Athenag. de resurr. &c yea the Apostle himself 1Cor. 15. 35, 36. 37. by sundry similitudes they endeavour to prove a possibility of it; notwithstanding the frequent and successive conversions of them into other things altered and consumed, as he speaketh? 2. Let him show how it implieth an evident contradiction, to say that Christ's body is truly given with the sacramental signs, though it be no nearer than heaven-top is to the mouths of the receivers. How this may be, without colour of contradiction, not in the Sacrament only, but out of it also, when as the thing is done spiritually, beside the comparisons that I express it by, his own u jansen. ubi sup. jansenius will show; yea or his own Albert will inform him, where he saith, that x Manducantes non mandu●ā●, & non manducantes manducant. A●bert▪ de Sacram. Euchar. serm. 27. Some eat and yet eat not; and some eat not, and yet eat. The former he meaneth of those that eat unprofitably in the Sacrament; the latter of those that eat spiritually out of it. If out of the Sacrament men may truly receive Christ's body, though it be no nearer than heaven top to their mouths; then is it no such strange paradox as should imply contradiction, to say that the self same is done in the Sacrament also. I will tell him of a stranger matter. Many thousands thus did eat Christ's flesh a thousand years before he was in the flesh. For howsoever he required before to have it proved; and Bellarmine y Paulus nusque dicit escam vel potu●… illum fuisse Christum: non aquam, sed Petram. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. in divers places would fain deny it, and in z Non sumebant reipsa carnem Christi, sed effectum eius. Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. Esca & potus ille non propter effectum spirituales dicuntur. Idem de sacr. effect. lib. 2. c. 17. Nec fuerunt Sacramenta. Ibid. effect sometime doth, though directly and absolutely he dare not: yet it was showed before out of Augustine: to whom I now add Gregory Nyssene: who in his tenth Sermon on the Canticles, speaking of those words, a Cant. 5. 1. Eat and drink my friends, b Ei qui mysticas illas Euangelii voces intelligit, nullum apparebit discrimen inter hoc loco posita verba, & institutam ibid. mysterii celebrationem etc. Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Ser. 10. There is no difference (saith he) between the words here used, and the words used in the Institution of the Eucharist. For that which he exhorteth us to do in the one, c Idem Hic & id temporis sac●um est. was then also done in that divine meat and drink. And very many, yea the most of their own writers uniformly confess it. Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 10. d 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. They did eat all the same spiritual meat: that is, e Id est, corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto. Christ's body in a sign spiritually understood: and drank all the same spiritual drink: to wit, Christ's blood in a sign. g Manducabant Christum spiritualiter. They did eat Christ spiritually; according to that, h Crede & manducasti Aug in joan. tr. 25. Believe and thou hast eaten. i Anselmi nomine prostant, sed Har●aei sunt commentarii illi. Vise Fontanum in praefat. & Possevin. in Appar. Anselm, or Hervae●…s rather that goeth under his name, k Eandem escam corporis Christi, quam nos in pane manducamus, ipsi manducaverunt in Manna: & eundem potum sanguinis Christi, quem nos ex calice bibimus, ipsi biberunt ex petra. They did eat in the Manna the same food of Christ's body that we eat in Bread; and the same drink of Christ's blood that we drink out of the Chalice, did they drink from the Rock. Hugh of S. Uictors; The same (saith he) l Idem significantem, & idem efficientem. that is, signifying the same, and having the same effect. And Hugh the Cardinal; m Eundem cibum spiritualem, in Manna significatum, i. corpus Christi: eundem potum spiritualem, sanguinem Christi biberunt. They did eat signified in the Manna the same spiritual meat, that is, the body of Christ; and drank the same spiritual drink, the blood of Christ: and this did they by faith according to that of Augustine; Believe and thou hast eaten. If Christ's flesh than might be spiritually eaten by faith so long before it was; and it implieth no contradiction f Scilicet, Christi sanguinem in signo. n Aug in joan. tract. 25. to say that Christ's flesh was so eaten even before his Incarnation; much less doth it to say, that it is now spiritually eaten, though locally and corporally it be no nearer than heaven-top is to the mouth or lips of him that so eateth it. Faith like o Absentes prosentes facit. Turpilius. Quid enim tam presens est inter absentes quam per epistolas & alloqui & audire quos diligas? Hier. ad Nitiam. an Epistle, maketh things and persons p Nam rerum absentium presens est fides. Aug. de Trinit. l. 13. c. 1. Quem & vide sup. ex tr. 50. in joan. & epist. 89. absent present. Nor doth a spiritual feeding necessarily require a corporal presence of that that is fed on. 3. Where say I, that Christ is no otherwise conjoinrd with the Sacrament, than the land with the Indenture and seal of it? I say only q Quo modo etiam Caluinum hoc explicasse docet Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10. Sed & long ante Caluinum Bern. de temp. 54. Datur annulus ad investiendum de haereditate aliqua. etc. that Christ's body maybe and is as effectually conveyed unto us by the one, as land is conveyed to us by the other, though neither of them be locally or materially present. And if no more than so were done in the Sacrament, yet were there much more done thereby, then by their own confession is done by their oral and corporal manducation; in which manner they grant themselves that many so eat Christ, as yet he is never effectually conveyed or assured unto, to be theirs. 4. I say indeed that Christ is as truly present in the Word (which he slyly passeth by, and maketh not a word of) and in Baptism as in the Eucharist; and we receive him as really and as effectually in the one as in the other. Nor doth he answer one word to the allegations of the Fathers to that purpose produced: To which may be added that of Tertullian, which shall hereafter be recited: And this of Augustine, which he saith of Mary, that s Audeo dicere; ipsum manducabat, quem audiebat. Aug. de diveri. serm. 27. she did eat him whom she heard: and proveth what he saith by that place of john, t joh. 6. 51. I am the living bread, which whosoever eateth shall live for ever. As that also of Ambrose; u Panem illum manducat, qui ea quae scripta ●…t seruat. Ambros. in Luc. 7. He eateth that bread, that observeth God's word. And further also that x De Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. Bellarmine acknowledgeth that y Clem Alex. paedag. l. 〈…〉. 〈…〉. 6. Clemens of Alexandria, z Basil. Caes. epist. 141. Basil of Caesarea, (he might have added r Tertul. de resur. carn. See Divis. 14. Sect. 7. num. 2. a Origen. in Gen hom. 10. & in Numb. hom. 17. & 32. Origen also, and b Chrys. in joan hom. 46. Chrysostom) c Hieron in Psal. 147. and Hierome apply those words of our Saviour, d joh. 6. 54, 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, etc. to the word: which howsoever indeed they be not directly spoken of there, yet certain it is that both in the judgement of those Ancients, (who else would not so have applied it) and in truth itself also (for neither dare Bellarmine himself therein control them) the thing there spoken of is in and by it also effectually performed. But to pass by the Word, and the unutterable effects of it, together with the unconceivable manner, whereby it either worketh upon our souls, or conveyeth Christ into our souls: for in receiving of it we e joh. 1. 11, 12. & 12. 48. receive Christ in it: Do not the ancient Fathers call the Sacrament of Baptism an ineffable mystery, as was cited out of Gregory Nyssene a little before? Yea do they not speak as much of the dignity and excellency, and of the unconceivable and unutterable efficacy of it, as either Calvin or Beza do of the Eucharist? And yet this shameless and blasphemous beast sticketh not to say, if Christ be no otherwise present in the Eucharist than he is in Baptism, it is but a bare sign or figure, having no mystery at all worthy of admiration. And so by necessary consequence he taxeth those Worthies (to speak in his fribald In part borrowed also from Bellarmine ●e Euch. l. c. 1. language) as mere jugglers and Impostors, that (in speaking so honourably of it, and ascribing such admirable power and efficacy unto it) seek to plaster rotten walls, and mask with great words the naked wateriness of their Baptism, by them so much admired. Let him show how with any colour at all, he can here clear himself of impiety and blasphemy. And let him (if he dare) deny that Christ is effectually received both in the Word and in g Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis & sanguinis Christi participem fieri quando in baptismate membrum Christi corporis efficitur etiamsi antequam illum panem comedat, etc. de hoc seculo abscedat. Gratian. ex August, de consecr, dist. 4. & Biel in Can. Miss. lect. 36. Baptism: in neither whereof yet there is any such real transmutation, or corporal presence, as they necessarily require unto the receiving of Christ in the Eucharist. Division 13. MY Adversary's next Argument from the quality of N. P. the Communicants, page 18. is this; If Christ's body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist, than all that eat thereof must of necessity eat Christ in it. But many eat of the Eucharist, that yet eat not Christ in it: for none but faithful and lively members of Christ eat him in this Sacrament. In which Argument he endeavoureth to prove one falsehood by another, equally by us denied; because the holy Fathers expressly affirm that judas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul received, albeit unworthily, and to damnation, the body of Christ, as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. evidently import; and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receive Christ in the Sacrament, they speak not of bare sacramental, but of profitable and fruitful receiving of him. MY sixth Reason is taken from the quality of the Communicants. T. G. The Argument is briefly this; Many eat of the Eucharist, that eat not Christ in it: Ergò Christ is not corporally in it: The Antecedent is thus proved: None feed on Christ but the faithful; such as be in Christ, and live by Christ: But many eat of the Eucharist that are unfaithful, and are out of Christ: Ergò, etc. The Proposition of this latter Syllogism he denyeth, and saith it is a mere falsehood: and why so? forsooth they deny it themselves. And why do they so? because the holy Fathers say that judas and the Corinthians blamed by S. Paul, did receive Christ's body, as the Apostles words evidently import. 1. For the Apostle, he saith expressly, h 1 Cor. 11. 27. He that eateth this bread: as plainly as can be telling us more than once or twice, that it was bread that they did eat, though termed also Christ's body (as hath oft been said, and as Augustine showeth) because a Sacrament of it. 2. Is not this shameless dealing to say the Fathers affirm that judas received Christ's natural body (for of that is the question) yet not alleging any one tittle out of any of them for the proof of it? and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the contrary, that judas ate Christ's bread, but not the bread Christ; which he answereth not a word to. If they say that judas ate with the rest Christ's body; they expound themselves what thereby they mean, to wit, i Panis Christi datus est judae. Aug. in joan. tr. 62. Christ's bread, k Tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit, quando omnibus eis distribuit Sacramentum corporis & sanguinissui, ubi & ipse Iudas erat Ibid. the Sacrament of his body. § 2. Yea but the Fathers, when they deny wicked men to rece●● Christ in the Sacrament, they speak not of bare sacramental, but of profitable and fruitful receiving of him. 1. It is true indeed, they speak not of bare sacramental eating. And who saith they do? Or what is this tooth purpose? what is it but that I say? They speak not of bare sacrametall eating, when they say, wickedmen eat not Christ in the Eucharist, but they speak of it, when they say they do eat yet of the Eucharist; wherein they should eat Christ, were Christ corporally in it, which they say they do not. 2. They say (you have their own words) that it is not possible for any wicked man to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, albeit they do gnaw or chew the Sacrament with their teeth: because our Saviour saith; l joh. 6 56. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me; and m joh. 6. 51. whosoever eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 3. This Answer implieth that Christ's body itself may unfruitfully and unprofitably be eaten: as if the ancient Fathers had dreamt of a twofold eating of it, a worthy and profitable, and an unworthy and unprofitable eating. To which I might answer with his own Bishop I ansenius, his words; n jansen. concord. cap. 59 He that unworthily eateth the bread of life in the Sacrament, doth not truly eat of that bread of which it is said, o joh. 6. 48. I am the bread of life; and p joh 6. 55. My flesh is meat in deed. And he addeth, that it were an absurd thing to expound our Saviour where he saith, q joh. 6. 51. If a man eat of this r joh. 6. 49. bread he shall live for ever; as if he should mean; If a man eat worthily of this bread, he shall live for ever: as if any man could eat unworthily of it, as some did of the Manna, and eternally died. But hear we Augustine in a word what he saith hereof, and so learn we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients, not by this idle fellows frivolous conceits, but by Augustine himself: s Huius rei sacramentum de mensa Dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps su● erit. August, 〈…〉 an. tract. 26. The Sacrament hereof (saith he) to wit, of Christ's body and blood and our union with either) is taken at the Lords table, by some to life, by some to death: But the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament, is taken by every one that partaketh thereof to life; by none to death. And if of all to life, by none to death, then undoubtedly not unworthily or unprofitably of any. Division 14. LAstly, when pag. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. he argueth that Christ's body cannot be in the Eucharist: first, because N. P. than it should be broken as the bread is broken. Secondly, it should be subject to many undecencies, as corruption, putrefaction, mice-eating and other foul abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament. I answer him that Christ's body being in itself now glorious and impossible, and after a spiritual and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament, cannot be in itself broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can be wounded, or then the Majesty of the divine person in Christ was by thorns torn, nails pierced, or other torments defaced: for all such indignities and painful alterations, were immediately only inflicted on the corporal nature of our Saviour defaced utterly by them, and touched not immediately the divine person, albeit personally therein subsisting: So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramental signs touch not at all the body itself of our Saviour impassibly and iudivisibly under them, more than the majesty itself of the divine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places, etc. Such Arguments as these made against our Saviour's real true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Adversaries, are like to those other Arguments wont to be made by the Eutycheans, Nestorians, Arians, and other ancient Heretics, against the divinity of our Saviour, and personal union of two natures in him; as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceived, that either God so united with man, or man deified by personal assumption should be torn with whips, thorns, and nails, spit upon, buffeted, and finally die in agonies and torments; that fleas and flies should suck the blood of God, bite his flesh, etc. which indeed is more than can be done unto the same, as it is here in the Sacrament, even when mice eat the sacramental signs, or when in our stomaches we receive them, or by fire we consume them, or ●…wise abuse them, Christ being not quantitatively and corporally with them extended, and so, not to be touched or altered by any corporal action done about them. And holy souls considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament, affording therein for his glory and our great good his own comfortable presence unto us, have just reason to cry out his mercy, and to admire his wisdom, power and goodness wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself, as I may justly call this Sacramental presence, or hiding of himself in this Sacrament, to become thereby an heavenly food and divine refection of souls devontly receiving him; as also a loving spouse visiting, embracing, delighting, adorning and enriching them with his presence, daily triumphing himself in his victory over Satan, and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion; and making us also to triumph with him: And whereas the Devil once by his ministers jews and Gentiles, caused his blood to be separated from his body, he devised to have that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the f●ce of his eternal Father for us, which is t 1 Cor. 11. the declaring of the Lords death till he come, mentioned by the Apostle. MY last Argument is taken from those things that T. G. are done abo●…, or may befall the consecrated creatures, which if they be Christ's body and blood must needs befall Christ, as fraction, corruption, putrefaction, mitebreeding, mice, eating, etc. To this he answereth; 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament, yet Christ's body being now glorious and impassable, and after a spiritual and indivisible manner present, it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded, or Christ's Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what he granteth. Christ's body is now glorious and impassable: and therefore not subject unto such indignities, as these creatures are: and the one consequently is not the other. Yea, is Christ's body itself impassable? What is it then, that (as Origen speaketh) goeth into the draught? etc. which this Defendant taketh no notice of, because he knoweth not what to say to it. Or let him resolve what those ashes, that they will to be reserved for relics or what those mites are made of, that breed in the consecrated bread, when either they burn it, and so deal with it as they do with Heretics, or reserve it over long. 2. It is present in a spiritual manner, Had he but added, only, he had marred all: he had been a foul Heretic, and perchance might far no better, if he would stand to his words, than this their little God almighty doth, when he groweth hoary. But is he come to that now, Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament? What is become (I marvel) of that carnal and corporal presence then, that they prate so much of? and for want whereof they so much vilify the Protestantical Communion? Or what is the reason why he could not endure to hear, that those words of our Saviour, of eating his flesh, john 6. should be spiritually understood? 3. If these things cannot befall Christ's body, because it is after a spiritual manner present; then belike these things may befall it, yea must needs befall it when they do fall out, if it be present in a carnal or corporal manner; which u Carnaliter. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 12. Corporaliter. Idem ibid. l. 1. c. 12. Bellarmine granteth it is, and they stick not usually to afifrme. 4. If Christ's body be in an indivisible manner there, what is it that is there broken? Or what did our Saviour break at his last Supper? at which time also his body was not indivisible, or x As themselves grant. Duran. ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 4 and 6. part. Can. & Thom. sum. p. 3. q. 81. a. 3. ex Innocent. 3. de sacr. altar. l. 4. c. 12. impassable. Or how doth Pope Nicholas tell us that Christ's y Corpus ipsum. body itself is sensually broken? Where mark (I pray you) how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prove the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread, and to show the absurdity of their doctrine in this point, as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christ's very body itself is broken and torn in pieces, as also of others that say, that a Quidam dicunt quia nihil ●bi frantur. Lombard. sent. l. 4. d. 12. C. nothing is broken at all, or nothing but accidents only, here is not a word answered. The host (they say) is Christ's body, and b Durand rational diuin. l 4. p. 4. c. 3. Et Biel in Can. Miss. lect 80. Frangit sacerdotes hostiam. the Priest breaketh the host: and yet he breaketh not Christ's body. For Christ's body neither is nor can be broken. We may reason well backward: Christ's body is not broken: But the host is broken: The host therefore is not Christ's body. Or Christ is not divided: But the host is divided: The host therefore is not Christ. 5. Christ's body, though it be there, yet it cannot be abused. No? Is it not abused when the drunken Priest speweth it up again? which their Church Canons therefore make provision for. Or is it not abused, when it is burnt by them and used like an Heretic? Or when it is devoured and swallowed down by mice and rats? as their own Schoolmen confess. How is it then that their S. Clement giveth S. james such charge as you heard before of it, lest some foul abuse befall Christ's body? 6. Yea but, though it be so, yet is it no more abused, than an Angel in an assumpted body, can be wounded, or Corpus spiritale, non spiritus sicut animale corpus non est anima sed corpus: ita & spiritale corpus non spiritum debemus putare sed corpus. Aug. ep. 146. Christ's Deity was on the Crosse. Is Christ's humanity then turned into his Deity? Or hath ᶜ Christ now assumed the nature of Angels, and so is now become a Spirit? It is a spiritual body (saith Augustine) yet not a Spirit: As an animal body is not a soul, but a body; so such a spiritual body as the Apostle speaketh of, is not a spirit but a body. But e Quis audeat opinari vel Christi corpus spiritale non resurrexisse, vel si spiritale surrexit, iam non corpus fuisse sed spiritum? who dare say either that Christ's body rose not again a spiritual body: or if it did rise again a spiritual body, that it was no more a body now but a Spirit? When he himself refuteth this opinion in his Disciples; who when they took him for a d 1 Cor. 15. 44. Spirit, f Luk. 24. 39 he bade them, Feel, and see; for a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw he had. g jam igitur illa caro spiritale erat corpus, n●c tamen spiritus erat, sed corpus. Even then therefore was that flesh of his a spiritual body, and yet was it a body and not a Spirit. And Bellarmine himself, h Corp. Christi, ut est in Bucharistia, est verum, real, naturale, animatum, quantum, coloratum, etc. & caro corporalis, non spiritualis, nisi ut obediens spiritui in omnibus Bellarm. de Euchar. liq. 1. cap. 2. Christ's body, as it is in the Eucharist, is a true, real, natural, living, big, coloured body: and the flesh of Christ is corporal, not spiritual, unless we take spiritual as the Apostle doth, for obedient to the spirit. It is absurd then to reason from Christ's Godhead to his manhood; or from an Angel in an assumpted body to Christ's pretended body in the Eucharist; or in things concerning the true nature of a body, from a Spirit to a body. An Angel could not be hurt, though the body assumed by him should be hacked or hewed asunder: but i Gabr. Biel in Can. Miss. sect. 80. Corpus Christi cum sit animatum & organicum, si frangeretur & divideretur, corrumperetur. Christ's body (saith Biel, one of their Schoolmen) being a living and organical body, if it should be broken and divided, would be destroyed. § 2. Such Arguments (he saith) as these were made by the ancient Heretics, to wit, the Eutychians, Nestorians, Arrians, etc. against our Saviour's divinity and the personal union of two natures in him, viz. that it was unfit to conceive that God to be man so united, or man Deified should be beaten, buffeted, whipped, torn with nails and thorns, etc. 1. It is true that some Heretics; yet not the Eutychians (how should they argue against Christ's Deity, that held his humanity wholly turned into it?) no nor the Arrians; but the Nestorians, and long before them the Marcionites (whose absurd dotages these men revive again) made objection of the things here spoken of. But he knoweth well enough, what was then answered them (if he know aught at least in the Fathers, whom he would seem to have at his finger's ends) by those that refuted them; to wit, that our Saviour was then in a state of humiliation; whereas now he is in a state of glorification; and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that he was then content to expose and subject himself unto, to bring us unto glory. 2. They objected these things truly; but without just cause then: We object them, though not supposing them to be true, yet finding them to follow necessarily from their carnal conceits, upon just ground against them. And belike he findeth himself and his, guilty of exposing & subiecting Christ glorious body (a thing most impious) to such indignities a new. § 3. Yea but (saith this Fantastic) there is a second exhiminition of Christ in this sacramental presence, or hiding of himself in this Sacrament. 1. In the beginning of his Discourse he came over me for writing a bad band. I know not whether the fair band be his own or no that his own Discourse is written in. If it be (sure I am) his Scholarship is very small, that putteth exhiminition for exinanition: for so I suppose his meaning is; because I find it so in k Turrian. de Euchar. tract. 1. cap. 11. Turrian; from whom it is like enough he had it, fathered upon one Methodius, whom Bellarmine was much to blame that he overslipped, when he mustered his Fathers for Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament. But here is a new doctrine indeed, and yet most true, if all be as they say, that our blessed Saviour is returned to a state of exinanition, that is, humiliation, dejection, infirmity, indignity, pain and infamy again: for all this the word of l Philip. 2. 7. exinanition importeth. Belike they think he suffered not enough, or was not throughly enough exinanited while he was here on earth, that they must needs bring him back again, to snffer such ignominious things, out of heaven, as to be chewed, to be burnt, to grow mouldy, to putrefy, to turn into mites and maggots, to pass into the bellies of mice and rats, etc. to undergo those things in his second exinanition, that in the first he never did. 2. He thought it before m Diuis. 10. ad Arg. 4. a most base and unworthy thing, to imagine that Christ should have hid himself in a corner from the jews, when they would have stoned him in the Temple: (as if he must of necessity either so do, or else make his body to be for the present as they say it is now in the Eucharist) yet here he telleth us, that he hideth himself in the Sacrament; not in a corner of the Temple, but in a little round wafercake, or in the Pyx (at least) that reserveth it, so long now and then, for want of good looking to, that it breedeth pretty little quick creatures, as good a God every one of them, as any crumb of the host was, of which they were bred. But as n Mat. 24. 26. See Dr. Sheldens' Sermon on it. our Saviour forewarned us; though they tell us that Christ is hid in the Pyx, or in some other secret place, yet we little believe them. We may rather believe that the wiser and learneder sort among them, hardly believe themselves herein. 