THE CHRISTIANS MANNA.  
OR A TREATISE Of the most Blessed and Reverend Sacrament of the EUCHARIST.  
Divided into two Tracts.  
Written by a Catholic Divine, through occasion of Monsieur Casaubon his Epistle to Cardinal Peron, expressing therein the Grave and Approved judgement of the KING'S MAJESTY, touching the doctrine of the Real Presence in the EUCHARIST.  Patres vestri manducaverunt Manna in deserto, & mortui sunt: Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. joan. 6. Tune in enigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro Verbi Dei est verus cibus. Origen. homil. 7. in lib. Numer. 
Imprinted with Licence, Anno 1613.   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.  
MOST WORTHY KING, AND MY DREAD SOVEREIGN,  
LET it not seem offensive, that I (one of your majesties meanest subjects) do here presume to present this unpolished Discourse to your Highness; whose judgement in Learning is so exquisite, as that it brooketh therein only labours of Perfection. Nevertheless this my humble Ambition (so to term it) appeareth to me warrantable for several reasons.  
One, in that Princes are truly interessed not only in their subjects goods of Fortune, but even in their Intellectual goods of the Mind; and therefore how small soever my Talon is herein, it ought to be appropriated and referred to your service.  
The other (more particular) is, because your Majesty is the principal motive of my writing this little imperfect work. Now, whither should the rivers run, but into the Ocean, from whence originally they received their springs? For having perused the Epistle of Monsieur Casaubon, written to the Learned & Illustrious Cardinal Peron, as himself intimateth, by your highness privity, if not command and direction, I find therein, that your Grave and Learned judgement doth most fully embrace the Orthodoxal doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, dissenting from the Roman and Catholic Church only in resting doubtful of the manner of the Presence. For these (besides other like passages) are Monsieur Casaùbons' words: Haecfides Regis, haec fides Ecclesiae Anglicanae etc. concluding, after he hath related the judgement of the Bishop of Ely herein, thus in the Bishop's words? Dixit Christus, Hoc est Corpus meum; non, hoc modo, Hoc est Corpus meum Nobis autem vobiscum de obiecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est etc. Praesentiam credimus, nec minùs quàm vos veram etc.  
Now seeing your Majesty hath made such a happy declaration in the belief of this high Mystery, I thought it my duty (solving aforehand all such difficulties, as may seem in a vulgar Eye to imply an Impossibility thereof) to publish to the world the chief Reasons which do fortify your former received doctrine; and further humbly to present and exhibit to your judicious Eye the weighty Authorities, which move the Church of Rome to believe the particular manner of Christ's Existency in the Sacrament.  
Which two Points are promiscuously handled in this Treatise, since both in explicating the doubts, and in divers of the Proofs alleged, the one doth often intervene the other: yet for the greater perspicuity, I have forted to one Head all the most forcing authorities of the ancient Fathers, which in plain and direct terms do evict a true & perfect Change of the Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ; so clearly acknowledging by such their testimonies the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Among so many of which kind, I cannot here omit that of S. Cyril of jerusalem an ancient and learned Father, Catech. 4. Hocsciens, & pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui videtur a nobis, non esse panem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse corpus Christi. Et vinum, quod à nobis conspicitur, tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur, non tamen vinum, sed sanguinem Christi esse.] A point so evident, that Monsieur Casaubon ingenuously confesseth, that the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which do necessarily imply a true change of one thing into another) are herein frequently used by the Greek Fathers.  
THIS THAN is that faith, which was so unanimously maintained (as shall hereafter fully appear) by the Reverend Doctors of the Primitive Church, and no less religiously believed by so many of your Royal Ancestors, and particularly by that most virtuous and renowned Queen, your majesties dear Mother; to whom it was granted by God, that she should wash her robes in the blood of the Lamb: A Princess, in whom abundance of Goodness at length became criminal; and who, as being a Queen, and excelling not only all of her State, but of her Sex in a spiritual Resolution and greatness of Mind, was much admired throughout all Christendom; and yet for bringing forth so fortunate and worthy a Branch, as your Majesty is, aught to be more peculiarly reverenced by us English. And therefore in this respect, I may freely say, that since the Child is the Image of the Parent, we Englishmen by eternising her Memory, have just reason (contrary to the doctrine of the Schools) here to honour the Prototypon even for the Image sake: Few other Mothers in our age being worthy of such a Son, few other Sons worthy of such a Mother.  
But now (most Gracious Prince) since the former doctrine of the Real Presence is one main Article of that Religion, for which the Professors thereof are daily so grievously afflicted; We the impoverished, dejected, & (in our adversaries Eye) despicable Catholics of England, do here upon our knees lie battering at your majesties ears, with our incessant Supplications, for some ease and release of our former pressures, and vexations.  
This Mercy we humbly beseech at your hands, even for his sake, who out of a sea of Mercy was content to abase himself to the opprobrious death of the Cross; for the Honour and Love of him, whose Image not only by Creation, but in Government all Princes are (Ego dixi Dij estis) and therefore are bound the more zealously to imitate him in his most glorious title of Mercy; even by that hope of Mercy, which your Majesty appearing before the Divine Majesty, at the most dreadful Day, doth expect to obtain: Finally for the dear remembrance of that blessed Princess your Mother, who died (I will not say chief for, but I am certain) in our Catholic Religion, and doth (no doubt) now daily offer up an incense of prayers to God for the relenting of your mind herein, naturally inclined to the commiseration of the distressed.  
Suffer not (o suffer not) so many innocent and Loyal Subjects, thus, year after year, to breath (for our afflictions considered, how can it be said we live?) in a continual Night of Misery; whose Bodies and States (like Balls) are tossed to and fro, at the will and pleasure of our hungry and pitiless Adversaries.  
You are our Prince, and therein ordained to protect us from wrongs & injuries: and in further warrant of the same, your Highness may say with Lot, Ingressi sunt sub umbra culminis mei. We are your Subjects, and therefore stand obliged to acknowledge the strictest Band of Allegiance, due either by the Law of Nature, by the Law of God, or by the example of any Christian Subjects towards their Princes, ever since our Redemption, till the fall of that most unhappy and Apostating Monk.  
Let not then the perpetrated crimes of some few, so divert the beams of your Gracious Clemency from us all, as that the Punishment due only unto them (like the Effect of another Original Sin) should propagate and extend itself upon the whole Body, and Posterity of Catholics: but rather, rejecting all the subtle Machinations & wise follies of our Politic Adversaries (which we trust that finally God will frustrate) have a frequent remembrance of that saying: Superexalt at Misericor dia judicium justitiae tuae; in which words your Highness may think, that the Apostle james preacheth to King james.  
BUT NOW, as fearing to become over tedious (for which reason, as also out of an humble Reverence I do forbear hereafter in this Treatise to direct further speeches to your Highness) I here will cease, casting myself at your majesties feet as low, as Humility and Loyalty can prostrate themselves, and praying to the Almighty to preserve you in a Blessed Government over us many (many) years; and after the Period of this life, to grant your Highness the Honour and Happiness in being another David, by enjoining two jerusalems'.  
Your majesties most Loyal & humble Subject. R. N.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
GOOD Christian Reader,  
Hear I present thee with a small Treatise of a large Subject; it being one of the chiefest Questions of Christian Religion, controverted at this day between the Catholic, and the Caluinist. It is written with intention to confirm thy judgement in so weighty a Point, being already rectified; to reform it, being erroneous; and therefore I expect a retaliation, charitably to entertain my charitable meaning.  
If this little work (the young Samuel proceeding from the long barren womb of my Brain) may become profitable to any one, I have my desire. As for the censures which will pass thereof, I presage they will be as various, as men's judgements are various; but herein I am indifferent, for (how mean soever) it is, as it is, and of all the Elements I least prize the Air: Yet here by the way I must advertise my ignorant Protestant Reader (for to the more Learned this is needless) who ever dislikes, what is not so courteous, as to come within the reach of his narrow headpiece, that I do look, that he should charge these poor Leaves (especially the first Part hereof) with main Contrarieties, and Contradictions; Yet if his Pride would vouchsafe to remember (or rather to learn) that all true Contradictions do ever consist in one and the same reference of Circumstances, and that such seeming here, are reconciled by different Respects explicated in the marginal Annotations, he might well rest satisfied.  
Wherefore I do here premonish all such, but particularly them, who either by Pen, or Tongue are become public patrons of the Sacramentarian Novelty, not maliciously to insist alone in the said naked appearing Repugnances, concealing their Illustrations; tragically by this means, amplifying the strange supposed Paradoxes (forsooth) defended by us Catholics herein: Which if they shall attempt (by divorcing the one from the other) now after this convenient forwarning, they are to be reputed, but as Men conscious of their own bad Cause, and willing fraudulently to abuse the weak judgements of their followers.  
I have divided this Treatise into two Parts. In the first, I prove, that it is possible (for the existence of any thing ever presupposeth a possibility of the same existence) that the sacred Body and Blood of our Saviour, may truly & really be contained under the forms of Bread & Wine; and that though the effecting thereof doth transcend Nature, yet doth it not overthrow Nature.  
This labour I am forced to undertake 〈◊〉 regard of our adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and contestation with God herein: for they maintain in their Write with great estuation and heat of dispute (like 
a Raging waves.] judae Epist.  raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame) that to be at once in divers places, or to want all circumscription of place (besides many other difficulties occurring in the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist) are against the nature of a true Body, and therefore cannot be accomplished by God. In which point they partake over near with the ancient Philosophers, though (perhaps) with their greater offence towards God, than it was in those Heathens; since in such cases that saying holdeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.] Falsa fides infidelitate peior.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The reason why the sacramentaries do believe the words of Christ in the doctrine of the Eucharist so little, is because they believe their Sense therein so much: for they are resolved, that their outward sense shall here even prescribe Laws to their faith; & whatsoever may seem to be incompatible therewith (as the form, the colour, the taste etc.) the maintaining thereof to be reputed as an exploded Error. In which kind of proceeding they appear in my conceit, to deal more niggardly with the faith of Christ, then ever the 
c Donatists.] August. de unitate Ecclesiae.  Donatists did with the Church of Christ; since they, though banishing the Church out of all the other parts of the World, yet were content to allot to it the whole Country of Africa: whereas these labour to withdraw our faith herein from all the chief Powers of our Mind, and to confine it within the narrow compass of the ball of the Eye, or the end of the tongue: So far off is the Soul (immersed in Sense) from apprehending truly this high and reverend Mystery.  
The second Part hereof justifying his majesties learned judgement herein, delivereth the divine Authorities of both the Testaments, for confirmation of the Real Presence: it containeth the Prophecies of the ancient rabbins thereof; it reporteth the Miracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same; it discovereth the weakness of such testimonies as are out of the Scripture objected to the contrary; finally, it displayeth the innovation and first appearance of the Sacramentarian Doctrine. But because our Adversaries do use divers circulations, and inflexions to and fro (for they most strangely detort the holy Scripture, and insolently reject the other proofs) therefore to draw them to a more particular fight, I have reduced the issue of this point to the judgements of the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, in whose 
* In whose writings.] See hereof the later end of the Marginal References of the first Chapter of the Second Part, at the letter (q).  Write many of the Sacramentaries seem to have good confidence, and from whose Censures they cannot justly appeal, since it is said: Non 
d Non te praetereat.] Ecclesiast. cap. 8.  re praetereat narratio Seniorum; ipsi enim didicerunt à Patribus suis.  
And so the main drift of that Part is to show, that those Fathers unanimously maintained the now Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, and of Transubstantiation. Which point being once proved, convinceth fully, and i●repliably the Sacramentaries in this Controversy: both because it must of necessity be presumed, that the Fathers did draw their faith herein from the true exposition of the Scriptures; as also in that the time wherein they lived, was (even by the general acknowledgement of all) then, when the glorious splendour of Christ's Gospel was never hid from the Christians of those Ages, still openly shining without any Eclipse, or supposed darkness; like the Sun which in some countries, and for certain seasons never 
e Never sets.] The Sun being in the Septentrional part of the Zodiac, never setteth for half of the year together, to those, to whom the North Pole is so elevated, as that it becometh to them their Zenith or Vertical Point. The reason hereof is, in that to the Inhabitants of such a Climate, the Horizon is coincident and one to the Equinoctial Circle; and therefore seeing every Diurnal Circle, which the Sun maketh, is to the eye parallel to the Equinoctial, and consequently to the Horizon of such a Climate, it followeth that the Horizon doth not intersectany of the Diurnal Circles; and therefore the Sun during all that time, never setteth to such Inhabitants.  sets, but continueth rolling about with great light in the eyes of the Inhabitants.  
GOOD READER, if thou be unlearned, I could wish thee (resting thyself in the second Part, which is facile and easy) to pass over this first; since it will rather intricate thy judgement, then instruct it, it being thereunto as strong Wines to weak brains. For it in treateth of divers high and speculative Points, and such as are adverse to a common Understanding, and therefore an ignorant Man (whose Reason oftentimes is but his Sense) can hardly penetrate them. And though thou shalt find there all such difficulties fully explained, yet it is questionable, whether thou art able (presuming thee to be such an one, as here I mean) to apprehend the Answers as well as the Doubts: for a weak and confused judgement may suggest or conceive difficulties, but it is a clear judgement, that must resolve them. And the reason of the disparity herein is this▪ To take one thing for another, or to err in the proper nature and essence of things (which is incidenr especially to the unlearned) is the source of Doubts and Questions; but to be able to marshal together things of one nature; and to sever and fan things asunder, which carry a great likeness one to another (for such resemblance of particularities ever begottes mistake) as also ●● know what essentially is agreeing to the nature of any thing, and what but accessorily and accidentally accompanieth the same, is a work of the judicious: Wherefore it is no vulgar hand, that can evenly cut the small thread in such nice speculations. Hence it is, that in regard of the manifold errors of this nature, whereunto the unlearned are subject, we hold, that in such abstracted difficulties, as also in some others, beating only upon some circumstance of the high mysteries of Christian faith (so that our ludgment be implicitly at least resigned to the Church therein) an humble and unaffected Ignorance is a safe and secure knowledge.  
This first Part than was written to give satisfaction to those curious prying Wits of this Age, who even mad with Reason (and may I not so term them, who labour to wound him by force of Reason, who is the only Author and giver of Reason?) do seek to destroy the Catholic faith herein, by restraining the Power of him (even of him, who hath 
f Founded the Earth.] Psalm. 28.  founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods) within the narrow limits of Philosophy; so making Aristotle, & other unbelieving Philosophers to set down certain cancels; and bounds to his Divine Majesty, beyond which he must not pass: Thus do those, who vaunt themselves, as the Children of Light, borrow their Light from the Children of Darkness. And so these Men (being become learnedly ignorant) can hardly believe any thing, which may seem to carry repugnancy to the settled course of Nature, expecting indeed at our hands (though contrary to the Apostles 
g The Apostles definition] Heb. c. 11. Where by the Apostle, Faith is defined to be, The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. From which definition it appeareth, that our Sense cannot give any square & measure to our faith.  definition thereof) a demonstrable faith. But against such as impugn faith by natural Reason, we may well apply the reprehension of S. Augustine: Ecce 
h Ecce qualibus.] ●. de Civitate Dei l. 22. c. 11.  qualibus argumentis Omnipotentia Dei humana contradicit Infirmitas, quam possidet Vanitas.  
Now further in behalf of our Catholic doctrine in this great Controversy, and to obtund and blunt in general all reasons deduced from Reason, for the destroying of the same; I do here avouch, that Man's Understanding doth find a greater repugnancy in giving an assent to those immediate, and necessary Inferences, which do inevitably flow from the Protestants Principles, then in believing the most abstrusest Difficulties in the Eucharist: Which point (I grant) doth not rise from any inexplicable or supernatural Mysteries, appearing in such their Illations (for since their faith is mainly 
i Mainly Negative.] For they deny Traditions, deny Peter's Supremacy, deny Christ's descending into Hell, deny evangelical Counsels, deny Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead, deny justification by Works, deny free-will: Finally (besides many other points) deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and Sacrifice of the Mass.  Negative, consisting, for the most part, in annihilating, & overthrowing the affirmative Positions of the Catholic faith, it cannot be involved with any such obscurities:) but it proceedeth, in that their Doctrine doth necessarily exhale, and breath forth such gross, absurd, and exorbitant Conclusions, as that by believing them, they darken and cloud even the natural Light of the Understanding. I will instance this (as unwilling to transgress the bounds of an Epistle, and reserving the larger displaying of this point to such opportunity, as may (perhaps) hereafter present itself to some one Catholic Writer or other) in this one Assertion, first broached by 
k By Luther himself.] So teacheth Luther to his sayings alleged in Acts Colloquij Alteburgensis. Luther further saith upon the Galathians Englished c. 2. It is impiety to affirm, that faith, except it be adorned with Charity, justifieth noi▪ Yea he avoucheth tom. 1. prop. 3. Fides nifi fit fine etc. faith, except it be without the least good works, doth not justify, nay it is not faith. And answerably hereto Doctor Whitaker de Eccles. contra Bellarm. Controu. ●. quaest. 5. saith: Nos dicimus, fi quis actum fidei habeat, ei peccata non nocere: id quidem Lutherus affirmat, id nos omnes dicimus: And Illy-icus in praefat. ad Roman. In like sort Amsdorfius a great Protestant saith: Good works are not only not necessary to Salvation, but also hurtful. Finally, Conradus Schluss●lburge another Protestant in Catalogue. Haeret. l. 1●. in Epistol. Dedicat. will not admit good works to be necessary to our Salvation, necessitate praesentiae only.  Luther himself, to wit, that faith alone is so potent in causing our justification, that works are not only not necessary, but hurtful thereto; and so the most perfect faith is the least spotted (in his judgement) with good Works.  
Now here I would demand, how it can enter into any brain, but to ween, that faith in Christ should engender a life impugned by Christ? and believing in him, that died for the expiation of sin, should be no small inducement to us for to sin? Or that Works should be hurtful to the great Work of our justification? And thus if we credit these Men, we are commanded by the 
l By the Apostle.] Philip. c. 2.  Apostle, to work, without works (mark you the riddle?) our salvation in fear and trembling. Is man created to the Image of God, I mean his Soul endued with the fiery spark of Reason (derived from that still-burning Lamp thereof in God) and can it nevertheless give assent to such unreasonable, improbable, and impossible resultancyes?  
But to return. Hear I think good to put the Reader in mind, that whereas divers of the most eminent and learned Protestants here in England (as appeareth from the Pens of the Bishop of 
m Bishop of Ely.] To wit most fully in the former place alleged in the Epistle to his Majesty; Whose words shall here be more largely recited; Thus than he writeth in his Book▪ against Cardinal Bellarmine cap. 1. Quod Cardinalem non late●, nifi nolentem & ultro, dixit Christus, Hoc est Corpus meum: Non, Hoc modo, Hoc est Corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de Obiecto convenit; de modo lis omnis est. De Hoc est, firma fide tenemus▪ quod fit de Hoc modo est (nempe Transubstantiato in Corpus pane) de modo quo fiat, ut fit Per, five In, five Cum, five Sub, five Trans, nullam inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul; interscita scholae fortasse, inter fidei articulos non ponimus etc.  Ely, and Monsieur 
n Monfieur Casaubon: Cùm ab omni curiositate velit Rex suorum ingenia abstinere; quaecunque tamen pij Patres primorum saculorum ad commendationem ineffabilis. Mysterij dixerunt, e●ipse admittet. Patrum etiam Verba, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & similia, ex mente ipsorum s●accipiantur, & exponantur, non reij it. Hac Regis, & Ecclesiae Auglicanae doctrina: si vobis non satisfacit, nempe illud restat, ut Transubstantiationis dogma, quo vobis placatis, possit uti, approbet. Istud verò non est rei veritatem pie credere, sed importuna curiositate modum decernere. Thus Monfieur Casaubon in his Book to Cardinal Peron, besides many other like Passages.  Casaubon) do absolutely acknowledge a real and true being of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, far different from Caluins, and the sacramentaries mere representative, and typical Presence thereof; it therefore followeth, that the said Protestants so believing, stand as full chargeable for the solving of all the great difficulties thereof, as we Catholics do; whether they concern a body being at once in several places, or a body to exist indivisibly without any circumscription of Place, and the like (those only excepted which are both fewer, and less abstruse) as spring from the Question of Transubstantiation, which is but one branch (as respecting only the manner of the Presence) of this great Question of the Eucharist. Hence than it riseth, that such other Protestants, as disclaim from the doctrine of the Catholics in the point of the Real Presence, by reason of so many Difficulties appearing therein, must also for the same respect, disavow the doctrine of the former Learned Protestants. And therefore I could wish them (since Humility exacteth so much at their hands) to submit themselves herein (though not to our authorities, yet) to the grave judgements of our Sovereign, & their own English Church, who for the more clear explicating of all such doubts, must needs admit the Catholics Solutions and Answers.  
And now before I end, I am to admonish the Reader still to have in his remembrance, whose and what Body it is, which we believe to have this supernatural existence in the Eucharist. It is his Body, of whom in this dreadful Mystery S. Hierome 
o Hierome saith.] Epist. ad Hedibiam. quaest. 2.  saith, Ipse est Conuiva & Conuivium: ipse comedens, & qui comeditur. It is also that Body, about the which so many astonishing wonders have at several times been effected: A little before the Nativity thereof (for we read, Conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto,) at the very instant of his Birth (for, natus est ex Maria Virgin,) some small time after his Death (for, tertia die resurrexit,) upon his last departure from us (for, ascendit ad Caelos,) Nature herself was in all these Passages, if not dissolved, yet at least suspended: Yea when he here conversed upon Earth, was not that same Body sometimes 
p Nourished without eating.] To wit during Christ's fast of forty days; He also did eat without nourishment, when he did eat with his Apostles after his Resurrection, for his body being then glorified, could not requeave any nourishment by meat.  nourished without eating, at other times did eat without any nourishment thereby? Did it not (even remaining 
q Remaining visible.] according to S. Luke 4. Ipse transiens, per medium illorum ibat.  Visible) become Invisible? Finally, did it not walk most firmly upon the 
r The liquid Element.] Matth. 14.  liquid Element, so as the unstable water then supported him, who supports the Heavens? If then Nature did subject and humble herself so often to this sacred Body, how can we Christians doubt of the infallible certainty of those words, Hoc est Corpus meum (in which as the chief Latin 
s Latin Father.] S. Augustine tract. 26. in joannem, expounding those words: Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est.  Father saith, vocatur Caro, quod non capit Caro) proceeding from our true and Powerful Lord, since Truth acknowledgeth not Falsehood, not Omnipotency Deficiency?  
AND thus (Good Reader) remitting thee to the perusal hereof (which I much wish, that it may be to thy spiritual Good) I take my leave, earnestly entreating thy remembrance of me, at the times of thy best Devotions.  
Thy Catholic & wellwilling friend, R. N.   


THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS of the first Part, wherein is proved the Possibility of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.  


THE Subject of this Treatise. Chap. 1.  
Of the Omnipotency of God, and what he is able to perform. Chap. 2.  
The first Passage of the difficulties in the Blessed Eucharist explicated. Chap. 3.  
The Second Passage of them explicated. Chap. 4.  
The Third Passage of them explicated. Chap. 5.  
The Difficulty of a Body being in divers places at once, answered from more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Chap. 6.  
The same answered by the like difficulty drawn from Eternity. Chap. 7.  
The same answered from the ubiquity of God, acknowledged by all Christians. Chap. 8.  
The difficulties of a Body wanting Circumscription of Place, and of an Accident without a Subject, explained by the difficulties discovered in the power of Seeing, and the Circumstances thereof. Chap. 9     

The Contents of the Chapters of the second Part, wherein is proved the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation in the Eucharist.  


THE Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist proved from the Figures of the Old Testament; from the prophesies of the rabbins; from the New Testament; from Miracles; from the first beginning of the Sacramentaries doctrine etc. Chap. 1.  
That the Ancient Fathers taught our Catholic doctrine; and first of such their Testimonies, as concern their appellations, and naming of the Eucharist. Chap. 2.  
Of the Father's authorities, touching the Change made in the Eucharist, from whence is demonstrated the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Chap. 3.  
Of their authorities, containing their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Mysteries. Chap. 4.  
Of their authorities confessing the inexplicable Greatness of this Mystery. Chap. 5.  
Of their authorities expressing the Effect of the Eucharist, and the Veneration exhibited to the same. Chap. 6.  
Of their authorities, showing that the Celebration of the Eucharist containeth a proper and true Sacrifice; from which doctrine (as from all the other Heads of their Testimonies) is necessarily evicted and proved the doctrine of the Real Presence. Chap. 7.  
Of the divers manners of the Protestants Evasions and Answers to the authorities of the Fathers. Chap. 8.  
That all the chief objected authorities of the Fathers, urged by our Adversaries, are impertinent. Chap. 9  
That by the Confessions of the most Learned Protestants, the Fathers do teach the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. Chap. 10.  