3. He telleth us here that Christ hideth himself in the Sacrament, and a little before that being not quantitatively and corporally extended therein, he is not touched nor altered with any corporal action done about it. If he be hid there, how saith Bellarmine, that o Super mensam visibiliter adest Bellar. de misla. l. 1. c. 12. he is there visibly upon the board? Or if he be neither seen nor touched there, why would he make us believe that Chrysostome saith, that we do see him, and touch him, and handle him there? Or how saith he a little after that Christ, as a loving Spouse, doth there visit and embrace us? It is true indeed that their Priests use much wanton dalliance with their breaden God, while they make the poor people like silly idiots, adore him, and like Ixion for a substance embrace a mere shadow. THis is that clean host, as S. Irenaeus affirmeth, which N. P. the Gentiles were by Malachy foretold to offer unto God in all places; and the only sacrifice of Christians, as S. Augustine calleth it; figured by Melchisedechs' oblation of bread and wine, as the holy Fathers jointly teach us, and represented by the jewish as well bloody as unbloody sacrifices: not distinct from the sacrifice of the Cross, by which alone our redemption was consummated, as * Ad Heb. 5. S. Paul teacheth us, but the same in the host and chief offerer thereof, daily repeated now in an other unbloody and mysterious manner by the Ministry of Christ's consecrated servants. So as all Christian Nations of the world, Grecians (for example) Rutenians, Armenians, Mozaribites, Cataians, Ethiopians, and other Christians in India, near mount Libanus and in other the remotest places in the world, such as have not ever heard peradventure of the Roman Church since their first Apostolical conversions, or had any commerce between themselves, are known to conspire (not withstanding their other late errors) with us in the celebration and true belief of this great sacrifice and Sacrament, as Dr. Philippus Nicolai a chief Protestant Divine in his Commentary of Christ's Kingdom, and Sir Edwin Sands in his Relation of Religion, etc. with other adversaries of our Church plainly acknowledge. Which may be to any wise and well minded man an evident argument, that they received this common belief and celebration of this divine sacrifice, from no other fountain but the instruction and example of their first Apostolical converters. And when Luther taught by the Devil (as he plainly confesseth) upon plain sophisms and doceitfull arguments by himself particularly related (as I have seen in “ Tom. 6. Germ. jenensi. sol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari. Tun. 7. Wittenberg. anno Dom. 1588., in lib. de Miss. privata, & vnctione sacerdot. fol. 413. & fol. 228. his works first printed at jene and now extant in the great Library at Oxford) began to impugn that holy sacrifice which he had formerly offered, and presented that his heretical doctrine and whole confession of Augusta to be accepted, as he hoped by, the Grecian Churches, jeremias their Patriarch in his Censure (as he calleth his book) of the East Church, yet extant in Greek and Latin, plainly condemneth amongst their other heretical doctrines, this very denial of Christ's sacrifice, transubstantiation, etc. urging (as we do) invincible arguments, and the universal ever continued practice of Christ's Church to prove them; using (as I myself have seen in their Churches) alike form to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof, causesly wont by our Adversaries to be derided: whereas their own Liturgy or form of divine service is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance, having nothing decent therein but what they have stolen from us and picked here and there out of our Missals, gracing all with a rhyming Psalm, sung to a liggish tune, with jarring and for the most part untunable voices, never used before in any Christian Churches. The first Authors of this new Sect, were Apostates of our Church for their confessed disorders of life, and miserable ends plainly discovered to have been no Apostolical persons: whose endeavours have never tended at any time to convert Pagans to Christ, as his true Church shall ever do, but to corrupt Christians truly already converted: And they have seldom planted themselves in any Country, but upon very carnal, gross occasions, as here in England, or with open rebellion, and tragical acts against lawful Princes and Magistrates, namely in Scotland, France, Flanders, Switzerland Suevia, Polonia, several Provinces of Germany, Geneva itself and other Protestant territories. The pretence of a Church and Religion like to theirs in former ages cannot colourably be defended without many shifts & contradictory devices: Some will have it to have been latent and invisible for 800. others 900 other 1000 or 1200. years: Others contrarily teach it to have been ever visible and conspicuously dilated into many Christian Countries, as the Oraculous predictions of the Prophets and express promises of God himself describe it: Others say that our Church was ever the true Church of Christ; only in some parts of faith not fundamental erring, and by them since Luther reform: Others deny that ever our Church was the true Church of Christ, or other than a prevailing faction in the true Church professing at all times visibly and in all Christian countries their present doctrine. But no one of these dreamers and Church-devisers (as I may term them) is able before Luther to assign in any age since Christ or Country of the world one Parish of Protestant true prosessors, or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them: their religion indeed being like a beggar's cloak patched together out of old condemned Heresies and unsutably composed. Their marks of a Church, to wit, preaching of true doctrine and a rightful administration of Sacraments are such as any heretical sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the main grounds of Protestant doctrine; which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of Scripture, but what themselves list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administering Sacraments. § 4. HE magnifieth their Mass, by telling us that T. G. this is that clean host, that Irenaeus saith Malachi foretold; the Christians only sacrifice figured by that of Melchisedeck; and represented by the jewish as well bloody as unbloody Sacrifices; not distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, but the same repeated in another unbloody manner. 1. It is true indeed that p Iren. adu. Valent. l. 4. c. 32, 33. Irenaeus understandeth by that q Mal. 1. 11. pure Offering in Malachi the Eucharist now in use: and that the r Cypr. ep. 3. lib. 2. Euseb. praepar. Euan. lib. 5. cap. 3. Hieron. ad Marcell. Aug epist 95. & alii. Ancients many of them suppose it resembled in s Gen. 14. 18. that action of Melchisedeck: And they call it the Christians (yet t Heb. 13. 16 & 1 Pet. 2. 5. Vide & quot Sacrificiorum Christianorum mentionem ●aciant, Lactant instit. l. 6. c. 24. & ●5. Te●tull contr. Marc. l. 3. & 4. Chrysost. contr. lord orat. 〈…〉. Eiusdem nomine in Psal. 95. Cyrill. contr. julian. l. 10. Aug. de Civit. l. 10. c. 4. etc. not the only Christian) Sacrifice, succeeding in the room of the jewish Sacrifices; the Sacrament, I say, of the Eucharist, not their Sacrifice of the Mass. In what sense Augustine will tell us: u Sacrificium laudis, etc. Aug. contr. ●…ust. l. 20. c. 21. A Sacrifice of praise (saith he out of the Psalmist) shall glorify me; and there is the way that I will show him my Salvation. x Huius sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christum per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Sacrifices resembling it: in Christ's passion it was exhibited in the truth itself: since his ascension it is celebrated in a Sacrament of remembrance. And again: y Aug ibid. cap. 18. The Hebrews in their Sacrifices of beasts, which they offered unto God, z Christiani peracti eiusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, etc. did celebrate a prophecy of the Sacrifice to come that Christ offered: And Christians now celebrate the memory of the same Sacrifice passed in an holy oblation and participation of Christ's body and blood. And Procopius upon Genesit; a Procop. in Gen c. 49. Christ drank to his Disciples in mystical Wine, saying, This is my Blood: and gave them withal b Typum, effigiem, vel imaginem corporis sui. a type, figure, or image of his Body, no more admitting or accepting the bloody Sacrifices of the Law. 2. Is this their Sacrifice the very same with Christ's on the Crosse. Then belike Christ is anew crucified again. The Apostle indeed telleth us of some c Heb. 6 6. that crucify Christ again: and it is to be feared that to many of them are indeed guilty of that sin. But if this their Sacrifice be, as he saith, not d Gal. 3. 1. a resemblance, or e 1. Cor 11. 25, 26. commemoration, as we say in the Eucharist, of Christ's passion, but the very same with that of Christ on the Cross, how can it be but a new crucifying of him indeed? Yea then Christ must needs die and suffer again in it. For f Bellarm. de missa lib. 1. c. 27. a true and a real Sacrifice (saith Bellarmine) requireth a true and real death or destruction of the thing sacrificed. And again, g Ibid. l 1. c. 2. A sacrifice besides the oblation requireth a mutation and consumption of the thing offered; yea and h Ibid. l. 1. c. 25. the slaying of it, if it be a living thing: And, i Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. unto a true sacrifice is required, that that is offered unto God in Sacrifice be utterly destroyed. Yea even the Apostle himself saith, that k Heb. 9 26, 27, 28. If Christ he oft sacrificed, than he must die and suffer oft. But l Rom. 6. 9 Christ being once dead, he dyeth no more. Yea and Bellarmine himself granteth that m Bellarm. de missa l. 1. c. 25. Christ doth not truly die in the sacrifice of the Mass: and that n Christum non mori nisi in Sacramento seu signo repraesentante unicam illam mortem, quam aliquando obiit. he dyeth not there but in a Sacrament or a Sign representing that one only death that once he died. He is not therefore really, properly, or verily there sacrificed: Nor is this their Sacrifice of the Mass therefore the self same with that of Christ's on the Crosse. 3. Is this Sacrifice of theirs a repetition of Christ's sacrifice? then belike Christ's Sacrifice was imperfect. For the Apostle evidently maketh o Heb. 10. 1, 2, 3, 11 the reiteration of Offerings an Argument of imperfection. And if Christ's Sacrifice then be (as this blasphemous wretch saith) repeated, it must needs be (by the Apostles Argument) defective and imperfect. But Christ's Sacrifice was most absolutely perfect, consummate and all-sufficient. For p Heb. 10. 10, 12, 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Serm. contr. Arian. 3. by one oblation of himself once offered hath he obtained eternal redemption, and for ever consecrated them that are sanctified. Christ's Sacrifice therefore needs no reiteration. Nay, it is an impious wrong to it to say it is reiterated: and such as some of their own writers themselves either are ashamed of, or at least dare not a●ow. Peter Lombard the grand Master of the Sentences (as they term him) and q Quanquam Petro Abeilardo honorem hunc deferat Beat. Rhenan. not. ad Tertull. the first Father of their Schoole-divinity; r Petr. Lombard. sentent. l 4. d. 12. G. moveth this Question among others, Whither that which the Priest doth be properly termed an immolation or a Sacrifice: & whither Christ be daily sacrificed, or was once only sacrificed. Now to this Question, (saith he) we may briefly say, s Vocati Sacrificium, quia memoria est & repraesentatio v●ri Sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and an oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice and the holy immolation made upon the Altar of the Crosse. t Semel Christus mortuus in cruse est, ibique immolatus est in seipso: quotidiè autem immolatur in Sacramento, quia in Sacramento record ●…io fit illius, quod factum est semel. For once Christ died upon the Cross, and was there sacrificed in himself: but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament is there a remembrance of that that was once done. Whereupon saith Augustine; u Aug. prefat. in 2. expos. Psal. 21. & apud Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. Semel. Sure we are that Christ risen again from the dead dieth no more, etc. But yet lest we should forget the same, that that was once done, is in our remembrance done every year, to wit, when the Passeover is celebrated. ( x Aug. epist. 23. And we oft therefore so speak as to say, when the Pasch is at hand, Tomorrow or the next day will be the Lords Passeover; whereas he suffered so many years agone; and his passion was but once in all performed: and yet y Dicitur illo die fieri, propter Sacramenti celebrationem, quod non illo die, sed olim factum est. in regard of the celebration of the Sacrament, is that said to be done that day, which not that day, but long since was done; * Ex similitudine sacramenta nomina rerum ipsarum accipiunt. the Sacrament bearing the name of the thing thereby represented.) z Lomb. ibid. But is Christ then so often slain? No: but “ Sed tantum anniversaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est, etc. only an anniversary memorial doth represent that that was once, and maketh us so to be affected, as if we saw Christ on the Crosse. And what is this more than we also say? or how is it the very same with Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, if it be not it, but a memorial of it only? 4. He saith, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is repeated there in an other unbloody manner: and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other. What not mystical, but misty riddles are these? For 1. what is the sacrifice of Christ but his bloody passion, but the shedding of his blood, and the pouring out of his soul unto death, as a Esa. 53. 10, 12. the Prophet Esay expoundeth it? And how is this then the very same with that, when it is in an unbloody manner performed? 2. If this be (as they say) an unbloody sacrifice, and Christ be therein unbloodily sacrificed: how is it that they affirm that b Vera & realis effusio sanguinis Christi. Christ's blood is verily shed in it, and was therein really shed before it was shed upon the Cross: which to prove also c Bellar. de sacrif. miss. l. 1. c. 12. etc. 25. & l. 2. c. 2. Bellarmine in expounding the words of Christ's Institution (contrary to the express d Decret. de Sacr. Script. Council Trident. sess. 4. Vt Latina vetus & vulgata editio pro authentica habeatur, & nullo praetex●… reiiciatur. Canon of the Council of Trent) leaveth their own vulgar translation, which they count authentical; as also the Canon of their Mass, the principal part of their service; which both have, Qui pro vobis effundetur, That shall be (or, is to be) shed for you; because they fitted not his turn so well; and presseth the words according to the Greek, e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luk. 22. 10. Qui pro vobis effunditur; That is poured out for you. If Christ's very blood be poured out in it, how is it an unbloody offering? Or how is not this a riddle? There is blood there, but not as blood: And it is the very same with Christ's bloody passion, and yet celebrated in an unbloody manner. 3. Is it be an unbloody offering, how is it (as they use to say) a sin sacrifice; when f Heb. 9 22. without shedding of blood (as the Apostle telleth us) there is no remission of sins, g Bellar de miss. l. 1. c. ●5. Nor was there ever any sin sacrisice without blood-shead, saith Bellarmine. The truth is, that h Heb 9 12. Christ once for all went into the holy place with blood, and thereby obtained eternal redemption. As for their unbloody blood, it is but a mere counterfeit. And in this case with their own Gloss may we soon stop their mouths, which expoundeth (contrary to Bellarmine) those words in the Canon, Christ's blood is shed, or poured out; i Effunditur, i. significatur effundi. Gloss. ad Grat. de consecr. d. 2. Si quotiescunque. that is the shedding of it is signified, in the Eucharist. 