Of certain Considerations drawn from Luther, the Lutherans, and other Protestants, concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist. Chap. 11.  
That there are many congruential Reasons, showing the conveniency why Christ might be induced to leave his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to us Christians; as also the Conveniency of the manner of Transubstantiation. Chap. 12.  
The Conclusion. Chap. 13.      

THE CHRISTIANS MANNA.  

THE FIRST TRACT.  

The subject of this Treatise. CHAP. I.  
O 
a O Altitudo divitiarum.] Rom. c. 11.  ALTITUDO divitiarum Sapientiae, & Scientiae Dei! Thus did that 
b That heaven rapt Apostle.] viz. S. Paul, who 2. Cor. 12. saith of himself : I know a man even rapt to the third Heaven.  Heaven▪ rapt Apostle burst forth into admiration of God's unsearchable Wisdom, through the contemplation of his will and pleasure, whereby he was moved to draw some out of that heavy and dreadful mass of damnation, caused through the all-spreading fall of our first Parents, as also to leave therein others (no more interessed in the fault of Adam, than the rest) Vessels and Vassals of wrath, and thrall to eternal perdition: And thus may we Catholics have no less reason to admire the inscrutable Wisdom, and Goodness of the said divine Majesty, if we enter into consideration of divers Articles of Faith, taught by the Catholic Church, and believed by her obedient Children; to see how far some of them are estranged from all human Prudence, and how far discosted others do lie from the reach of Man's capacity. And to particularise this in some Examples, we find, that answerably hereto it was our saviours good pleasure among all the Apostles to institute him, as Head of the rest, who openly forsook his Lord and Master, and after increased his sin of Abnegation, with the aggravating circumstance of Perjury: So as jesus thought it best in the abyssmall depth of his Wisdom, to build the Confession of Faith upon the denial of Faith, and to appoint him, who disclaimed in Christ, to be the future Anchor and stay of all those, who should after trust in Christ.  
In like sort the Sacraments (which are ordained to be certain conduits, & passages, whereby to derive into Man's soul God's grace) do consist of external signs, or forms, wherein the stupendious wonder is (though I grant 
c Some congruential Reasons.] Among divers other Reasons, this is the chiefest: That seeing Man aswell consists of a corporal Substance, as of a spiritual Substance (the Soul) therefore our Saviour thought it convenient, that the Sacraments should consist of material, and external signs, or forms, answerable to the nature of our Bodies, and so externally working upon the Body internally, and spiritually, they work upon the Soul, according to that saying of Tertullian lib. de resurrect. Carnis. Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur; Caro inungitur, ut anima consecretur; Caro corpore, & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur.  some congruential reasons may be given thereof) to observe, that things material, and sensible are ordained to sanctify our immaterial & spiritual souls, where through the action of them, being in their very use 
d Elevated above themselves.] The manner how the Sacraments do work in Man's justification, being not the Conclusion itself between the Protestants, and us, but a circumstance only of the Conclusion, is disputable, and not a point of Faith, and therefore is severally defended by the Schoolmen. For some of them do teach, that the Sacraments, are Causae morales of our justification, even as he is the true cause of a Man's death, who commandeth the Man to be killed, though himself do not touch the man.. Thus doth Scotus, Durand, Bonaventure, & others hold. But the more probable opinion is that of S. Thomas 3. part. quaest. ●2. art. 4. who teacheth, that the Sacraments are Causae efficientes Physicae, & Instrumentales of our justification, and that the virtue here infused by God, is not any new inherent quality, either spiritual or corporal, but only the Motion, & use of God therein: for in that God doth use this Sacramental action to produce Grace, he doth elevate the same action, & maketh it to beget a supernatural effect, the which effect it could not, if it were moved by any other then God.  elevated above themselves, & transcending their own worth, and dignity, they produce spiritual, & celestial Effects. Thus we see, that things not capable of sense (much less of Grace) cause that in another, which themselves enjoy not; like the Sun which animateth the inferior Bodies with heat, and life, and yet itself not 
e Not having either heat.] The Distinction which the Philosophers do here use, is, that the Sun, and other Heavenly Bodies, have heat, and other such qualities per productionem, non per inhaerentiam, that is, they cause the same qualities in other Bodies, (and so may be said to have them) but these qualities do not inhere in the said heavenly Bodies; for these primae qualitates are originally peculiar, and natural to the Elements only, and to other Bodies compounded of them, by participation. But the Heavens are not compound of the Elements.  having either heat or life.  
But now if we turn our Pen more particularly to the most Blessed, & Reverend Sacrament of the Eucharist (where the Word being made Flesh, by his Word, made Bread Flesh) we shallbe able to discover whole seas of wonders, and be forced to acknowledge, that Man's understanding is not of force to sound them, or that it best apprehendeth them, in not apprehending them (still bearing an obsequious, and involved belief of what Gods Church teacheth therein) no otherwise then the Memory often serves to remember, that some things it did not remember.  
Now seeing it is my intended Method to spend this first Part in explicating, and unfolding our adversaries greatest, and strongest difficulties which they use, as so many Arietes, or Engines, to ruinated and batter down the walls of the ancient Catholic doctrine therein: All which though they shallbe fully reconciled, & explained, so as our understanding shallbe convinced of the possibility thereof (and consequently that Christ was able to exhibit his Body truly, and really under the forms of Bread, and wine) yet nevertheless the external betraying Sense (the alluring Eve, enticing our Understanding, the proper seat of Faith, to give assent to it own danger) will still be whispering in our ears the contrary doctrine. Therefore I have thought good to premonish the Reader in the entrance hereof, that in this Mystery he is to relinquish all intercourse with Sense, & to stand in hostility with the same, yea even forcing, and constraining his Understanding to receive no intelligence from thence; and ever to remember, that he who first made the Eye, still retains a command over the Eye. Thus violence, only in enjoying of him, who forbiddeth all violence, is warrantable (for not only touching life, but faith also) 
f Regnum Caelorum.] Matth. c. 11.  Regnum Caelerum vim patitur, and here rapine is true purchase: so in all other things, for using of force we are punished, here for not using we are punished.   

OF THE OMNIPOTENCY OF God. AND What he is able to perform. CHAP. II.  
THE small streams, wherewith the flood of the Sacramentarian Heresy is fed, and maintained, spring chief from the extenuating of God's omnipotency: intimating thereby that the abstruse Mysteries which are confessedly acknowledged by the Catholics to be in the Real Presence, are greater, then can be performed by that power, which through it infiniteness is ever unknown, though through it continual manifestation, still eminent. In this manner doth that 
a French Apostata.] viz. Caluin, who saith. l. 4. Instit. c. 72. Cur inquiunt (vi●. Catholici) non faciat Deus, ut caro eadem plura diversaque loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur, ut forma & specie careat? Insane, quid à Dei potentia postulas, ut carnem faciat, simul esse, & non esse carnem?  first French Apostata, & that late 
b Late Patriarch.] viz. Beza, lib. de Coena Domini contra Westphalum.  Patriarch of Geneva dispute of this matter. In like sort that 
c False Martyr.] Peter Martyr, lib. contra Gardinerum. object. 10. 11. 12. etc.  false Martyr (who with the Apostle of his own name denied his Master, but never with him lamented his denial) laboured to shorten God's arm, and omnipotency herein: so ready are these great Rabbins to interleague, & compart with the very Heathens in depressing of his might, whose Greatness is without 
d Without Quantity] The having of Accidences ever implies composition: therefore God being most simple, can have no Accidences.  Quantity, whose Goodness without Quality, and whose Eternity without Time.  
But before we undertake to show the possibility of all such points, as are found in this Mystery of the Eucharist, it will much conduce (I suppose) to our intended project, if we lay down the grave judgements of the learned, concerning what things be factible, or may be done by God, and what things may seem to transcend his might, who in might transcendeth all things: since so the impartial Reader may the better observe, whether the acknowledged doubts in the Eucharist imply in themselves any absolute impossibility, or no.  
First than it is generally agreed upon by the Learned, that God is able to do every thing, which Man's understanding is able to conceive. The reason hereof being, that since the Object of our mind is Ens, and Verum in general, and that which may be conceived or understood, may really & truly exist: Therefore it followeth, that God can effect all that, which Man is able to conceive in his Mind.  
Secondly, the Learned (especially those which are Christians) affirm, that not only those things, which Man is able to apprehended in his mind, but also many other things incomprehensible in Man's understanding, God can effect. For seeing (say they) that totum Ens of itself is intelligible, and to be conceived, and that which is non Ens cannot be conceived; nevertheless our Understanding through it weakness, and imbecility (except it be cleared with the Light of Grace) is often deceived in conceiving of things, & supposeth many things cannot exist, or be (and consequently not to be apprehended by our Understanding, or in themselves to be factible) which may indeed exist, and so become the object of our Mind. Thus our Understanding may apprehend, that some things there are, which it cannot apprehend: nevertheless the more the understanding doth lift itself up towards God, the more it is illuminated, and the better refined for the penetrating of any difficulty; no otherwise then a vapour the higher it is elevated up by the Sun, the more clear, and purified it becomes. This doctrine of theirs, as it is warrantable in the Authority of God's sacred word, so is it justifiable in divers exemplified Articles of our Faith, which the Heathen Philosophers esteemed, as things impossible, and by denial thereof ascribed unto God, only a kind of impotent Omnipotency.  
Thirdly, they teach, that God hath in all things so much an Active Power, by how much they have in themselves a Passive Power: And in this sense perhaps the Heathen Philosophers acknowledged God's Omnipotency. But their Error was, in that they thought, that the Active Power of God could not extend beyond the Passive Power of things (thus we see it verified in these learned men, 
e That the world.] 1. Cor. c. 1.  That the world through wisdom knew not God) whereas all Christian Philosophers do teach the contrary: and therefore they believe, that God could, & did create the world of Nothing. Now to make a thing of Nothing, is not to depend, and rely in any sort of the Passive Power of the Subject, since in this kind of producing there was no pre-existent subject at all, much less any Passive power thereof.  
Fourthly, they further proceed, and affirm, that God can do all things, which can by any means exist, agreeably to that of our Saviour, Omnia 
f Omnia tibi.] Marc. 14.  tibi possibilia sunt: Now all that may exist, which in it own nature implieth a Being only, and not a Not-being And from hence proceedeth that common Axiom of Divines: That every thing is possible to God to be done, which implieth not a contradiction: Now what implieth a contradiction, is impossible to be done. And the reason hereof is in that, what implieth a contradiction supposeth a Being, and a Not-being of a thing, and all this at one time: and therefore if such a thing could be, then could a thing be, whose Being should consist in a Not-being. Now only that, which hath no Being cannot be effected by God; since every thing that is, aught in some sort to be like to him, of whom it is. Besides to make that which is not, and hath no Being, is not to make, but rather a Not-making, to the which, not any Power, but an Impotency belongeth; which Impotency can in no sort be assigned to his Divine Majesty, who only is weak, in not being able to be weak. Thus is his mighty Arm shortened in deficiency, but extended in strength, since to him it is more easy to do, than not to do. And thus we teach, that he is not able to make Nothing, who yet of Nothing made all things. And therefore answerably hereto (because God is not capable of any defect) we say, God cannot die, because Death is formally non Ens (besides, that true Divinity is impatible.) By the same reason we affirm, that God cannot sin, since the power required to Sin, is only a want of Power, though powerfully reigning in man.. So free is he from all such weakness, since he showeth himself most Omnipotent, in being herein not Omnipotent.  
And thus much of these four points, which are (as it were) four gradual steps, whereby Man's Understanding may climb up, to see how far God's Power may extend itself; or so many high Turrets (from whence our soul, overlooking the low, and beaten paths of Nature) may with an inward reflex view the boundless, and vast heights of Gods infinite Might, and Puissance: The use whereof is, that the Reader may make application of this doctrine to the difficulties of the Blessed Sacrament, and so see, if any of them (according to the former rules) may imply any Impossibility, or no. For though we grant, that many things therein do transcend the created course of Nature; yet nevertheless, God (who is Nature's Nature) is able at his pleasure to disjoint the settled frame thereof; and therefore here appeareth the great Indignity, which these Idolaters of Nature (I mean the Sectaries of this Time, who impugn the doctrine of the Eucharist, namely, because it is repugnant to natural Reason) do offer unto God, in seeking to confine his force within the narrow limits of Nature; as if the precincts thereof were the Herculean Pillar, beyond which his Omnipotency (which is only bounded within a boundless compass) cannot pass: So apt these Men are to breath out blasphemies against him, through whom they breathe, & to speak in dishonour of him, in whom they speak.   

THE FIRST PASSAGE OF THE MYSTERIES AND other difficulties of the Eucharist. CHAP. III.  
BUT now at the last to come to those great difficulties, which present themselves in the Blessed Sacrament. I will touch them in these three Passages following, which shallbe accompanied with their Marginal References, containing the explication, and unfolding of them. Which Obscurities (even for the more advantage to our sectaries) I have set down in seeming Contradictions, that being thus delivered in the fullest show of impossibilities, if they can be solved; then no doubt, but being more nearly, & not so litteraly weighed, they may the more easily be reconciled.  
But now since in an erring and mistaking Eye, they may appear mere Repugnances, I have thought good therefore (once more, this second time) to forewarn our Adversaries (for their former sleights with other men's labours do presage their like dealing herein, if full prevention and caution be not made afore) that they do not divulge to their followers (less capable of such nice speculations) the bare difficulties alone, as here they lie, concealing their Explications drawn from Philosophy and Divinity, and so traducing us (though most falsely) as maintainers of most evident and irreconcilable contradictories: but that they would vouchsafe withal to take notice of their Marginal illustrations; and so either to relate them both together, or to pass them over together, since this deportment is best sorting to the candour & integrity of an ingenuous and wellmeaning Adversary.  
And first if we look into the stupendious, and miraculous Conversion made therein, we shall discover these points following.  
We shall find it to be a 
a A Change] This Conversion is not wrought by any assumption of Bread to the Person of the Word: Nor by any local, and simple union of the Bread with the Body; Nor by any partial change of the Bread into the Body; but is an entire, and whole conversion of the Substance of Bread, and wine into the Body, and Blood of Christ.  Change of one thing into another, and yet contrary to all other conversions whatsoever, nothing of that thus altered 
b Remaining.] In all natural Conversions, the Materia prima of the thing converted, remaineth under both the Termini of the Conversion, and by the Conversion this Materia prima is invested only with a new essential form; so when water is turned into air, the Materia prima of water remaineth, and is not altered, but only taketh the form of air. But here the Materia prima of Bread and wine doth not remain, and therefore the Council of Trent teacheth, that the Conversion is made of the whole substance of Bread, and wine, meaning thereby both of the matter, and form thereof.  remaining, nor any other thing 
c Produced of new.] In natural Conversions, that into which any thing is changed, is produced of new: for the Terminus ad quem, not afore existing, but only by virtue of the change, must be of necessity produced of new; and this Conversion is called by Philosophers conversio productiva. But here in the Eucharist the Body of Christ preexisting afore the Conversion, though not under the species, or form of Bread, doth cause that the Conversion here maketh, not that the Body of Christ should simply begin to be, but only, that it should begin of new to be under the form of Bread.  produced of new: and therefore we may truly say, the Bread was, but is not; is Nothing, and yet 
d Not annihilated.] Because, as it is above said, the Materia prima of bread remaineth not: the Bread is nothing; and yet the bread is not annihilated: for Annihilation is an action, which terminateth, and endeth in Nothing; but this action in the Eucharist, by the which the bread ceaseth to be, doth not terminate in nothing, but in something, to wit, in the body of Christ.  not annihilated.  
A Change, which is caused by a 
e Successive]. The words of Consecration are the cause of this conversion, and therefore this conversion is not made without a true successive pronouncing of the said words.  Successive pronouncing of several words; and yet wrought in an 
f Instant.] Though all the words successively pronounced do work this Conversion, yet the said words have no perfect signification (and consequently causeth not the change) till the last instant, wherein the last word is pronounced: for in that last instant, and not before, the effect of the words do really, and truly exist; ●hat is, the Conversion of Bread into the Body of Christ, and of the wine into his Blood. The like difficulty we find in the words of Baptism, which produce no effect till the last Instant. Now here it is to be observed, that though the signification of the words, and the Conversion be perfected together in one instant, yet in order of Nature they reciprocally precede, and follow one the other; for as the truth of this Proposition, This is my Body, depends à rei essentia, of the essence, or being of the thing touched in this Proposition, so the Conversion doth precede the signification of the words; but as those words are the Cause of the Conversion, so the words precede the Conversion.  instant. A Change, wherein the Priest may be said of Bread 
g To make.] In a sober construction the Priest may be said to make the Body of Christ, in that by his only (and no lay persons) pronouncing of the words of Consecration, the bread is really turned into the Body of Christ; and in this sense the Ancient Fathers do most frequently teach, that the Priest maketh the Body of Christ: See Cyprian l. 1. epist. 2. & 9 & lib. 3. epist. 25. Athanasius 2. Apolog. contra Arianos. Basil. l. ●. de Baptisin. c. S. Chrysostome l. 3. & 6. de Sacerdotio. Hierome lib. contra Luciferianos. Now though the Fathers in this their peculiar sense were accustomed to write so, in regard, that none could consecrate, but a Priest; yet if we will speak in precise terms, the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ, because Christ's Body being afore, the Priest by his words doth not produce it of new, but only causeth it to be under those external forms of Bread and wine, under which afore it was not.  to make the Body of Christ; & yet the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ.  
A Change, wherein the Body being made 
h Of Bread.] The Body of Christ may be said to be made of Bread, because the Bread is truly, and really converted into his Body, though the Body doth truly exist before any such Conversion. And in this sense divers ancient Fathers do write, that the Body of Christ is made of Bread: Cyprian saith Serm. de Coena Domini: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Dei factus est caro.] Gaudentius tract. 2. de Exodo. Ipse naturarum Creator, & Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus, quia & potest, & promisit, efficit proprium corpus: & qui de aqua vinum fecit, de vino sanguinem suum facit.] S. Augustine in his Sermon cited by S. Bede upon the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith: Non omnis Panis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi, fit Corpus Christi.] so usual, and obvious was this phrase with the ancient Fathers, which is so harsh to the curious ears of our new Brethren.  of Bread (a thing far different from flesh) is the very same, which was made of the flesh of the Queen of Heaven. A Change, where, by the force of Consecration the Body is without Blood; and yet even then the Body is 
i Not without Blood.] The reason hereof is, because Christ is there whole under either of the external forms, in regard of the natural union of his soul with his Body, which union is never more to be dissolved, since he is never more to die. But if his Body should be without Blood, then should it be a dead Body, and consequently himself were hereafter to die again, contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 6. Christus resurgens ex inortuis, iam non moritur: mors illi ultra non dominabitur.  not without Blood. In like sort by the same virtue, the Humanity of Christ is only intended, and yet 
k His Divinity.] The Humanity of Christ is ever accompanied with the Divinity, and therefore his Humanity being in the Sacrament by force of Consecration, his Divinity is also there with it per concomitantiam, as the Divines do speak. Now, that where the Body of Christ is, there the Divinity of Christ must be also, is proved from this Principle of Faith: to wit, That Christ is one divine Person subsisting in two natures, and therefore wheresoever the Body of Christ is, it can have no other than a divine subsistence, which subsistence is the same in matter with the divine Essence. So as we see by force of the Hypostatical union (which is never to be dissolved) where the Body of Christ is, there the Divinity is also.  his Divinity, which is ever 
l In all places.] If the Divinity of God were not in all places, than should it be circumscriptible, or at least, definitive in place, and consequently not Infinite; & than it were no true Divinity.  in all places, is 
* Hear of new.] In like sort all do grant, that the Divinity of Christ was in the womb of the B. Virgin before her Conception; and yet the Divinity was there (after another manner) at the time of her Conception.  here of new, truly, and really exhibited.  
A Change, where the Body of our Saviour is present, and yet 
m Represented.] It may be said to be represented. First, because the external forms of Bread, and wine do represent the Body of Christ, as it died upon the Cross; and the Blood, as it was shed upon the cross; for the Eucharist is a commemoration of the Passion of Christ, according to those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec veniat. And in this respect his Body may be said to be represented in the Eucharist, because it is not there after the same manner, as it was upon the Cross, but only by similitude; and in this sense Augustine epist. 23. ad Bonifacium, is to be understood, where he saith: Secundum quemdam modum, Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est. Secondly it is said to be represented, or in figure, because the external forms of Bread, and wine, are the signs of the Body, and Blood of Christ there present, though veiled over with those forms. And thus is S. Basil to be understood in sua Liturgia, who calls the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Figure, or Representation of the Body of Christ. And in this sense all the Sacraments of the new Law, may be called Figures, or Representations, because they are external signs representing, and withal working an inward Grace.  represented. A Change, whereby that sacred Body, at the first Institution of the Eucharist, being yet mortal, and passable, was then received, as 
n Immortal.] For as it was at the first delivered to the Apostles, it was in that spiritual manner under the external forms, as now at is after his death.  immortal, and impassable. A Change, where the external forms of the things changed, do by themselves after a sort 
o After a sort subject.] The Accidences of Bread, and Wine are said to be in themselves, because they are not in a liquo suppofito, or subject, and yet they do not truly subsist by any positive act, but are in Corpor● Christi, as they are preserved there, though not by way of inherency. Now, where our Adversaries do usually object, that it is of the essence of an Accident to inhere in the Subject, and therefore the Accidences of Bread, & Wine, must either inhere in the body of Christ, which all Catholics deny, or else in the bread and wine, and consequently no Transubstantiation: I answer hereto, that all chief Philosophers deny it to be of the essence of an Accident: for Aristotle himself, lib. ●. de Anima text. 9 saith: Aliud est magnitude, aliud magnitudinis esse. Now, if the existence of an Accident be distinguished from it essence: much more is the inherency thereof, which is but the manner of it existency. Besides if Inherency were of the essence of an Accident, Aristotle would never have demanded 4. Physic. text▪ 58. whether that space were supposed to be vacuum, where there should be only sound, and colour, intimating thereby, that though by natural Reason, an Accident cannot exist without a subject, yet that inherency is not of the essence of colour, or sound; since otherwise his demand should be absurd, and idle; for who should suppose Colour or Sound, would necessarily presuppose a subject, and therefore a Body.  subsist, and yet are not substances; they inhere not, and yet are Accidents: they are in themselves in respect of negation, and not of position; in another by way of preservation, not of inherency.  
A Change, whereby, the Testament made, being Christ's 
p Christ's Blood.] As the Blood of Christ is taken for that Blood which was in the Chalice under the external species of wine, so it is a Sacrament, and consequently a Will, or Testament. But as his Blood is taken for that Blood, which was shed upon the Cross: so is his Testament sealed, and established in the same Blood. And therefore according to this double acception of Christ's Blood, we find, that S. Luke did speak in these words: Hic Calix nowm Testamentum in sanguine meo, where by the word Calix, is meant Blood, and consequently the Testament.  Blood, was yet sealed in his Blood.  
A Change, where the 
q external Forms.] We hold, that when the external Species are corrupted, the same substantial Form succeeds, which would naturally have succeeded, if the Bread, and Wine had not been changed into the Body, and Blood of Christ. And yet we teach not, that this cometh by any Generation, for in every Generation there is eadem materia numero under both the Termini, or Forms, which here is not; for the same Materia prima which was in the Body of Christ, is not in the new introduced form. Now then, though it doth not proceed from any pre-existent Matter, yet it cannot be said to be Created: for Creation properly hath no reference, or relation (as proceeding merely of Nothing) to any former thing whatsoever; but here this new form hath a necessary relation, and dependency of the corruption of the former species of bread, and wine; for if the said forms were not, and after became not corrupted, this new substantial form would not succeed. Lastly we teach, that this new substance is substituted, or brought in by God, even in that very Instant, when the Forms of Bread, and Wine cease to be. And this nevertheless is not accomplished by any second and new Miracle: for even as when the matter of a Man's Body being sufficiently disposed, God doth immediately create and infuse the soul, and yet this is not called a Miracle, because the order of things already set down by God, doth require it. In like sort, when the alteration of the species of Bread, & Wine is proceeded so far, that then are made present requisite dispositions (as the course of things requires) to introduce some form, then doth God in that very instant minister the matter, and so the substantial form is introduced. Now here we are to note, that when any part of these forms are corrupted, the Body of Christ either in whole, or in part is not extinct thereby, but only ceaseth to be under those corrupted forms, still continuing whole under the rest not corrupted, and if all the forms be corrupted, than it ceaseth to be there at all, not much otherwise, then when a Man's Leg is cut off, the soul which was in the Leg, dieth not (for if it died, than he who wanted a leg, should want a part of his soul) but only ceaseth to inform that part, informing all the rest: and if all parts of the Body were disjointed asunder, than the Soul not dying, ceaseth only to inform any of the said parts.  external Forms being corrupted, a new substantial Form is introduced, and yet here is no Generation; it is not produced out of any pre-existent Matter, and yet no Creation; it is exhibited immediately, and only by God, and yet without any new Miracle.  