4. How do these two stand together: The one is bloody, and the other unbloody: and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other. Here is not a distinction (as they say) without a difference; but a difference (which is more strange) without a distinction. Did this fellow (think we) understand what he said? But if the sacrifice of the Mass be not so much as distinct from the sacrifice of the Cross, how doth Bellarmine tell us that k Bellarm de Miss. l. 1. c. 6. the sacrifice of the Cross is of greater value than the sacrifice of the Mass; the one of infinite, the other but of finite worth. Whereof l Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 4. he rendereth a twofold reason: 1. In regard of the host that is offered: because Christ's natural being was destroyed in the one: whereas his sacramental being only is destroyed in the other. 2. In regard of the person offering, or the offerer; because he was offered immediately in the one, whereas he is offered by a Minister or Priest in the other. And yet this fellow telleth us, that the sacrifice of the Mass is not distinct from he sacrifice of the Cross, but is the same both in the host, and the chief offerer thereof. These things hang together like harp and harrow, as they say. But our great Doctor (it seemeth) for all his bragging and blustering, is but a Novice; and is not yet throughly acquainted with his Master Bellarmine's doctrine in all points, though he make use of him otherwise. § 5. He telleth us that all Christian Nations in the world, Grecians, Rutenians, Armenians, Mozaribites, Catayans, Ethiopians, Indians, etc. conspire with them in the celebration and true belief of this Sacrifice, and Sacrament. 1. This is like their Jesuits tricks to tell us of many strange miracles wrought by their Fathers in the Indies, in Goa, in America, in japan, in China, whither they know before hand, that m Quod Cardano ●ul. Scal. de subtle. exerc. 177. Sect. 5. Cedam potius quam credam, credam citiùs quam sciam. no man will go to disprove them: and whence Popish writers yet say n Miracula & signa nulla audio. Fr. Victor. relect. 5. they can hear no such matter: yea some of their own coat o Signa non edimus. jos. Accost de procur. Ind. sal. l 4 c. 4. Prodigia nulla producimus. Ibid c. 12. sometime confess it is not so. 2. This fellow is either extremely impudent, or grossly ignorant, that dare so boldly and confidently avouch that all these Nations conspire with them in the celebration and belief of Sacrifice and Sacrament: Whereas it is commonly known that the most of these have their Litur gies in their own languages, which they have not; communicate the people in both kinds, which they do not; consecreate, not wafers, as they do, but whole loaves: and many of them, the greeks especially, not unleavened but leavened; hold the consecration to be effected, not by the repetition of those words, This is my body, but by prayer and supplication; mingle no water with their wine; use no elevation for the worshipping of the Sacrament; nor admit the Popish Transubstantiation: as out of good Historiographers, their several Liturgies, and some of their own writers, both M. Breerwood in his book of Religions and Languages, and Th. A. in his Discourse of Catholic Traditions, at large show. jeremy the Greek patriarch, whom he afterward citeth, affirmeth expressly, that * jeremy Patriarch. in his Answer chap. 10 alleged by Th. A. of Cathol. Tradit. at our Saviour's last Supper that flesh of our Lord which he carried about him was not given the Apostles to eat, nor his blood to drink; nor are they now given in the holy mysteries, etc. And again, that this bread, when it is offered, is common bread offered only to God; but afterwards is made extraordinary bread. And in the Council of Florence (as appeareth in the last Session) some controversy there was between the Greek Church and theirs about the “ De Panis transmutatione. transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist; nor do we find that they ever came therein to any general accord or agreement unto this day. Now where (think you) is this man's face or his forehead, that dare so confidently aver that both these and all the Christian world but we conspire with them herein, both for opinion and in practice? Yea when he telleth us (to let us understand that he hath been a Traveller; and it may be brought as little wit or honesty with him home, as he carried out) that he hath seen their celebrations the same with theirs: he showeth therein, (if he say true, that he hath seen their celebrations) that against his own knowledge, when he thus writ, he told us a gross untruth; and we need return him for the rest of them no further answer, save that which is commonly said, that * Quod de ulysse Homer. Odyss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et quod Aristot. metaph. l. ay c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ita etiam & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quibus atque Poetis Quidlibet audendi (ac fingendi) semper fuit aequa potestas. far Travellers may lie by authority, or (as it may be he hopeth) rather, that they may tell lies without control. Yet when we find him false in things nearer home, and by name here in his assertion concerning the Greek Churches, he must not blame us, if we suspect him in his report of of Mozaribites, Cathaians, Indians, Ethiopians, and others more remote; the rather, having as good cards to show as any he can produce, to the contrary. § 6. In the next place he runneth out in an idle discourse of Martin Luther, as if he had learned the doctrine he taught in this point, of the Devil, (a frivolous fable refuted long since by p Answer to the Censure, etc. M. Charke, q Defence of that Answer. Dr. Fulke and others:) by the way glancing at our manner of celebration of the Sacrament; and an invective against the first Authors (as he falsely termeth them) of our Religion; with an apendix concerning the marks of a Church, and of the Church before Luther. Concerning all which for the present I say nothing but that of Jerome, r Hieron. ad Laetam. Asellus lassus in via quaerit diverticula. He is a weary (it seemeth) of the work he hath in hand, and would fain slip aside therefore into some other debate, that it might not so well appear how he sticketh in the mire here. One thing (they say) at once doth well: and I suppose this will find him work enough for a while; if he have any stomach to rejoin. Let him (if he can) first maintain their prodigious doctrine in the point present; and then (if he desire it) he shall further be dealt with, either in these, or in any other Controversy between them and us. Only for what he saith of our Liturgy as pieced (I know not how) together out of their Missals, and graced with aryming Psalm sung to a liggish tune. Not to put him in mind of those apish gesticulations, and histrionical firks, that their Mass almost wholly consisteth of, and of their Hymns running in rhyme indeed, but full oft without reason, fraught with gross Barbarismes and Solecisms; yea stuffed with s They profess to place their whole hope in the wooden Cross: and so worship it (as Aquinas confesseth) with divine worship. They pray to be saved by Thomas Becker a traitor's blood: they entreat the Virgin Mary to command her Son Christ: and pray to her, that being redeemed by her, they may be able to climb to heaven, etc. not a few impious blasphemies; which their Collects also are not free from. Let the ancient manner of church-service and celebration of this Sacrament related before out of justine Martyr be considered; and then see what is wanting in ours that was then in theirs, and whether is liker to that, ours or theirs. Their Missal indeed is a mere patchery of old and new together, so evil contrived (whatsoever t Id est maximè admirandum & commend indum quod Canon Missae sit multorum aut●rum, & tamen ita aptè partes omnes in●er se iungantur, & cohaereant, ut unius autoris videatur. Bellar. de Miss. l 2. c 19 Bellarmine prate to the contrary) and so handsomely agreeing the one with the other, that from those very fragments of antiquity, that remain yet in their Mass, this very doctrine of theirs may very evidently be confuted. For therein after consecration they pray unto God, to accept that holy sacrifice, which of his gifts they offer, and vouchsafe to look propitiously upon those his gifts, and to accept them as he did Abel's offering and Abraham's sacrifice: and, that he will command them to be carried up by the hands of his Angel, to be presented on the high Altar in the sight of his Majesty; and that through jesus Christ, by whom he continually createth, quickeneth, and blesseth all these good things: And again, that that which they have taken may of a temporal gift become an eternal remedy. How stand now these speeches and prayers with their Transubstantiation? Are Christ's body and blood those temporal gifts and good things, that God by Christ daily createth and quickeneth? Or needeth Christ the Priest to entreat his Father to look propitiously upon him? Or any Angel to carry him up and present him before his Father in heaven, in whose presence and sight he is continually there? Or is it not absurd to place u Gen. 4. 4. Abel's fatlings and x Gen. 22. 13. Abraham's Ram in equipage with the body and blood of Christ jesus? But these things (it seemeth) were in their ancient Liturgies, before ever this new monster was hatched, and to their own shame & confusion are yet unwisely still retained. And if you will see, how handsomely things therein hang together, observe but this one passage: The Priest prayeth to God to send an Angel to fetch the holy Housell up into heaven: (and yet they tell us withal, the most of them, that y Nos ut descensum negamus, ita nec ascensum statuimus. Petr. Scarga de Euchar. art. 5. Non descendit de coelo corpus Christi: Ex Damasc. orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 14. Biel in Can. lect 54. But Pope Innocens would not have us overcurious in this point. Non oportet in talibus curiosos existere. Innocent. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 16. it never came from thence, nor never returneth again thither; wherein we better believe them then we do some other of their fellows that say otherwise) and within a while after, he swalloweth it down himself; and then prayeth God (as if he repented him of his former prayer) z Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis. In post common. that that which he hath eaten may stick fast to his guts. Let him show any such absurdities as these (if he can) in our Service. If some pieces of Antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours; that is neither derogation to ours, nor commendation to theirs. We embrace true and sound Antiquity, wheresoever we find it: their corrupt novelties, which it suiteth so evillfavouredly withal, we deservedly reject. THey pretend clear places of Scripture for each point of N. P. their doctrines wherein they differ from us. But when they come to be duly discussed, they either make against themselves, or prove nothing at all against us; as I will briefly declare in this very controversy, for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine. For whereas S. a Vide Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 5. Cyprian, S. Hilary, Saint Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, Cyrill, Hesychius, Theodoret, and universally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. john's Gospel have literally understood Christ's promise of giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink in the Sacrament, these men restrain them to a metaphorical and spiritual eating by faith only; and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the judgement of the ancient Church, they only cite those words of Christ, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, etc. and affirm them to import that Christ's words are figuratively to be understood, and not at all according to the literal signification of them, to wit, of Christ's body and blood received in the Sacrament. Whereas at most they can import, that Christ promised not to give his flesh and blood cannally, as the Capharnaits understood him, cut (to wit) in pieces, and by bits eaten, as S. Augustine explicateth them; but that Christ's body and blood were to be after a spiritual manner present, and received in the Sacrament, which we deny not: And great Authors (as Tolet noteth) so expound them, as to make this sense, It is the deity or divine spirit which is united with my flesh, that vivificateth by grace souls worthily receiving it, and not by flesh alone barely of itself eaten. Neither of which explications prove a figurative understanding of Christ's words: this being a Gloss of their own besides the text, never before them taught by any Catholic Doctor: and so it can be no solid sufficient ground sor them to rely upon for their heretical denial of Christ's true body and blood really present and received in the Sacrament. For Scripture ill understood is no Scripture, but God's word abused. § 7. YEt in conclu●ion to say somewhat again of the T. G. present point, he telleth us that S. Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Augustine, Cyrill, Hesychius, Theodoret, and all the ancient Fathers universally understood that place of john concerning the eating of Christ's flesh not figuratively, but literally; whereas we contrary to the judgement of the whole ancient Church, understand them of spiritual eating by faith; alleging only for this our exposition those words of our Saviour, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: which words as Tolet showeth, may bear another sense. 1. How proveth he that these Fathers so expound that place? Forsooth, he sendeth us to seek the proof of it in Bellarmine. It is enough that he saith it; let Bellarmine (if he can) prooe it. But is not this impudent outfacing, to say that these Fathers all literally understand it, when out of divers of them the contrary hath been evidently showed? Yea when Augustine (one of them) giving rules to expound Scripture, doth expressly affirm that the place is to be taken figuratively, and that it were b Facinus & flagitium. an heinous and flagitious thing otherwise to understand it? 2. It is another untruth as gross as the former, to say we ground our exposition on those words only. We urge indeed the words following c joh. 6. 