To conclude, A Change (see here repose in Motion) wrought without Change, since the Body of our Saviour suffered no alteration thereby; for it 
r Relinquished Nothing.] For Christ's Body in the Sacrament enjoyeth all those essential perfections of a true Body, which afore it had in Heaven, only it receiveth a new relation to the species of Bread, and Wine, as it is in the Sacrament, which it hath not as it is in Heaven, and consequently it is invested thereby with some other circumstances accompanying that it existence under it species, as to be freed from all extension of place, as also to be freed from that relation of place, which it hath, as it is in Heaven.  relinquished nothing, which afore it had; but acquired some things, which afore it had not. Thus though, what he here is, he was not; yet what he was, he here is.  
Now out of this Passage it appeareth, how the Catholics descent herein, both from the Lutherans, & from the Sacramentaries. From the Lutherans, for though they acknowledge the true presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, yet they teach, that no real Change is made of the Bread into the Body, but a Consubstantial coexistency of both: which opinion, though resting only in the manner of the Conclusion, we repute no less than Heresy; since in points doctrinal (once 
s Definitively.] For the General Council of Lateran under Innocentius the third defined for an Article of Faith the doctrine of Transubstantiation (though this doctrine was generally believed afore) in the first Chapter of the Decrees of that Council. He therefore that rejecteth the authority of a lawful Council, rejecteth the authority of God's Church, and consequently his Error (though resting but in the manner, or circumstance of any question) cannot be small, since in such his Error is included his greater Error, in thinking, that a true and lawful General Council may definitively, and sententially err.  definitively true, or false) who erreth little, erreth much.  
We also dissent from the Sacramentaries, who relying altogether upon their sense herein (like Laban's sheep led mainly by their Eye) do enforce an impossibility of our Doctrine; whereas Faith assureth us, that the Body of Christ is here really exhibited. And therefore we teach, that the understanding (which is in this place the Eye to the Eye) though borrowing all knowledge from Sense, even in knowledge here controls Sense, and secureth us, that his Sacred Body, and Blood (through the virtue of his own speeches) is here really present; though (through the dignity thereof) veiled over from our sight, and yet not veiled over with any thing, since they are not 
t Are not things.) The Philosophers do teach, that Substantiae only, are truly and perfectly Entia. And that Accidentia, are only Analogicè Entia, being in their own nature imperfect. And thus in this sense the Accidents of Bread, and Wine (under which the Body and Blood of our Saviour lie) may be truly termed Non Entia.  things, but forms, under which it lieth. Thus against the Sacramentaries we hold it most clear, that here to pervert Christ's words, is to impugn Christ's power.   

THE SECOND PASSAGE. CHAP. FOUR  
BUT let us pass on to the difficulties of another nature. We find, that Christ's Body by force of those operative words, is in divers places, & Churches at one, and the same time: for though Christ be incircumscriptibly in the Sacrament, yet we teach, that as a Body by God's power may want all 
a Want all Circumscription.] See the explication of this difficulty hereafter in the next Passage at the letter D  Circumscription; so by the same power it may have divers 
b 
divers Circumscriptions.] A Body may by God's Power have at one time divers Circumscriptions; which is, to have several places extensively. And the reason hereof is, because that only implies a contradiction (and consequently, as we touched afore, cannot be done by God) which impugns the very essence of a thing, so as it doth presuppose a Being, and a Not-Being of the said thing. But to be in place, or in divers places at once, is extrinsical, and accidentary, and not of the Essence; but what is extrinsical, or Accidentary, is posterius, and later than the thing itself, and consequently by God's Omnipotency may be divided from the nature, and essence thereof. The proof of this doctrine is also deduced from the example of our Saviour, who never leaving Heaven, appeared to S. Paul upon the Earth, as we read Act. c. 9 & 22. That it was not any voice (which spoke to him) made by God's Power, or the ministry of the Angels only (as some do answer) but our Saviour himself, appeareth: both because mention being made hereof in divers places of the Acts, it ever toucheth Paul's seeing of Christ in his own Person. So we read Act. c. 22. That Ananias put Paul in remembrance of his seeing of Christ. In like sort c. 26. Christ himself saith, That he appeared to him, thereby to make him a witness of the things, which he saw, but he could not be a witness thereof (especially of the Resurrection) except he had truly, and really seen the very Body of Christ. And answerably hereto we read, that S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. after he had reckoned divers, who had seen our Saviour after his Resurrection, concludeth in the end with these words: Novissimè tamquam abortivo visus est mihi, which saying of his had been false, except he had seen Christ himself, seeing that the rest numbered by S. Paul, had seen him in his own true, and natural Body.  
Neither can it be said (as some others would have it) that S. Paul saw Christ, as he was in Heaven, and not here upon the Earth, or in some near place of the air; and this for divers reasons. First because those, that were with Paul, did hear a voice, and saw a great light, Act. 9 & 22. but the Ears, and Eyes of his Companions, could not penetrate so far as Heaven. Secondly, because the light, which appeared to S. Paul himself, was so great, as it almost struck him dead for the time; which could not have had in likelihood such force, if it had come so far, as from Heaven. Thirdly, if S. Paul had seen Christ only in Heaven, it might have been objected to him, that he was no true witness of his Resurrection, and that what he had said to have seen, was only in imagination, and a strong apprehension of the Mind.  
Now our Adversaries cannot here object, that if our Saviour did appear here upon the Earth, or in the Air, truly, and really to S. Paul, that notwithstanding he was not circumscriptible in that place for the time, in that he is only circumscriptible, as he is in heaven. This urgeth nothing: For, for a Body to be circumscriptible in a place, it is not required, that it should not be circumscriptible in no place also, but only it is required, that it should be truly commensured with that place; so as the Termini of the Place, and the Body be answerable the one to the other.   Circumscriptions; much more than may it be at once in divers places Sacramentally, since 
c Unity of Essence.] The essential unity of a thing depends not of the unity of Place, seeing a thing is one, before it hath one place: so as to be in place is but subsequent, and accessary to the nature of any body; but it depends of the internal principles of the said thing.  Unity of Essence, and Nature is not dissolved by diversity of place. Hence is it, that it may be near 
d near to the Earth.] The same Body in several places may be near to the ground, and far of from the ground. Neither doth this imply any contradiction; for seeing, that when a Body is in divers places, and the relation is terminated to divers places, it therefore necessarliy followeth, that this diverse relation is multiplied; for it is to be understood, that those contrary relations are in one, and the same subject per diversa fundamenta, to wit, in a different respect of several places; which diversity of respect taketh away all contradiction in the thing itself.  to the Earth, and remote from the same; moved, and not moved; remaining upon the Altar, and received by the Communicant, and all at one, and the same time. And yet if the same Body (supposing it were patible) be in one place wounded, it would also be found 
e Remain wounded.] For those things, which are received in the Body itself (be they either Actions or Qualities) are not multiplied: And the reason hereof is, because the Body is but one, and not many, or divers: And being but one, it can but have unum esse Substantiale, though divers esse Localia, as the Schoolmen do speak, who thereupon teach, that all those relations, and actions, which are terminated ad Loca, to the diversity of places, are multiplied, because they follow, and depend upon esse Locale: but such Actions, or Qualities, as are received within the body placed, are not multiplied, because they follow esse Substantiale.  wounded in another, for Nature keeps her certain bounds, even in transgressing her bounds.  
Thus answerably hereto we teach, that it may be in a place, where afore it was not; and yet neither through any Local 
f Local Motion.] The Body of Christ is in a place, where before it was not; and this neither by any Local Motion, or new Generation of it, but by a true Conversion of the Bread into the Body; not much unlike unto the new being of the Soul in the Matter, or Substance, which is added to Man's Body by nutrition, where we see the Soul to be in that part, not by any Local Motion, nor Generation of the Soul, but only by informing that part newly adjoined to the Body, which afore it did not inform.  motion (for it never leaveth Heaven) nor by any Generation, for afore it was. It is not 
g Not continued] The Body of our Saviour, as it is in the hands of the Priest, cannot be said to be continued with the same Body, as it is in Heaven, nor yet to be divided from the same, seeing those things only, which are many and divers (whether they be Tota, or Parts) are capable of continuation, or division: Now, Christ's Body (as it is in Heaven) and in the Priest's hands, is not two several entire things, neither several parts thereof, but only one whole, and entire Body. And though there be a great distance of place, and interposition of many other Bodies between Christ's Body in Heaven, and upon the Altar; this only proveth, that those places, to wit, Heaven, and the Earth, are discontinued, and divided one from the other; and that Christ's Body is divided from itself, in respect of such diversity of place, but not in respect of it proper substance.  continued with the same Body, being in another place, nor yet discontinued, or divided from the same; and yet neither is the Body multiplied, or doubled, nor the places confounded. Briefly it is here upon Earth, & yet it leaveth not 
h Heaven.] According to that in Acts, c. 3. Oportet illum Coelum suscipere, usque ad tempus restitutionis omnium. And yet our Adversaries do idly cavil in charging us, that we force Christ to leave Heaven by this doctrine of Transubstantiation. And when we reply, that we teach that Christ never leaveth Heaven, but is both in Heaven, and upon the Altar; then they ignorantly object, that for a Body to be in Heaven, and upon the Altar at one time, is a mere contradiction, and consequently impossible. But this is gross Ignorance, for, for to be in Heaven, and not in Heaven, or upon the earth, and not upon the earth at one, and the same time, is a flat contradiction, and consequently cannot be performed by God. But to be in Heaven and upon the earth at one time, is no more a Contradiction, than the soul to be at once, both in the Head, and the foot.  Heaven; and even then it enjoyeth a perfect 
i Nearness to itself.] Because (as it is said above) it is one, and the same Body, as it is in Heaven, and upon the Altar; and consequently in substance, and quantity cannot be divided, or separated from itself, notwithstanding any distance of place.  nearness to itself in so great a distance. Thus through it being in such distance, & diversity of places, it seemeth to 
k To transcend.] If to be in a place, were of the essence of a Body (as we have proved afore, that it was not) than the being of a body in divers distant places, may seem to increase the quantity of the said body. Furthermore the Body of Christ being under the forms of many consecrated hosts, doth no more increase in quantity, than the soul being first in a child, and after dilating itself through the Body being grown greater, can be said to be greater, then afore it was.  transcend, and through it being contained under a small host, to lessen it own natural, and true Quantity, and yet is the Quantity 
l One, and the same.] Quantity cannot be separated from a true natural body, and therefore seeing Christ's Body (as it is in Heaven, and upon the Altar) is but one; so must it quantity be one, and the same.  ever one, and the same.  
Furthermore we see, that this sacred body by force of Consecration, enjoyeth the Being in divers places, which it obtaineth not by virtue of hypostatical, and inseparable union with the Divinity, which is in all places. For though by this union, the Divinity, and Humanity is made but one Person, and (this Person being an 
m An individual Substance.] This indivision of Substance is not so meant, that where one part of the Person is, there should be another (for this is most false) but the Person is so called, because it is one subsistng thing, not divided in itself, in respect of it subsistence, yet divided from all other things.  Individual Substance) the Humanity (where it is▪) doth ever 
n Accompany the Divinity.] For where the Humanity is, there is the Divinity (as is above proved) yet followeth it not, that where the Divinity is, there is the Humanity also.  accompany the Divinity, which is in all places; yet we teach not, that the Humanity is in all places. Neither may it be inferred hereupon, that the Word is somewhere Man, somewhere 
o somewhere not man..] Though the Word may be somewhere, where the Humanity is not, notwithstanding there the Word is Man, because the Word existing there, doth support the Humanity, as proper to itself, though existing in another place.  not man.. Thus we reject that fantasy of Luther's ubiquity, as overthrowing many Mysteries 
p Overthrowing many Mysteries.] For it is impossible, that Christ's Body being in all places, should be truly conceived in the womb of our Blessed Lady, or that it was borne, and died, or did arise again, or ascended up to Heaven; for if his Body be in all places, than it was in the Virgin's womb after his birth; so also it was in the grave both before his death, & after his resurrection, as also in Heaven before his Ascension. Again these Mysteries could not be truly performed except the Body of Christ did truly. & really move from one place to another: But Christ's Body being in every place cannot be said to move from place to place; for true Local Motion of a Body cannot be conceived, without obtaining of a new place, which afore it had not: so many points of Christian Religion, and of all true Philosophy Luther's ubiquity impugneth.  of our Faith, and retaining over much leaven of Eutyches his Heresy: so easily will a Lutheran transplanted, grow up a perfect Eutychian. And thus much of Luther's error herein, in this progressive digression.  