63. The words that I speak are spirit and life. And we urge and expound them no otherwise then divers of the Ancients have done before us. To omit Athanasius formerly alleged: Augustine besides that that is in the self same place cited; d August. in joan. tr. 27. What mean those words, (saith he) They are spirit and life, but e Spiritaliter intelligenda sunt. that they are to be understood spiritually? And again, f Idem tr. 11. He spoke this that he might g Ne carnaliter intelligerent. not be understood carnally; as h joh 3. 4. Nicodemus before had done. Yea and of those former words Thomas Aquinas out of Chrysostom, i Ex Chrysostomo Aquin. in joan. 6. When Christ saith; It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: his meaning is, that k Spiritualiter oportet ea quae de me sunt audire. we ought spiritually to understand those things that we hear of him: and that l Qui carnàlites audit, nihil proficit. whoso heareth carnally, getteth thereby no good. Now to understand them carnally, is to look on the outward things only, and to imagine no more than we see. To understand them spiritually is not so to judge of them, but also with the inward eyes to look on them. m Omnia mysteria interioribus oculis aspicere. Which in all mysteries ought always to be done. And Tertullian, n Tertul. de resurr. carnis. When Christ saith that The flesh profiteth nothing; His meaning must be drawn from the matter of his speech. For because they thought his speech hard and intolerable, o Quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset. as if he determined to give them his very flesh to be eaten; (or, his flesh verily to be eaten) to place the state of salvation in the spirit, he premiseth; It is the spirit that quickeneth: and then adjoineth; the flesh profiteth nothing, to wit, to quicken. And withal he showeth what he meaneth by the spirit: The words that I have spoken are spirit and life. As he said before; p joh. 5. 14. He that heareth my word, and believeth in him that sent me, hath life eternal. So that he maketh the word the quickener; because the word is spirit & life; and he called it also his flesh; because the q joh. 1 14. Word also became flesh; and is therefore r Se●…o caro factus, in causam vitae appetendus, devorandus auditu, ●ummand●s intellectu, ●de digerendus. to be longed a●ter for life, to be devoured by the hearing, chewed by the understanding, and digested by faith. here is the eating that our Saviour spoke of in that place, not carnal but spiritual; which our Adversary also earstwhiles confessed. Neither urge we this alone, (as he untruely here affirmeth;) But we urge divers other passages also (as before hath been showed) wherein our Saviour expoundeth himself; observed by Augustine long since, and by their Flaunders Bishop jansenius of late, beside divers others of their own. And if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition, why did he not then produce it, where the place was discussed? But he thought it better and safer (it seemeth) to let all this alone there, lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eye, might easily convince him of gross and palpable falsehood. 3. Do we alone thus expound that place? Do not very many of their own writers herein agree with us? Or do those of theirs build only upon the clause he here mentioneth? To which purpose, howsoever enough hath already been said, yet for his better information concerning both the soundness of our exposition of that place, and the reasons thereof drawn from our Saviour's own words, let him hear one, though not then Pope, yet that afterward came to be Pope, and was as learned a Pope as any of late times. Aeneas Silvius writing against the Bohemians; s Aeneas Syl. aepist. 130. contra Bohem. It is not (saith he) any sacramental drinking, but a spiritual that our Saviour speaketh of in that 6. of john. For there is, as Albertus Magnus she weth, a threefold drinking of Christ: a sacramental, that the Priests only receive; an intellectual, that the people take in the species of bread; and a spiritual, which all use that are to be saved, by daily devout meditation ruminating on Christ's incarnation and his passion: And of this drinking our Saviour speaketh in john 6. as the very series of the Evangelists words clearly showeth. For when some of them that heard it, murmured, our Saviour said, t joh. 6. 61. 62, 63. Doth this scandalise you? What if you should see the Son of Man ascend where before he was? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. In which words he declareth that he speaketh not there of any carnal eating or drinking: But would you plainly see that he speaketh of spiritual eating, that is, by faith? Mark what he saith: u joh. 6. 54. He that eateth and drinketh. He speaketh in the present tense, not in the future. There were even then those that so ate him and drank him, when as the Sacrament was not yet instituted. And how did they then eat and drink Christ, but spiritually by faith, and love, and doing his words? For he said also before, x joh. 6. 35. I am the bread of life; he that cometh unto me, shall not hunger; and he that believeth in me shall not thirst. For Christ's speech was figurative. So also the Glosser understandeth this Gospel: and so doth that great Augustine, noble both for doctrine and modesty, whose glory is so great, that no man's commendation can add to his credit, no man's dispraise can disparage him. And yet dare this shameless out-facer confidently affirm that none of the Fathers ever so expounded the place: and that the Heretics (as he esteemeth them, as if none but they so expounded it) had no other inducement so to expound it, but those words only; y And yet those words also doth Durand use to prove that Christ's words john 6. 54, 55. are meant of eating spiritually, not corporally. In rational, diuin, p. 2. l. 4. ad 6. p. Can. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: all which you see are nothing but gross untruths. SEcondly, whereas we prove that Christ's words, This is N. P. my body, etc. as being uttered to the Apostles, to whom it was given to understand the mysteries of Christ's Church plainly, and without parable, and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament, fit in plain words to be delivered and understood by all Christians bound to receive it, are as we say literally to be understood, and not in tropical and figurative senses, as our Adversaries expound them; producing for our opinion all the Fathers successively in all ages since Christ so understanding them: Protestant Divines slenderly object, first that of the sacramental Chalice Christ affirmed, that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until after his passion: ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice: we answer that S. Luke expressly mentioneth two Chalices, one drunk after the Paschall Lamb eaten, and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles, and that Christ only called the first the fruit of the vine, etc. So S. Jerome, S. Bede, and other great Authors explicate and solve this difficulty with us. Secondly, they object those words of Christ, Do this in memory of me: ergò the Sacrament is a bare memory of Christ's body and blood, etc. We answer and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Saviour for us, 1 Cor. 11. saying. As oft as you shall do this, you shall represent or declare Christ's death till he come. Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament, as they contain the very body and blood of our Saviour in them. For so himself present seemeth to triumph more gloriously, and exhibit unto us a more lively memory of his passion, then if the Sacrament were no more than a bare sign thereof. § 8. Having affirmed that all the holy Fathers in all T. G. ages from Christ have expounded the words of our Saviour, (This is my body, literally and not tropically, as they also do. The contrary whereunto hath as clearly been showed, as that the Sun is up at noonday: nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto, where the same is showed; and yet now craketh (as their manner is) of all the Fathers, when indeed they cannot bring any one undoubted testimony to confirm what they so confidently affirm.) He will at length forsooth for fashion sake undertake to answer two slender objections of ours to the contrary. 1. Christ (say we) calleth that in the Cup or Chalice, the fruit of the vine. He answereth that S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices, the Paschall, and the evangelical, or Eucharistical; and so S. Jerome, and S. Bede solve this difficulty. 1. He spoke of slender objections. And so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them: for he returneth very slender answers to them. For who would be so senseless as to reason on this manner, S. Luke mentioneth two Chalices: ergò our Saviour did not speak any such thing of the Eucharistical Cup, as yet both a Mat. 26. 29. Matthew and b Mat. 14 25. Mark say expressly he did. 2. Jerome and Bede (saith he) so solve the difficulty. He would make his Reader believe that Jerome and Bede had long since propounded this objection, and so assoiled it as he doth. Whereas the truth is; they take no notice, either of them of the two Cups, but allegorising the words (as their manner is to do many times, letting the literal sense alone) expound the vine to be c Esa. 5. 1, 7. Psal. 80. 8, 14. the people of the jews, and so the fruit of the vine, the legal observances, etc. And what is all this to the literal sense of the words, that this trifler is troubled with, and cannot tell how to avoid? Let him produce (if he can) any one Father, who denieth that Christ spoke those words of the Eucharistical Cup, and of the liquor therein contained. I alleged d Clem paedag l. 2. c. 2. Clemens of Alexandria, e Cypr. ep. 3. l. 2. Cyprian, f Chrysost. in Mat hom. 83. Chrysostome, g Aug. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75. Augustine, and might add many others that affirm it. Yea not only jansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of h Nullus alius calix intelligi potest jansen. concord. c. 131. no other than the Eucharistical Cup, which only Matthew and Mark mention: But Maldonate the jesuit also freely confesseth that i Orig. in Mat. tr. 30. Origen, k Cypr. ep 68 Cyprian, l Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83. Chrysostome, m Epiph. haer. 47. Epiphanius, n Hie. on. in Mat. 26. Jerome, o Aug. quaest. Euang. l. 1. q. 42. Augustine, p Beda in Mat. 26. Bede, q Futhy. ib. Euthymius, and r Theoph. ib. Theophylact, do all expound those words of it: howbeit himself saith that s Non de sanguine suo, sed de vino dixit. Maldon. in Mat. 26. Christ spoke there not of his blood, but of wine. Where first observe we that Jerome and Bede (clean contrary to this fablers assertion, by the Jesuits confession) expound it of the Eucharist. And secondly, conclude we from the Jesuits own grants: It was of that that was in the Eucharistical Cup that our Saviour spoke those words, as the ancient Fathers generally and jointly affirm: But our Saviour spoke them not of his blood, but of wine; saith the jesuit: It was not his blood therefore, but wine that was drunk in the Eucharist. 2. We object the words of our Saviour, t Luk. 22. 19 Do this in remembrance of me: not as this shameless liar saith, thereby to prove the Sacrament to be a bare memory of Christ's body and blood: somewhat like the lie he told before, that his Adversary should affirm it to be nothing but bare bread and wine: but to prove that Christ is not there corporally present: For what needeth a memorial of him, when we have him in our eye? when (if we may believe Bellarmine) he is visibly present with us? When we see him, and touch him, as this fellow telleth us elsewhere? Or who would be so absurd as to say, I give you myself to be a memorial of myself? u Primas. in 1 Cor. 11. Vt siquis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit, pignus aliquod, etc. Idem habet & Herueus, & Haimo. It is as if a man when he dieth (saith Primasius) or, x Peregrè proficiscens. Hieron. nomine in 1 cor. 11. & Sedul. ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Caes. hom. de charit. when he goeth to travel, (saith one that goeth for Jerome) should leave a pledge or a token with one that he loveth, to put him in mind of him in his absence, and of the good turns he hath done him; which the party if he love him entirely, cannot look on without tears. And who would be so senseless, as delivering his friend a ring on his death bed, to say, I deliver you this ring to be a pledge of this ring, or to be a pledge of itself? But let us hear (I pray you) his Answer. Saint Paul (saith he) interpreteth these words of our Saviour, when he saith; y 1 Cor. 11. 26. So oft as you do this, you represent Christ's death, till he come. Would any man that had either brains in his head, or wit in his brain, answer in this manner, or reason on this wise? Christ's death is represented in the Lord's Supper. Ergo Christ's very body and blood must needs be there present. Yea or thus either? In the Lord's Supper is a representation of Christ's death: Ergò it is not a memorial of it. As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent; or memorial represented not the things that they commemorate. He wanted his Bellarmine here to help him out; who where Tertullian saith, that a Tertul. contra Marc l. 1. Panem, in quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. Christ represented his body in bread: b Bellar. de Euch l. 2. c. 7. saith that to represent there signifieth c Praesentem rem facere & reipsa exhibere. to make a thing really present. But it is well that d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the word used by the Apostle here, will not bear any such sense: else (it may be) we might have had it. Mean while he should have done well (as his usual manner is elsewhere) to have snipped off or concealed at least, the last clause, Till I come. e Etenim post eius adventum non amplius erit opus symbolis seu signis corporis, cum ipsum corpus apparebit. Theodoret. in 1 Cor. 11. For after he is come (saith Theodoret) we shall have no need of signs or symbols of his body any more, when his body itself shall appear. He were scarce in his wits (I think) that would leave a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to be remembered by in his absence till he returned again to them, that should lie locked up and kept out of their sight, and should never come in their view, but when himself should come personally in presence to show it them: or should bid them by such a thing remember him, till he came again to them a twelvemonth after, when as every week or month in the mean space he meant to return to them, as oft as ever they desired to remember him in it. But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should read what he writ, as would mark nothing but what he would have them. LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament, N. P. 1 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might understand the excellency thereof, maketh the sin of such as unworthily receive it to consist in this, that they discern not that bread to be the body of Christ: and his words read alone without heretical glosses express plainly Catholic doctrine. And in the Chapter before he mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then used, saying, Calix benedictionis, The Chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communication of Christ's blood? and the bread which we break, is it not the communication of Christ's body? etc. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome, this is the meaning; That which is in the Chalice, is that which floweth out of Christ's side, and we are made partakers thereof. Which is out of the Greek text of S. Luke plainly to be gathered: And the very manner of Christ's speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; Which is given for you, which shall be effused for you; import plainly a Sacrifice of his body and blood, wherein the one is offered not to us, but for us; the other was to be not infused as wine, but effused as blood for us, etc. § 9 AT last remembering himself, wherein he failed T. G. at the first, he will prove out of S. Paul (he saith) that Christ's words are literally to be understood. This had been more seasonable, where it was questioned at first. But better at last (we say) then never. 1. The Apostle maketh (saith he) this the sin of those that unworthily received the Sacrament, that f 1 Cor. 11. 29. they discerned not the Lord's body. 2. He, saith, g 1 Cor. 10. 16. the bread broken is the communication of the body of Christ; and the blessed Chalice of his blood. Stout Arguments, and fit for such a Champion as he is. For the former: how followeth it, Men sin in not discerning the Lords body, when they come unreverently to the Lords board: Ergò our Saviour's words, This is my body, are to be understood properly. Let him hear Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle, what it is not to discern the Lords body, to wit, h Aug. epist. 118. c. 3. Qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita. not to discern that from other meats by a reverence singularly due unto it; which is as he speaketh elsewhere, i Idem ep. 23. in some sort Christ's body, because a Sign and a Sacrament of it. Yea let him hear himself where he saith, k Divis. 8. Sect. 1. The sin of such persons is made this by the Apostle, that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread. And then see how well they serve to prove that that here they are alleged for. For the latter: Not to demand of them, how chance they oft celebrate (contrary to both our Saviour's, and the Apostles practice) without any breaking of bread at all; if their paper wafercake at least deserve that name. Who denied ever a communication of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament? But must it needs be corporal; or else it is none at all? l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The tongue tripping now and then telleth truth. And the truth start out of his mouth before unawares, where he said, that Christ is present there in a spiritual manner. And in a spiritual manner (as out of Athanasius and Augustine, yea and their own jansenius I have showed) do we participate of, and communicate with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament; m Quomodo mittam manuum in coelum? Fidem mitte; tenuisti. Aug. in loan. tr 50. sending the hand of our faith (as Augustine speaketh) up into heaven; yea reaching it (as I may well say) to Christ's Crosse. I will add to the former only one observation of Bernard, who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ: Alluding to those words of our Saviour, n joh. 6. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him: o Bernar. in Cant. serm. 71. Et manducat nos, & manducatur à nobis; quo arctius illi astringamur. Christ (saith he) both eateth us, and is eaten of us; that we may the more firmly and strictly be fastened unto him. Otherwise should we not be perfectly united to him. For if I eat and be not eaten, he may seem to be in me, but not I yet in him. Again, if I be eaten, but eat not; he may seem to have me in him, but not to be yet in me. For there is no absolute unition in either of these alone. But when p Si manducat me, ut habeat me in se, & à me vicissim manducatur, ut sit in me, quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio, etc. both he eateth me, that I may be in him; and is eaten of me, that he may be in me; then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion, I being in him and he in me. But Christ's eating of us is not oral or corporal, but mental and spiritual: of the like kind therefore is our eating of him, and our mutual participation alike in either: Which in these words also most sweetly doth jansenius express: q Per fidem panis iste non simpliciter sumitur, sed veluti dentibus quibusdam masticatur, etc. jansen. concord. c. 59 By faith this bread is not simply taken, but being chewed as it were with teeth, while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is, and r Frangitur, & in animae viscera traiicitur. so broken, it is conveyed with a kind of delight and spiritual taste into the bowels of the soul, and s Nobis incorporatur. is incorporated into us, that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith united unto us, may t Ephes. 3 17. dwell (as the Apostle speaketh) in our hearts, by his presence there quickening and nourishing them, and so expel all hunger and thirstiness out of them, while he removeth both the want of things needful to true life, and the desire of other transitory things. And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith, * Amplius quiddam esse Christum manducare, quam in Christum credere Vide Calvin. Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 5, 6, 7. To feed on Christ is somewhat more than barely to believe in him, and that it is y Non tam ipsum credere, quam effectum eius. Ex Caivini scent. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c1. not so much belief u Vivificet, alat, esuriem pellat, etc. itself, as an effect and fruit of it. That which Bonaventure the Schooleman also not unfitly thus expresseth: z Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. dist. 9 quae. z. Eating (saith he) is properly spoken of the body, and is by way of similitude applied to the soul. That therefore we may know what is meant by spiritual eating, we must have an eye unto corporal feeding. Now in corporal manducation there are these two things, a Masticatio & incorporatio. mastication and incorporation, or a chewing of the meat in the mouth, and an incorporating of it into the body. In like manner in spiritual eating there is first b Spiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi i carnis Christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendum & in cibum ad reficiendum. a spiritual chewing, that is, a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithful meditation of the spiritual meat, that is, of Christ's flesh exposed for us, both as a ransom to redeem us, and as food also to feed us; and secondly, c Incorporatio dum recogitans charitatis amore ei quod cogitatur iungitur, & sic incorporatur, & dum incorporatur reficitur, eique assimilatur. a spiritual incorporation, when upon such recogitation or consideration the soul is by a loving affection united and incorporated to the thing considered, and is thereby refreshed or nourished, and so made in grace more and more like unto it. So that unto spiritual manducation are two things required, d Recogitatio fidei, & affectio charitatis. a faithful recogitation, and a loving affection. Whence it followeth that e Non sufficit qualiscunque fides. neither is every kind of faith sufficient to effect this spiritual feeding on Christ, but such f Gal. 5. 6. faith only as worketh by love: g Non quilibet actus credendi manducare facit, etc. nor is every effect of faith a feeding on Christ's flesh, but that only whereby Christ's flesh, that was boiled (as it were) to make food for us, on the Cross, is so considered, and in a spiritual manner digested and con●●cted (as was before said) for the feeding and refreshing of our souls. So that Caluines' doctrine and ours concerning this spiritual feeding on Christ, and so communicating with his body and blood, is no other than the Ancients long since taught, and their own writers themselves acknowledge: Which in one word I shut and seal up with that short saying of Chrysostome, tha tboth in Baptism and the Eucharist, h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 2 Tim. hom. 2. It is faith that doth all. Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice, is that which flowed out of Christ's side, and we are made thereof partakers: And out of S. Luke's Greek Text it is plainly gathered. What out of S. Luke he alleadegth we shall see anon. Only mark how he fleeth from their only authentical Latin here to the Greek Text, which at other times they * Vide Lindan. de oped Gen. interp. l. 1 c. 11 Canum. loc. come. l. 2. c 13. & Analys. fid. l. 8. c. 〈…〉. say is so corrupted, that there is little certainty of aught from it, further than their Latin and it concur. Chrysostome saith indeed as he is here cited. But it must be remembered what both their Sixtus Senensis, and Bellar. also say of him; to wit, that Chrysostome is wont to speak many things k Per hyperbolen enunciare. Sixt. Sen. biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 152. hyperbolically or l Per excessum Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c 10. excessively, in his sermons especially. To pass by other places, where he saith, that the Church is m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrylost. in Mat. hom 82. that very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper; that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in encoen sive de poenit. tom. 6. orat. we touch his side with our lips; that o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem in joan. hom. 46. & ad pop. Ant. 62. we set our teeth in his flesh; that p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Mat. hom 82. we cut his flesh asunder; that our q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. tongue is died with blood; and our r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. mouth is filled with fire; while s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In encaen. no man, but an Angel with tongs reacheth a coal of fire to us; that Christ doth t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Math. hum: 82. ●neade as dough, and u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joh 46 mingleth himself together with us; and that x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Math. 46. we are likewise knod as dough and y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In 〈…〉 46. mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh. To let these pass, I say; in the very Sermon here cited he hath divers passages, which themselves will not deny, must needs be figuratively meant; as where he saith, that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In 1 Cor. hom. 24. Christ suffereth that in the Sacrament, that he did not suffer upon the Cross; to wit, the b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. breaking, even of his bones, which there he did not; that d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. the altar is bloodied with Christ's blood, (as he saith elsewhere that the people are e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dr sacerd lib. 3. all died red with it:) that f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 1 Cor. hom 24. the bread is Christ's body: (which in propriety of sense, saith g De Euc are lib 1. c. 11. Bellarmine, is impossible) and that by taking it we are not only h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vni●ed to Christ's body, and become i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. one body with Christ; or k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ's body; and all c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joan. 19 36 of us one body: but that l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we ourselves are that self same body that we take: Not unlike that which Haimo hath, that m Ilia caro quam assumpsit, & iste panis, omnisque ecclesia, non faciunt tria corpora, sed unum corpus. Haimo in 1 Cor. 10. Christ's natural body, and the Eucharisticallbread, and the Communicants themselves are all but one and the same body. Yea that he is to be understood figuratively, appeareth, as by that that he addeth there, that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. like Eagles we must so●re aloft up to heaven, and o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not flag downward, nor creep below upon the ground, if we will come at Christ's body; so by that which he saith elsewhere, that it was p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Mat. hom 82. wine that Christ delivered, when he delivered this mystery; that which he proveth also by the words of our Saviour himself in the place before discussed, q Mat. 2. 6. 29. I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christ's blood; and his body suffereth that there, which really it doth not: as the Apostle faith, that r Galat. 3. 1. Christ was crucified in the sight of the Galatians, who in likely hood many of them never saw piece of his Cross: and as August. saith, s Aug. epist. 23. he lies not, that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter-day, in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion, that that day is celebrated: and in like manner may it very well be understood, when he saith that Christ's blood is in the Cup. Nor hindereth it, but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically, because he saith, t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom 24. That that flowed out of Christ's side: (as u In sacramento spei consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibirur, quod de Christi latere manavit. Aug. contr. Faust. Beda in 1 Cor. 11. Hoc accipite in Calais quod manavit de Christi latere. Ex Aug. serm. ad Neophyt. I●● ad Haimer. de corp. Dom. Augustine also, though no friend to Transubst antiation, is reported to say the same) no more than it would have hindered, but that the Apostles words might have been taken figuratively (as Caietan also well observeth) hough of the Rock he should have said, That Rock was that Christ, that was crucified, and died, and rose again from the dead. §. 