Now here we are to note, that the difficulties in this Passage sway much the judgements of our sensible, and material Christians (for so I may well style them, since they measure their faith by the Lesbian Square of their Sense.) And therefore in regard thereof, I have thought good, in two or three subsequent Chapters, (seposed only to this end) to exemplify the said difficulty of multiplicity of places, in other points acknowledged, and confessed by our Adversaries. Wherefore I could wish, that when they do look upon the Mysteries of Christian Religion, they would shut the Eye of Sense, and Natural Reason; since so they might (no doubt) by seeing the less, be able to see the more; and be like herein to that great Apostle, who by losing his Eyes, obtained Light. 
(q) Eutiches Heresy.] The Heresy of Eutiches (besides other points) was, that the Flesh of Christ was not of the same nature with ours. And that the Word was not changed into true flesh, but rather into an apparent only, and seeming flesh. So as the Word rather counterfeited itself to be Man, to be borne, to have died etc. than that there was any such true performance of these things. He further taught, that because the Divinity was in the Sun, the stars etc. that therefore this apparent Body of the Word was there also. And hitherto doth Luther's Ubiquity tend; for how can Christ's Body be a true, and natural Body, if it be in all places?    

THE THIRD PASSAGE. CHAP. V.  
NOW to ascend to the last Mount of difficulties in this miraculous Transelementation: We are to observe, that though the Body of Christ be here endued with Life, yet it is not 
a Not obiectively sensible.] That is, that the external sense of another cannot apprehend it to have life. Now, the Catholics do generally teach, that (in regard of the peculiar manner of the existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist) adjectives, which include a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia, do not predicate of his Body, as it is in the Eucharist, though they may be said of it, as it is in heaven. The reason hereof being, in that the Body of Christ is under the forms of bread, and wine, without any reference, respect, or order ad Corpora circumstantia. And therefore though his Body, as it is in the Sacrament be a natural, and corporal substance, endued with life, sense, and colour; yet it is not there tangible, sensible, or visible etc. because to be actually tangible, sensible, or visible, implieth a reference ad Corpora circumstantia, in whose senses, and eyes the Body is so to appear.  obiectively sensible; though it be a true corporal Substance, it is not tangible; and though it be coloured, it is not visible. In 
b In like sort we teach.] Christ's Body in the Eucharist hath eyes, and ears, because it is there a true, and perfect body, which it could not be, except it were organized with those parts. And yet those organs of Sense do not exercise in the Eucharist (as they are in the Eucharist) these faculties (as the Eye to see, the ear to hear.) The reason hereof is that, which was touched afore, to wit, that not only adjectives which have relation ad Corpora circumstantia, but also Verbs, which imply a presence of his Body in the Eucharist with reference ad Corpora circumstantia, do not predicate of his Body, as it is in the Eucharist, in regard of his spiritual, and peculiar manner of existing there, though they do predicate of it, as it is in heaven. Now to see, to hear etc., bears a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia, to wit to the external object of the Eye, and to the sound caused by some body etc. Notwithstanding Christ in the Eucharist may be said to see, to hear etc. and this for a double reason. First, because it is there the said body, which it is in heaven, but his body in Heaven seethe, heareth etc. therefore his Body in the Sacrament doth see, and hear, though not quatenus est in Sacramento. A second Reason may be, in that as his body is in the Sacrament, so it is accompanied with the Divinity, in the fruition whereof the Humanity seethe, and heareth all things. And in these two respects the ancient Fathers (according to that saying of S. Basil: Verba Inuocationis etc. quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit? c. 27. lib. de Sp. sancto:) as also the Priest in those words, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, did, and doth daily pray unto Christ, as he is in the Eucharist, as being most confident, that he doth there hear him.  like sort we teach, that it here performing the operations of Sense, and enjoying the organs of Sense, doth yet perform them without the help of those said organs. We here also find Quantity without 
c Without Division.] The Body of Christ as it is considered in itself, hath a true quantity, and consequently it is divisible, but yet in regard, that it existeth in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit, and not of a natural body, as being exempted from all extension of place (for it is whole in every part) therefore it may in this sense be said, that it is not divisible.  Division, Magnitude without 
d 
Magnitude without place.] Most of the difficulties in this Chapter are solved, by knowing, what is of the essence of Magnitude, or Quantity, and what not, therefore I will insist the longer in setting down the judgements of the best learned herein. The Philosophers than do assign three things to concur to Magnitude, of which the one ever causeth the other.  
The First of these three is, that every Magnitude should have an extension in itself, and have Partem extra Partem, that is, that one Part should not be confounded in itself with another Part, and consequently an intrinsical site, and disposition of parts. And this is of the very essence of every Magnitude, and cannot be separated from the same. Thus we say, that a Body is an extension in Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity: Superficies an extension in Longitude, and Latitude; A Line an extension in Longitude only. So as extension ever presupposeth different parts of the body, and consequently a Body cannot want extension.  
The second thing agreeing to every Magnitude, is, to have a commensuration, or coextension with place, that is, an extrinsical disposition, and order of Parts according to Place. And this second ariseth from the first, and consequently as being later in nature, than the first, may by God's Power, be separated from the same, yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Sphere, which being a true Body, hath true Magnitude, and Partem extra Partem, and yet it hath not any Coextension, or Commensuration with place, for it is in no Place. In like sort, if God before the Creation of the world, had created a Man, or a stone etc. this Man or stone would have had Partem extra Partem, and yet without any coextension or commensuration with Place.  
The third, and last property of Magnitude, is, to extrude, and drive away all other Magnitudes from that place, which is made equal, and commensurable to itself, that is, not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it. Now, as the second was later, and proceeded from the first, so this third resulteth out of the second, and is later than the same in nature: So answerably hereto we see, that the reason why one Magnitude doth not suffer another to be in the same place, is, because it doth possess all the place itself. But now seeing, that the later depends on the firster, and not the firster of the later, therefore we do hold, that Divinâ potentiâ it may be effected, that a Body may possess, and occupy a place, and yet not expel another from the same. And this is that, which we call penetration of bodies, so much impugned by our Protestant Philosophers. Now according to this doctrine (which is delivered by all our best Philosophers) we hold, that Christ's Body in the Sacrament hath the true, and whole Magnitude of his body. But this Magnitude hath there only the first condition, which is essential to every Magnitude (to wit, to be extended in itself, and by reason of that intrinsical extension, to have Partem extra Partem) but it hath not the second condition (much less the third) for it is not coextended with any place, since though it have true Quantity, yet it is not commensurable with any place, but existeth whole (in respect of all external place) in every part. And thus what is assigned in this Passage to our saviours Body in the Sacrament, which seems to be common to every natural body, it is to be understood (according to the first condition of Magnitude) of the extension of the body in itself, and intrinsical disposition of it parts without any reference to Place. But what is here denied to the said body, as it existeth in the Sacrament, which is incident to every other natural body, that is meant of it (according to the second, or third condition) only in respect of external extension of parts, and outward commensuration with place, which here it wanteth. And this may suffice for this Point, where by the true application of it, most (if not all) of the doubts of this Passage may be answered; and therefore they will only need a short application hereof for their full Illustration.   Place, a Body without 
e Without Circumscription.] viz. external Commenfuration of Place.  Circumscription, Parts really 
f Really distinguished.] viz. Distinguished in respect of an intrinsical disposition of parts in itself, though confounded in regard of Place, it being whole in this respect (as also in respect of the outward sensible forms) in every Part.  distinguished, yet confounded; and being 
g Remote.] They are separated, and remote one from another in regard of the inward distinctions of Parts, yet they touch one another, because they want all Circumscription of place.  remote one from another, yet touching one another. So as we here find Contiguity in 
h contiguity in distance.] viz. In the different respect of the inward site, or disposition of parts, and the outward coextension of place.  distance, Confusion (as I may say) in distinction, and a joining together in separation. My meaning is, that Christ's Body, though having Quantity, yet doth here exist, as if it were without 
i Without Quantity.] Because it wanteth the second, and third condition of Magnitude above mentioned, which are incident to every Body, as it is naturally in place.  Quantity, for the parts thereof are received in the same place, and yet do not penetrate themselves. In like sort his Body hath here the true quantity, and distinction of parts, which it hath in Heaven, and yet it is (without being greater, or lesser) wholly contained within the least part of a consecrated Host. Thus we see, that though a 
k Though a Spirit.] A Spirit cannot be extended in place, because it hath not any extension of Parts at all, & therefore it is indivisible; for seeing, to be extended in place is a formal effect, proceeding from it formal cause of Extension in itself▪ if therefore a Spirit should be extended in place, we should admit the formal Effect without the formal Cause, which cannot be, since the formal Effect is later in nature, than the Cause, and cannot be without the Cause, though the formal Cause may be without the Effect, as we say here; that the inward Extension of Christ's Body doth want (by God's power) all extension of place.  Spirit (even by God's Omnipotency) cannot be extended in place, yet that a Body may want all such extension. And thus answerably hereto we teach, that this sacred Body is whole in every part, and yet hath a true distinction of Parts. And so though the external forms be broken, or disparted in themselves; yet the Body lying under them, remains in the least parcel thereof, entire, and undivided; as we see that when a looking-glass is broken, a man's whole face will appear in every parcel thereof. Briefly we hold, that in this stupendious Mystery, that Christ's Body remaining a Body, & not a Spirit, yet doth exist as a 
l Exist as a Spirit.] viz. As not having any Coextension with place, no more than a Spirit.  Spirit, and not as a Body: so as we may well term it in a sober construction a Body 
m Spiritualised.] Not that the Body by this means is become a Spirit, for that is false: Nor that still remaining a Body, is withal a Spirit, for that is impossible: Nor that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist only Spiritually, as the word Spiritually in our adversaries construction is opposed against the words Truly, or Really: But it may be said to be spiritualized, because (as it is often said) it existeth in the Eucharist like a Spirit, to wit, without any extension of place, but being (in respect of all such extension) whole in every part.  spiritualized.  
These (lo) alleged, and at large in the marginal References solved, are the chiefest Mysteries, and difficulties, which are produced in the doctrine of the Real Presence. And here I am to advertise the Reader of two things: the one, that the most (if not all) of these obscurities were first through an incessant agitation of the mind discovered by our Catholic 
n Catholic Schoolmen.] For these, and such like are handled, and discussed by S. Thomas Aquinas, The Master of the Sentences, Scotus, Suarez, Vasquez, and divers others.  Schoolmen for the more exact search of the truth, and after most fully answered by them; so as these short currents of doubts, from thence received their stops, from whence they first did spring. But now our Adversaries (for it is the misfortune of learning, ever to be wounded by her own hand) are not ashamed even to turn the edges of those Arguments (first propounded, and answered by Catholic Divines, upon us, who maintain the said faith which those Doctors did. By which course of proceeding, we may easily discover, how barren, & dry our Sectaries are, for they bring little, or nothing of themselves to impugn our faith herein, but only Echo forth what they have heard our learned Catholics afore speak; yet do they Echo after a strange manner, for they do not repeat the last words (as in nature, and reason they should) but this were for their disadvantage, since they contain the answers, and solutions; but only the firster part thereof, wherein do lie the objections.  
The other point, whereof the Reader is to take notice, is this: That most of the former difficulties (especially of the two latter Passages, or Chapters) do consist in the repugnancy, which they bear to the outward Sense, and therefore seeing, that these are chief insisted upon, and more & more reinforced by our Adversaries, we may here truly say, that no small part of a Sacramentaries Faith lies in his eye. Thus howsoever such rapt Spiritualists will at other times vaunt of their hidden revelations from God, concerning the secrets of their Profession; yet you shall ever find them, even in the midst of these their airy, & high-towring Illuminations, to look down upon Sense and natural Reason (though Reason teacheth▪ us not to rely upon Reason in things transcending Reason) bearing themselves herein, not much unlike to your great unprofitable Kites, which though they fly high, yet they have their Eye still fixed upon the earth.   

THE PROTESTANTS DIFFICULTY OF A Body being in divers Places, answered from two more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity, and the Incarnation. CHAP. VI  
NOw after we have dissected (as it were) point after point such difficulties in the Blessed Sacrament, wherein the very sinews, and strength of our adversaries cause do chief lie; We are further here to advertise the Reader, that through the consideration of many dogmatical 
a 
dogmatical Assertions.] A third Example (besides those two chief Mysteries afore specified) may be the wonderful difficulty of Creation, or Annihilation, which to Heathen Philosophers may seem to imply a Contradiction; for to say, that Something may be made of Nothing (which is Creation) and that Something may be turned into Nothing (which is Annihilation) may be thought to say, that Something is Nothing, and Nothing Something. And doubtless it cannot be apprehended by Man's understanding, that a Thing should now exist, which afore was Nothing; and in like sort, that Something should be turned into Nothing, except this Nothing be Something.  