10. In the next words he cometh to prove a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith he of Christ's speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which x 1 Cor. 10. 4. y Caietan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. art. 1. is given for you, which shall be shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that ever he hath almost) out of a Bellarm. de miss l. 1 c. 12. Bellarmine. As if those words had not a manifest relation to his passion; (which is b Esai 53. 10, 12 Ephes. 5. 2. Heb. 8. 3. & 9 12, 14. a true Sacrifice indeed, and c Heb. 10. 1, 10, 12, 14. a most perfect yea d Heb. 10. 8, 9 De qua Chrysost. nomine in Psal. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the full compliment of all other:) that which their own vulgar Translation also plainly importeth, yielding the words (as they are also in the very Canon of the Mass) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be given, shall be shed: as having an eye to the passion then e lo. 13. 1. near at hand, wherein his body was to be given, and his blood to be shed. So Gregory of Ualence; f Quod tradetur sive datur, sive frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruse mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3. That is or shall be given, or broken; that is, that shall be offered by me for you being slain or sacrificed on the Cross: g Tradetur. i. dabitur atque offer●etur in cruse in odorem suavitatis ut Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4. as (saith he) the Apostle himself also expoundeth it. So Cardinal Hugh; He took bread, and broke it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Cross, and that he did himself expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said k Accepit & fregit 1. frangendum in cruse signavit. Hugo in Math. 26. i Sponte sua frangendum & crucifigendum exposuit. Idem in Marc. 14. that shall be shed, he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue. Yea so l Caietan. in Math. 26. Card. Caietan; who addeth also not unfitly, that Christ's body is said then to be given, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, a plot being now laid for his life, and m joh. 10. 15. his body and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christ's words concerning his body do no more intimate a present act of delivering it, than those words of his the like elsewhere, I lay down my life for my sheep: Let him but show us how Christ's blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmine's bold assertion that o Bellarm. de miss. lib. 1. cap. 25. bread is said to be broken, when it is p Integri panes dentur. given by whole loaves; and wine is said to be poured out, when it is given by q Plenae amphorae donentur. whole hogsheads, or roundlets at least, not by pots or pitchers full only; it is most senseless and abfurd. But why doth k Effundetur: de passione praedixit. Idem in Luc. 22. not this eager disputer urge rather that which many of them do, that Christ bade them, Do this, that is, as they senselessly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a Hoc facite, Luk. 22. 19 main pillar, that they pitch much upon. Which exposition yet, as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of, and s Bellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 12. Fingit Catholico● ità probare, etc. Non tam ineptè argumentantur. blameth Calvin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein, by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not, nor allege: so t jansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, etc. jansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue, (as indeed u Inter caeteros Sanderus nostras de Coena Dom. l. 3. c 9 circumst. 19 Item Gregor. de Valent. de Miss. Sacrif. l. 1. c. 4. not a few do) yet confesseth that that is but a weak argument: and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be proved, that the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is fain therefore to run to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would have it to be. For Irenaeus ( x jansen. ibid. saith he) that lived near the Apostles times, y Iren. lib. 4. cap. 31. calleth the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offered (as types of Christ's body and blood:) as also in regard of the thanksgiving therein offered, as well for the work of our Creation, as for the work also of our redemption. And howsoever this doughty Doctor say that our Saviour's words so plainly import it, yet is their grand Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this business, evil troubled to find it out either in Christ's Institution, or in their own Mass book, or to show wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeed he can easily tell us: but he cannot so easily tell us where it is. o Bellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 27. It is not he (saith he) p In oblatione panis & vini non consistit. in the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christ's body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for q In consecratione non apparet ulla oblatio, nec sensibili● ulla immutario, etc. therein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needful in an external sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ cometh after Consecration: for r Oblationem i●●am n●c Christus nec Apostoli faci●bant, quam nos post co●…ationem fac●…. that oblation neither Christ; nor his Apostles at first used. It is not in the breaking: for s Non solet frangi quandoque. that is sometime ●mitted: t Fractio nostra Christum autorem non habet. nor do we (saith) use such breaking as Christ did now adays. It is u Manducatio & consumptio non sit à Solo Sacerdote. not in the people's communication: for then the people should be Priests. But where is it then? Surely it is partly in the Consecration: and yet it is not there neither: because there is x Consecratio non veram & realem mortem, sed mysticam tantum efficit. no true or real, but a mystical death only there; and partly in the Priest's manducation, or eating of it. And why there? forsooth, because it is no where else, and somewhere it must needs be: For y In tota actione Missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae preter istam. in the whole action of the Mass there is no real destruction of an Host but there only. Thus you see how they delude the people, telling them of a true, proper, real Sacrifice, wherein they offer Christ again for the poor souls in Purgatory, to pick their purses: And yet cannot tell themselves what or where it is, or wherein it consisteth. But if Christ (as they say) be the thing sacrificed or the Host: and not bread, but this Host is really destroyed, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroyed? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroyer of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eat the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, ( * Vide Bonavent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9 q. 4. a jansen. concord. cap. 131. which yet indeed is not so easily proved) then by Bellarmine's doctrine he did therein really destroy himself; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassable. If he did not, then belike there was no sacrific● there. For the Apostles (they say) were not made Priests till Christ bade them, Hoc facite, do this; and * Concil. Trident. seff. 6. de Sacrif. Mis●. cap. 1. & can. 2. thereby made them such; which might well be not till after they had eaten. Or if they were Priests when they did eat, then belike they destroyed Christ before the jews did him to death. But it is not to be marvelled, if they cannot find it in Christ's Institution when they know not where to find it in their own Missal. In which kind it is not unworthy the observation, that Corn. jansenius having sifted over and ransacked the whole story of the Institution, conjoining all the three Evangelists, that report it, together, yet can find no Sacrifice there expressed save in the b Gratiarum eunim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid. thanksgiving, which is (saith he) a spiritual ●inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lord's Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be termed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressly say the same. Only he saith, c Probabile est quod oblatio sui Deo sit facta. Ibid. it is probable too, that Christ then offered himself to his Father. But at last he is fain to fly to this, that though it be granted that Christ offered not himself in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they * Vt demus Christum non obtulisse, etc. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere. are bidden by Christ to do something that Christ did not, to wit, to do it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is he present then belike now when it is done) “ Cum memoria tantum sit rei absentis. since that remembrance is of a thing absent only: and that therefore it may well be called a Sacrifice, because it is done in memory of Christ's Passion. This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said: and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel (applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice, which we did formerly to the Sacrament, whereupon mine Adversary took occasion to keep such a coil, as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Sign, like Alexander's picture, etc.) d Gabr. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 85. Augustine (saith he) saith that e Aug. add Simply lib. 2. quaest. 3. Images or Pictures are went to be called by the Names of these things whereof they they are Pictures or Images, as when looking on a Table or a painted Wall, we say; that is Cicero, that is Sallust: Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kind of Image or representation of Christ's Passion; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him: And therefore is it also called an immolation, or an oblation & a Sacrifice, because it is a representation and a memorial of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Crosse. And this also we all willingly and generally grant. But such a Sacrifice will not serve their turn. They must have a Real and a proper Sacrifice, the very self same with Christ's on the Cross, though they know not whence to fetch, nor where to find it. Nor is it to be 〈…〉 (as I said before, if in Christ's Institution there be f Nec vola, nec vestigium. 〈…〉 ●…ing 〈…〉 all found of this their Sacrifice: since they confess that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are two several things; which both the Council of Trent therefore dealeth with severally, and Bellarmine handleth under several heads: as also M. Harding derideth Bishop jewel for confounding the Communion and the Mass together. We find in the Gospel Christ's Institution of the one, and therefore willingly embrace it: but we find there not so much as any mention at all of the other; and therefore justly we reject it. THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their N. P. fourth Century Dedicated unto our late Sovereign Queen Elizabeth undertaking to declare the Primative estate of the Church, which in Constantine's time illustrated the whole world, blame almost universally all the ancient Fathers for teaching freewill, justification by works, merit of works done by the assistance of grace, confession of sins to a Priest, and enjoined Penance, absolution of such as had confessed given with Imposition of hands, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Altars called the seat of the body and blood of Christ offered on them, the real Presence, Transubstantiation, with care, more than was had of the water of Baptism, that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground, reservation of the Sacrament, worshipping of it, receiving it fasting and chaste, offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiatory not only for the living, but for the dead, afferming it to be a Sacrisice according to the order of Melchisedeck, liberty for Deacons to distribute it but not to offer it, terming it Viaticum for sick persons, Images in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them, holy vestments used by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice, Corporals and coverings of the Altar, Lights by day burning on them, placing of Saints Relics under them, the care of deceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages unto them, and other like confessed points and practices of Catholic Doctrine. § 11. TO make us believe that this their doctrine of T. G. Transubstantiation is of great antiquity, he telleth us that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers universally of Constantine's time, among other things, for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament. This is all most false, as much is also of the rest by him here affirmed. They allege only some passages out of counterfeit works, g Centur. 4. cap 6. p. 430. some going under Ambrose his name, as the prayers preparing to the Mass, censured by h In Censur. ad Ambros. Non esse Ambrosii. Erasmus for such, wherein mention is made of Adoration of the bread in the Sacrament; which they note also not to be found in any of Ambrose his own works; i Centur. 4. c. 4. pag. 294. some going under Athanasius his name, as an idle Legend of an Image of Christ; which k Baron. in Martyrolog. Novembr. 9 Planè constat Autorem illius historiae non esse Athanasium Alex. Baronius himself disavoweth; wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world, but what is made upon the Altar: (and how have they l Calvin. de reliq. Charrovienses Monachi iactant se praeputium habere. his foreskin among their holy relics then?) m Centur. 4. cap. 10. pag. 985. some under the name of Eusebius Emissemus, confessed by n Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. de confir. lib 2. cap 6. de script. Eccles. ann. 430. & in recognit. Reverâ Eusebius Emissenus non potuit esse. Bellarmine in diverse places to be mere counterfeits; as an Homely, wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood: (words not found once in the writings of any one of the Ancients: We produce express places, where the Substance of bread is said to remain still in the Sacrament; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christ's body. But a number of such counterfeits do they daily coin and forge, and then cry out that men condemn antiquity, when they censure them, and such gross errors as they meet withal in them:) And withal p Centur. 