A fourth Example may be the Resurrection of the Dead. Now the difficulty in this Mystery is, how one, and the same Individuum, or particular Body should be twice made; for if it be twice, then is it with a double action; and if with a double action, how comes it to pass, that it is not two? seeing that the Effect depends on the Action, ut eius Terminus.  
Furthermore this Mystery is made more incomprehensible, by reason of the Anthropophagis, or Cannibals, who feeding upon Man's flesh, nevertheless both their own bodies, and the bodies of those others (upon whom they feed, and whose flesh is turned into the flesh and substance of the Cannibals) shall rise at the day of the resurrection most distinct, and several Bodies: where we see, that one Body is turned into the substance of another, and yet hereafter that very said substance is to rise up most different, and distinct Bodies.  
A fifth Example may be taken from the Pains of the damned, where the souls, and the Devils are tormented, and punished with corporal fire: for if the burning of the fire doth not otherwise torment a thing then dissolueudo continuum, then how can it afflict an Indivisible Substance, as the Soul of Man, or a Spirit is? of which Point see Augustine lib. 21. de Civit. Die. cap. 2. 3. 4. & 5.  
A sixth, is the Observation, how a Spirit can be detained, and holden by a Body; for it seemeth no less difficult to be understood, how a Spirit should be holden by a Body, that it passeth not wheresoever it would, then that a Body should not be detained, and hindered by another Body, but that it may freely pass through any  bodies, as if they were no Bodies at all. Now the firster part of this difficulty appeareth in the former example of the Devils, who (being incorporal Substances) are detained with Hell fire, so as that they cannot pass whither they would; which point may be also exemplified by our Soul, which being an immaterial Substance, is detained, and holden by our Body.  
A seventh, may be taken from the Examples out of the Scriptures, where we read, that the Fire by God's Power did suspend it faculty of heating, Dan. 3 And that Christ, and S. Peter by the same Power did walk upon the waters, Matth. 14. and the like. Now, if God can effect, that, that which is naturally hot, shall no● heat, and that which is naturally ponderous, and heavy, shall not descend downwards having no hindrance; by the same reason is he able to make, that a true body may want also circumscription of place. For the reason, why through divine power, that which is hot, shall not heat, nor a thing ponderous shall not descend towards the Centre, is, in that Causa est prior Effectu, the cause is before it effect, and therefore not depending on the effect, may by God be separated from the same; but the like reason is found in Magnitude, which is the Cause, and to fill, or possess a place, which is the effect arising from the said cause, and therefore later in nature than it. Besides, Gravitas, or Ponderosity is not only the cause, why a heavy body doth descend being out of it natural place, but it is also the cause thereof even in that kind of Cause (to wit, in genere causae formalis) in which, Magnitude is the cause, why a Body doth possess a place.  
An eight may be deduced from other Examples in Scripture, whereby is proved, that divers bodies may possess one, and the same place, and consequently, that a Body may want all circumscription of place. Hereof are no few Examples borrowed from our Saviour himself, as that of his Nativity, where our Saviour did proceed out of the womb of the Blessed Virgin without any breach of the Virginal parts. For thus hereof do the Fathers write, to wit Hierome in Apolog. pro libris contra iovinianum, Gregory Nazianzen in Tragoedia, Christus Patiens. Augustinus epist. 3. ad Volusianum, Ambrose lib. de instit. Virginum c. 7. A point so generally believed by the ancient Fathers, that jovinian is for the denial thereof registered for an Heretic by Ambrose epist. 80. & 81. In like sort we read john 20. that Christ came to his disciples januis clausis, which action howsoever our Adversaries seem to elude, yet do the Fathers generally acknowledge the Wonder herein to be, that the Body of our Lord did then penetrate another , and firm body; thus Hierome epist. ad Pamachium, de erroribus joannis Constantinop. Epiphanius haeres. 64. Ambrose in cap. vlt. Lucae, as also Chrysostome, and August. upon this place. Again another is of our saviours rising out of the grave, the monument, or door thereof being shut. In which point also the Fathers put the former like Miracle, to wit, that a true natural body should pass through the grave, it still remaining shut. See hereof August. serm. 138. de Tempor●. Hierome epist. ad Hebidiam quaest. 6. Chrysostome. Homil. de S. Ioa●●●● Baptista. justinus quaest. 117. besides divers others.   Assertions in Christian Religion (whereof some are set down in the Marginal References, besides others reserved to their peculiar Chapters) and of other irrefragable Positions in Philosophy, we may fully perceive, that Man's understanding is too short a scantling to measure out God's power. For divers such Passages there are, & other Conclusions in Nature, whereunto all Christians give an absolute assent, and yet their proofs cannot be deduced from the grounds of Natural Reason: so true it is, that perfection in knowledge is not in this life the portion of man.. I will insist in some particulars, so shall our Adversaries see, that they have reason either to admit the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, or else with the denial thereof to deny the said Articles of Christian Faith, and other Philosophical Demonstrations.  
First then may be presented to us that Cardinall-Mistery of the Trinity, which is indeed the basis, and foundation, whereupon the edifice, or structure of Christian Religion is builded. Hear now our Faith teacheth us (for by the Eagle wings thereof only we do mount so high, our Sense, and natural Reason fluttering over near the ground) that there is one peculiar nature in three different Persons; so as to pattern this to that in the Eucharist, we find an Unity, or (as I may term it) an Individuality of Nature, and a diversity of Persons, sortable to the Unity of a Body, & multiplicity of places. Now here we are to know, that every one of these three Persons is identified really, and formally with this nature (the strictest Union that can be conceived) whereas the Body is only externally conjoined with the place; so much is the difficulty of a Body enjoying at once divers local Circumscriptions, surpassed by this dogmatical Point of one nature being in several Persons without any distraction, or multiplication thereof.  
Now secondly, if we look into that other chief Point of the Incarnation, whereby the Deity of God appeared in the frailty of Man's nature (as the sun shines in a puddled water) we shallbe oppressed even with store of difficulties presented to us therein. I will not insist in every particular thereof; therefore I will pass over, how in this astonishing doctrine of Christianity, Christ being borne in Time, was yet begor before all Time; and but newly borne, was full grown; lying weakly in a Cradle, yet able to dissolve with his finger the whole frame of this world; ignorant (in some sense) of the end of the world, yet knew all things; died in the reign of Tiberius, yet slain from the beginning of the world. Finally his Soul separated from his Body by death, yet could not die, since death over him had no power.  
These, and the 
b And the like] Too wit, how in the Mystery of the Incarnation, God separateth from the Humanity of Christ his manner of subsistence, inse●ting it in his Divinity; A point, which hardly can be understood without presuming some change in God, of which he is in no sort capable. Now, it is no more incident to an Accident to inhere in a Subject, than it is natural to a Substance to subsist by itself: if therefore God can effect, that a Substance shall not subsist by itself, as here it doth not, why should not he be able to preserve an Accident without i● Subject?  like (I say) I will pretermit, & will chief rest (as most pertinent to this place) in this one Point, to wit, how one Hypostasis, or Person is in two Natures; for whatsoever our Adversaries can allege for impugning of a Body to be in several places, the same is here found with all aggravating circumstances. Will they object, that the Places are really divers, and far distant one from another? But here the Natures are more different, and dislike, the one being Divine, and the other human. Or will they say, that the union of the Body, and the place is so straight, as that it hindereth, why the said Body should be in another place? But here the Union between the Person, and the Nature is far greater; since that former is merely accidentary and extrinsical, this intrinsical and substantial: And which is more, here the Person, or Hypostasis is identified, and made the same really, and formally with it divine Nature, and ye is united most inwardly with the human Nature. If therefore one Person may be in two different, and unlike Natures, being united most intrinsically with either of them, and yet neither this Person divided, nor the Nature's confounded: much more may a natural Body be in divers places (whose possessing of them is mere extrinsical) without either division of the Body, or confusion of places.  
Thus we see how our Adversaries confessing the greater difficulty, cannot be induced to believe the lesser: such blind 
c Blind Guides.] Matth. ●●.  Guides they are, who strain out a Gnat, & swallow a Camel Now if they were pressed to falue all doubts in this Article by Natural Reason, I am sure (how learned soever they are) they would confess a great Impossibility therein; since God as Man, is scarce able to penetrate the Mysteries of Man as God. Then by the same Reason they are to reject in any other dogmatical Point whatsoever, these first Conceptions, and secret breathe of Atheism: How? & by what means? Whereunto to answer only by the Light of Reason, and to deny whatsoever cannot be made good thereby, is to show himself more conversant in the Natural Philosopher's Catechism, then in his creators sacred Writings; so prudently therefore it was said of our Father 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Nazianzen. Orat. 1. de Theologia, signifying as much, as, Ne anxiè 〈◊〉 modum rei.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And thus much of this Pair, or Twins of Christian Mysteries (for their resemblance is great) the one consisting in the unity of Nature, with reference to diversity of Persons, the other in the Unity of the Person, with respect to diversity of Natures.   

THE SAME ANSWERED BY the like difficulty, drawn from Eternity. CHAP. VII.  
A SECOND Example shallbe drawn from that, which in it Concrete, is the peculiar, & incommunicable Attribute of God, I mean Eternity: for if we find Mysteries far passing Man's understanding in the Proprieties of God, how much short are we from sounding the bottomless gulf of his Power, who is the source of the said Proprieties? But here we are first to know, what Eternity is. The Philosophers 
a The Philosophers define.] Aristot. in Metaphysic. passim.  define it to be, Instans Duration is non fl●ens; An Instant of Duration, or continuance, which is ever present, and never passeth away. Thus Eternity, beside, that it hath no beginning (according to Philosophy) consisteth of that, which is shorter, than the shortest time, and therein Indivisible; and yet the continuance thereof, extendeth it beyond the length of all Time, and therein Interminable.  
Now, the main difficulty herein is this (and such which in the like touch of the doubt is greater, than the former confessed difficulty of multiplicity of place) to wit, That this Instant of Duration, being but one instant, yet is, and coexisteth in several times, both past, and to come; & yet neither is this Instant divided, or distracted in itself, nor these several times confounded. He that seriously penetrateth this difficulty, how can he make doubt, but that by Divine Power, one Body may be in several places, without either division of the Body, or confusion of the places? And this the rather (a circumstance much increasing the Mystery here alleged) in that, divers places, wherein we suppose a Body may be, do still remain at one time, though far distant one from another; whereas these precedent, and future times (in both which one, and the same Instant of Duration or Eternity is) are ever in a flowing, and departing Motion; and consequently cannot by any possibility whatsoever remain, and exist together; for we see, that the Time passed ever gives place to the Time to come.  
And thus much of this abstruse difficulty of Eternity (the doctrine whereof who denieth, denieth withal God's everlasting Being) of which I was the more willing to entreat, because it is that, whereto after our Pilgrimage ended in this world, we all trust most joyfully to arrive. And therefore (by allusion) we may truly say, that as Eternity in it own nature consisteth of a continued Instant; so of this short Instant of Man's Life dependeth all Eternity of future joy, or Calamity. Furthermore, not only we, but all Creatures whatsoever, shall finally have their Period, and Dissolution in Eternity; yea Time itself, wherein all things are now swallowed up, shall hereafter be absorbed in the abyssmall depth thereof. Thus what gave an end to every thing, shall in an endless Eternity receive it end.   

A THIRD ANSWER drawn from the ubiquity of God. CHAP. VIII.  
PHILOSOPHY teacheth us, that the highest Heaven is in Quantity finite, because the revolution of that huge Body is periodical, and terminable, as being perfected within a prefixed time. The consequence whereof is evicted, (by force of a contrariety) from a received Axiom among the learned; to wit, What Body accomplisheth not it course in a designed, and limitable time, the same (if any such were) is of an infinite, and immensurable Quantity. Now, upon this Basis, or ground (by resemblance) we may stay ourselves in the search of his Power, who is the Creator of all the Heavens: for since his Omnipotency is not confined within the compass of any time (for himself was before 
a Before all Time] Seeing that Time (according to it definition in Philosophy) is but the course, or Motion of the highest Heaven secundum prius, & posterius, according to the firster, or later part of the said motion; and that seeing all the Heavens were once created of God; therefore it must needs follow, that God was before all times.  all time:) nor of things (for he gave the first 
b The first Being to all things.] viz. through the creation of them, according to that of the Scripture, In Deo sumus, & mo●●mur. Act. 17.  being to all things:) nor of Place (for he is both by 
c By presence in all places.] According to that Hierem. 23. Caelum & terram ego impleo. And that God is actually, and truly present in all places, is proved: First because (as it is above said) it should otherwise follow, that he 〈…〉 circumscribed, or defined in some certain place, and consequently he should not be infinite. Secondly, God is united with every thing he created, since the consistence, and the preservation of each thing depends on God. but this union between God, and his creatures, is not by the means of any Quality in God (for in God there is no Quality) therefore the union is with the Essence of God.  Presence, and Might, in all places:) It therefore may be assumed as an inexpugnable verity, that his said Power is infinite, boundless, and illimitable, and consequently that our weak understanding is not able to lay any true level thereto.  