4. cap. 4. pag. 294. they observe that two or three of the Fathers that were, not in Constantine's time, but somewhat after, used some new terms and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries, that were not usual in auncienter times. But that they condemn any one Father that lived in Constantine, 〈…〉 Rob. Coqui Censur. Patrum quorundam; & Andr. Rivetti Specimen Criticum. time or within that age, much less all of them almost universally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist, is most untrue. He should have done well to have added, what indeed they observe, and therein he should not have lied, q Centur. 4. cap. 6 p. 428. that they did in those times deliver the Sacrament entire to all, and not mangle it, as their Church doth now adays, bereaving the people of one principal part of it: as also r Ibid. p. 429. that they delivered them the bread into their hands, and not popped it into their mouths, as their manner now is. AND of Constantine that renowned first Christian N. P. Emperor they confess from the testimony of Eusebius living with him and writing his life, of S. Jerome likewise and other certain Authors, that he erected Temples in memory of Martyrs, dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles, provided his sepulchre there, to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the prayers there offered; he dedicated his Church with great solemnity, and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yearly festival day; he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle, and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the divine mysteries; he had lights by day burning therein; he translated to Constantinople the holy relics of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and Timothy, at which devils did roar, and certain relics of the Cross, found by his Mother for conservation of the City built by him; he honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetual chastity; Under him were Monks throughout all Syria, Palestine, Bythinia, and other places of Asia and Africa; he greatly reverenced Anthony the Monk; he went to embrace the sepulchre of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessors to God for him; he much honoured the Cross and signed his face with it; Under him in that age were Pilgrimages made to jerusalem: he reproved Acesius the Novatian for denying the power given unto Priests to remit sins, under pretence that God only remitteth sins: of his Clergy, Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures, others of them, who could not do so, appeased the Deity with unbloody Sacrifices and mystical consecrations, praying for the health of the Emperor: At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sins by efficacy of the holy Mysteries, and confessed his sins in the house of Martyrs: After his death prayer was made for his soul, and the mystical Sacrifice offered. So evident was he and the Primative flourishing Church of Christ in his days, in these and all other points Catholic, and continued so in our Country and other Christian parts of the world until Luther's foul Apostasy and revolt from it. The British ancient Inhabitantt of this I'll converted in or near the time of the Apostles, agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle, excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptism, and the jewish observation of Easter, as S. Bede testifieth: whose religion is evidently known and confessed by our chief Adversaries to have been Roman and Catholic. And never any country was in any age converted from Paganism to Christ, but it received our doctrine, namely, the practice of the Mass and belief of the Sacrament. § 12. TO pass by his impertinent Catalogue of by-matters T. G. in Constantine's time; (whereof some also are untrue, and some uncertain;) which he is very forward to run out into, willing to be dealing with any thing, though never so impertinent, than the point that against his will he must be held to: Whereunto I answer no more for the present, but this; Let him first quit himself of the task that he hath already undertaken, to wit, to maintain this their Metaphysical Transmutation in the Eucharist; and when he hath so done let him then produce, if he can, any one Article of Faith, that was held generally as such in Constantine's time by us now rejected, and he shall not want an Answer. But to pass by this (I say) he would make us believe (if we will take it on his word) that the British ancient inhabitants of this I'll held the same belief concerning this Sacrament, that the Romanists do at this day. All the reason he produceth for it is this, that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregory into England only in some ceremonies about Baptism, and the observation of Easter. Surely this man hath a notable vain in disputing and arguing: he can prove any thing, if you do but grant him all that he saith. The British Inhabitants (saith he) here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then, as we do now at Rome. Whereas he well knoweth that * Doctrinam hanc de conuersione hac, seu de Transsubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dicunt Scholastici, inter quos lo, Scotus dist. 4. q. 1. & d. 11. q 3. & Gabr. Biel in Can. lect. 41. Suarez. Tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 75. art. 5. Ait Scotus ante Lateranense Concilium (quod fuit Anno Domini 1215.) Transsubstantionem non fuisse dogma fidei. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 22. In Synaxi Transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia. Erasm in 1 Cor. 7. for above 1000 years after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held; scarce heard of for far more than half that time. Neither is he able to produce any title of true Antiquity to show, that it was then held here. Yea but (saith he) there was no difference here about it, when Austin came into these parts, between him and them that he found here. But I demand how it appeareth that Gregory that sent Austin, held Transubstantiation? or that in the Church of Rome it was then held? Till he can prove this to us, not out of lying Legends or bastard writings, but out of some authentic Story, or Gregory's own undoubted works, we have little reason to believe him. s Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 32. Bellarmine (I am sure) can fish very little out of him, nothing at all, that proveth aught. Sure we are that our Countryman venerable Bede, whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustine's arrival here, was of an other judgement, as by his writings appeareth. For Commenting on the story of the Institution of this Sacrament; t Beda in Marc. 14. & in Luk. 22. Name in Math. non habeo. The old Paschall solemnity (saith he) being ended, which was celebrated in memory of the deliverance out of Egypt, Christ passeth to a new one, which he would have the Church use in memory of redemption by him, u Pro carne agni & sanguine sui corporis & sanguinis sacramentum in panis & vini figura substitutens. instead of the flesh and blood of a Lamb substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood, in a figure of bread and wine, etc. And x Frangit ipse panem quem porrigit. he breaketh himself the bread that he delivereth, to show that the breaking of his body to come was by his own will and procurement. And again, y Quia panis corpus confirmat, vinum verò sanguinem operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mystice, illud refertur ad sanguinem. because bread strengtheneth the flesh, and wine breedeth blood, the one is mystically referred to Christ's body, and the wine unto his blood. Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation? much less that soundeth aught that way? A Sacrament of his body and blood: a memorial of his redemption: bread broken and given: and both bread and wine having a mystical reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and advisedly therefore done by Bellarmine, z Lib. 2. de Eucharist. to leave Bede clean out of the Catalogue of his Authors, though a writer of the greatest note in those times, because he could find nothing in him, that might seem but to look that way; which if he could, we should be sure to have heard of. Yea that long after Augustine's time the same belief of the Sacrament, that we at this day hold, was commonly taught and professed publicly in this Island, notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed, appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant, and of late published also in print. Among others of this kind are the a They are of late reprinted and set forth by M. William Lisle. Epistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue, of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning, that lived about the year 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day, and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned. In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine than Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotal Synod, he saith, that The holy Housell is Christ's body, not bodily, but ghostly: Not the body that he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke, when he blessed bread and wine to housel, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body; and by the holy wine, This is my blood. And that the Lord that then turned that bread to his body, doth still by the Priest's hands bless bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood. And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of York; that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviour's blood, which was shed for us in bodily thing, but in ghostly understanding. And that that bread is his body, and that wine his blood, as the heavenly bread, which we call Manna, was his body, and the clear water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness was truly his blood; as S. Paul saith, b 1 Cor. 10. 4. And that stone was Christ. And in the Paschall Homily by him translated out of Latin, and read commonly then on Easter-day; Men (saith he) have often searched, and do as yet search how bread that is gathered of corn, and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christ's body; or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords blood. To which he there answereth, that it is so by signification, as Christ is said to be Bread, a Rock, a Lamb, a Lion, not after truth of nature. And again having demanded, Why is that holy housel than called Christ's body and his blood, if it be not truly that that it is called? He answereth, It is so truly in a ghostly mystery. And then explicating further the manner of this change; As (saith he) an heathen child when he is Christened, yet he altereth not his shape without, though he be changed within: and as the holy water in Baptism after true nature is corruptible water, but after ghostly mystery hath spiritual virtue. And so saith he; The holy Housell is naturally corruptible bread & corruptible wine, but is by might of God's word truly Christ's body and blood, yet not bodily, but ghostly. And afterward he setteth down divers differences between Christ's natural body and it. Much is betwixt the body that Christ suffered in, and the body that he hallowed to housel: 1. The body that he suffered in was bred of the flesh of Mary, with blood, and bone, and skin, and sinews, in humane limbs, and a living Soul. His ghostly body which we call the housel, is gathered of many corns without blood and bone, limb and soul. And it is therefore called a mystery, because therein is one thing seen, and another thing understood. 2. Christ's body that he suffered in and rose from death, never dieth henceforth, but is eternal and impassable: That housel is temporal, not eternal, corruptible, and dealed into sundry parts, chewed between the teeth, and sent into the belly. 3. This mystery is a pledge and figure. Christ's body is truth itself. This pledge do we keep mystically, until we come unto the truth itself, and then is this pledge ended. Truly it is, as we said Christ's body and blood, not bodily, but ghostly. And yet further he addeth that, As the Stone in the wilderness, from whence the water ran, was not bodily Christ, but did signify Christ, though the Apostle say, c 1. Cor. 10. 4 That stone was Christ: so that heavenly meat that fed them 40. years, and that water that gushed from the Stone, had signification of Christ's body and blood, and was the same that we now offer, not bodily, but ghostly. And that, As Christ turned by invisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffered; so he did in the wilderness turn the heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water to his own blood, before he was borne. That, when our Saviour said, d joh. 6. 54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life; He bade them not eat the body wherewith he was enclosed, nor to drink that blood which he shed for us: but he meant that holy housel, which is ghostly his body and his blood; and he that tasteth it with believing heart, hath everlasting life. That, As the sacrifices had a sore-signification of Christ's body which he offered to his Father in Sacrifice: So the housel that we hallaw at God's Altar is a remembrance of Christ's body which he offered for us, and of his blood which he shed for us: which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housel. Lastly, that This holy housel is both Christ's body, and the body of all faithful men after ghostly mystery: and so when we receive it, we receive ourselves too. For, e 1 Cor. 12. 27. You are Christ's body saith the Apostle; and, f 1 Cor. 10. 17. We many be one bread, and one body. Whence it is apparent that the same Faith that we hold concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and Christ's presence in it was publicly taught and ordinarily professed in this Island even for a long time also after Augustine's access into these parts. So far is it from that which this flourisher affirmeth, that the ancient Britons near the Apostles times were of the same Faith & judgement in that point with our Romanists. But lost labour it is, and (as Optatus speaketh) g Quae est ista nova & stulta sapientia, novitatem quaerere in visceribus vetustatis? Optat. adv. l'armen. lib. 4. a mere folly to seek for any such novelty in the bowels of true antiquity. Neither is this Defendant, or any other of that faction, able to produce any one sentence or syllable, whereby that which he so confidently here avoucheth, may be proved, out of any grave and approved Author, that lived near those times, or that hath written of the same. Let him but make this his assertion good (that shall be our last issue) and he shall have me a Proselyte, at least, in that point. FINIS.