But since I have here named God's ubiquity, I will insist a little in one incomprehensible Mystery found therein, it being such, as that it incomparably surpasseth that of one Body being in several places. For how can our understanding comprehend, that G●d (being one 
d One simple, and indivisible thing.] The like Example may be taken from the Soul of man, which being indivisible in itself, and most simple, is in every part of the body, and whole in every part; since otherwise, if it should be extended to the extension of the Body, it should be material, and depend only of the Body, and consequently it should not be immortal. Neither availeth it to answer hereto, that the Soul possesseth the whole Body, as one Place; And that a sign hereof is, in that, if any one member be separated by any change from the Body, the soul ceaseth to be in that member, in that, that said part beginneth to be a different Body, excisting by itself, and not depending on the former. This satisfieth nothing, for although the soul cannot naturally be preserved in a member cut from the rest of the body; yet there can be no reason assigned, but that God is able to preserve the soul in a part of the Body cut from the rest.  simple, and indivisible thing) should be at once in all places, and things whatsoever? A doubt so inexplicable, that it forced S. Augustine to say thereof: Miratur hoc mens humana, & quia non capit, fortasse non credit. They cannot salve this Point in answering, that God doth replenish all places, as one place. For though we acknowledge, that all places are to him, as one; yet who will not grant, but that he is able to create another world, far remote from this? and so should be present in the fame world, and consequently in several, and far distant places. Nor can they further reply, that it is less possible for a true natural Body to be in sever all places at once, then for God who is only a spiritual substance. This advantageth them nothing, since the main reason, why it should seem, that a Body cannot be in divers places, is not taken so much a mole corporis, quà● ab unitate, not from the heavy weight of the Body, but from the unity thereof; which unity, as it is no less (but much more 
e Much more perfect.] The Unity of God is much more perfect, than the Unity of any thing whatsoever; for seeing that the Philosophers do define unum, to be that, which is Indivisumà se, sed divisumà quocumque alio, & that this definition is more agreeable to God, then to any creatures; Therefore it followeth, that his Unity is more perfect than the Unity of any other thing. And hence it is, that among the other Attributes of God given him by the Philosophers (as Primus, Infinitus, Optimus, Omnipotens etc.) he is styled by them also to be unus. Now, as he is unus, in respect of all Incomposition; so is he unus in regard, that he is but One, and not Many. Which point appeareth demonsttatively from hence▪ for seeing that God is infinite (for otherwise he can have no true Divinity) we cannot conceive, how there can be many Gods, and consequently many Infinities, without prejudice, or impeachment of one infinity in respect of another.  perfect) in God, then in a Body; so it should seem to be no less divided, or distracted in itself in God, then in a Body, through his being in diversity of places. Thus we see, how this difficulty of being in divers places, so often urged, and reinforced by our Adversaries is avoided even by the judgement of all, except of those (if any such be) who will not confess, that they can find him, who is in every place; nor see him, who is in every thing they see.  
And thus much of these few Instances; the nature, and deliberate consideration whereof may seem justly to extenuate the objected difficulties in the blessed Sacrament. And howsoever the learned Divines have laboured much in the explicating of these points; yet it is observed, that hitherto they could never be brought to allow any one Man's Illustration of them: A Document to teach us, that the wit of Man is too weak an Interpreter of God's Power; and withal to admonish us (for the more humbling of those high wits and conceits, who have eyes to see difficulties, but not judgements to unfold them) that in things once made questionable, in regard of the probable impugning of either part, and the uncertainty of what side the truth is (it not being matter of Faith) much Learning, is but much artificial, and painful Ignorance.  
To these former might be adjoined many other Philosophical 
f 
Philosophical Speculations.] Besides such difficulties in Philosophy (as are hereafter set down in their particular References) which may seem to transcend Man's capacity, there are many other. As for example, The least mote in the Sun, or other smallest thing that the Eye can hardly discern, to have in itself, truly, and really infinite parts; which thing the nature of quantitas continua convinceth; which is defined to be semper divisibilis in indivisibilia: which if otherwise it should be, then might a ●ody even by natural reason in the end become to be nothing, or annihilated, which can only be effected by God's power.  
In like sort, Man's understanding cannot conceive, how a true, , and firm body should be carried with that rapidity, or swiftness, as the Heavens are carried in their courses: for the highest Heaven (going his whole course in 24. hours) by the judgement of Mathematicians & Philosophers, is really moved at least twenty thousand miles in the twinkling of an Eye; which thing what understanding can conceive? when the swiftest thing, that is in this world (whether it be the flying of a Swallow, or a bullet shot out of a Gun) if it should continue it motion for the space of an whole hour, would not go at the most, past fifty, or threescore miles, within the same time.   Speculations, which cannot be confined, and (as I may say) circumscribed within the compass of Man's wit; as that the least Quantity should be divisible into infinite parts; That the highest Heavens being a true Body, should be carried with such a rapidity, and swiftness of motion, as we see it is; That a 
g That a Vapour.] A Vapour is essentially water, for we see it being resolved, turneth again into the same water, ●amdem numero, which afore it was. It is therefore altered only accidentally, to wit, in these three qualities, in Heat, in Tenuity or thinness, and in Levity; so that a Vapour is the same water, which afore it was, but more hot, more thin or attenuated, and more light.  Vapour (how familiar, and obvious soever this observation seemeth) being only but water rarefied, should possess a greater place, then when it was elemental water; and seeing that before it was attenuated, there were as many puncta, or parts of it, as when it is become a Vapour, every Punctum, or part thereof having afore it due circumscription. Now then, it doth seem as much repugnant to a determinate, and limitable substance, to exact a greater circumscription of Space, then afore it had, still remaining without any addition (eadem substantia numero) as for a substance to require a lesser, or none at all as we affirm of the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.  
And finally (to omit many others) that the 
h 
The Loadstone, or a piece of Iron, after it is but touched therewith.] I will not here insist so much in the difficulty, how a Loadstone doth draw Iron to it, to wit, whether it be through a Sympathy of Nature between these two bodies, or through the proper form of the Loadstone; or if through the proper form thereof (which is the more general Opinion) whether immediately of itself, or by the intervention of some Instrument; or if by the mediation of some Instrument (which is also the more neceaded conjecture) whether this Instrument is a sending forth of certain corporeal A●omi, or spirits of the Loadstone, or only a transfusion of an incorporeal quality, or virtue thereof▪ and finally if it be a transfusion of an immaterial virtue (which is in like sort more commonly said to be) whether this virtue cometh out of the Loadstone, and so is really carried to the Iron, or only propagated by the medium thereto, so as the virtue still remaining in the stone, doth only beget, or multiply the like virtue through the air, till it come to the Iron, no otherwise, then when the heat of the fire by being multiplied in the air, doth affect with heat, bodies in good distance from the fire; which later sentence is also more approved. In refelling of these, I will not insist, for seeing, they are merely speculative, and by the urging of several reasons in defence of every opinion, (as being most remote from sense) may all be made coniecturally probable; Therefore I will chief rest in the other point, that is, in maintaining, that no true, nor certain reason can be given, why the Loadstone itself hanging in the air by a thread, or being put in a vessel of water, doth at all times tend with one, and the same point thereof in the same place, towards one, and the same point of the North (for it being placed after either of these two ways, is free from all lets of it natural motion) or that a needle touched therewith, will in like sort direct the one end, still towards the North. Many reasons hereof I find alleged, but all are insufficient, and convinced as false, even by the Eye, and experience itself.  
The first Reason, is given by those, which do assign the cause hereof to be some Northern part of the Heaven, to which the Loadstone, or Needle ever tendeth, though in setting down, which this part should be, they descent. Some do maintain, that the Northern Pole of the world, in the Point▪ whereunto the stone is directed, as Petrus Peregrinus in tract. de Magnete. But this sentence is thus overthrown, First, because then there should be no variation of the Needle, but that in all places it should directly tend towards the North Pole, which is found by experience, that it doth not. Now, hereby the variation of the Needle is understood, when the Needle tendeth either Eastwardly, or Westwardly from the Pole, which in several Countries is found more, or less to do. Secondly, if the Pole itself, were the Point, than the Northern end of the Needle should elevate itself towards the Pole with us here in England (much more in other more boreal Climates) because to all such places the Pole is elevated many degrees; but we see just contrary hereto, that even in all these Countries, the Northern part of the Needle doth depress itself downwards to the earth, bending to some point many degrees under the Horizon, and consequently bearing itself more low, than the Southern part thereof. And this depression, of that part is commonly called, the Declination of the Pole of the Loadstone, or Needle.  
Others do teach, the Pole star to be the point, as Franciscus Lopez▪ lib. 1. hist. Occidental. ●nd. c. ●. and Cardinus de subtilitate l. 7. This also is false. First by the former reason of the afore alleged declination of the Needle, seeing that even with us, the Pole star is ever many degrees above our Horizon. Secondly, because the Pole star is ever in motion, and revolution about the Pole of the world, and maketh it diurnal circle each way distant more than two degrees from the Pole; therefore if this Star were the cause hereof, then should the Needle follow the motion of that star, and so every hour of the day be in changing it course in any one place; which we find, that it doth not at all. Thirdly, because we find, that the Needle in some Countries doth vary it motion above thirty degrees from the Pole of the world, whereas the furthest distance of the Pole star from the Pole itself (as is said above) is not three degrees. Fourthly, because it would follow, that in those Southern parts, where the Pole star doth not rise, the Loadstone should not turn towards the North, by reason that this influence, and virtue of the Pole star could not penetrate through the earth, and yet in those austral Countries, the Needle retaineth it former quality: for even in Freto Magellani●o it is observed to tend directly towards the Pole of the world.  
There are also some, who assign the cause hereofto other stars, and constellations near unto the Pole, and not to the Pole star, as Petrus Gregorius art. intrab. l. 36. c. 7. and Collegium Conimbricense ad 7. Physic. 2. but this their error is refuted by all these former Arguments, which prove that the Pole star is no cause thereof.  
Finally, some others will have some point above, but extra Caelum, to be the reason hereof; for they say, it cannot be referred to any point of Heaven itself, seeing that every part thereof (the Pole excepted) is movable, and yet the needle in any one place, or Country never changeth it certain site, and resting. Of this opinion is Cortes part. 3. art. navig. c. 5. But this is refelled (besides by some of the former alleged Arguments) even from Philosophy itself; for seeing there is no Body or Subject extra Caelum, there can no virtue, or influence proceed from thence, since other wise there should be Accident originally fine Subiecto, which cannot be. Again that supposed point should be either movable, or not movable if movable, then should not the Needle in the same place always look, & tend one way if immovable, then should the Needle in all places respect one and the same point, but both these are false. And thus much of the first general opinion which ascribeth the difficulty hereof to some part of the Heavens, or point beyond the Heavens.  
The Second main opinion, is of those, who allot the virtue of the Loadstone to a Mountain of Loadstone, or a great Mine thereof under the North Pole. Of this opinion are Olaus lib. 12. c. 1. Francostor. de Sympath. & Antipath. Severt. lib. 1. in schol. definition▪ ●●. to which place (say these men) that by reason of the attractive for●● of this great Mountain, the Loadstone, or a needle touched therewith, tends unto.  
This opinion is also refelled: First because it would follow from Hence, that a Loadstone, or Needle swimming freely, and without hindrance in the water, should be moving with change of place evermore forward towards the North, and should not lie still upon the water, only bearing one end towards the North: but this it doth not.  
Secondly, in that it is found by experience, that in a Port of the ●●and Elba in Italy, not distant more than a mile from a great Rock of Loadstone, the Needle touched with a Loadstone doth not turn towards that Rock, but towards the North: if then that great Rock in Elba hath not the virtue to draw the needle to it, being so near, how can it be thought probable, that the other Rock under the Pole can send it virtue so far to Needles touched with the Loadstone in countries remote, and distant from it?  
Thirdly, because as Scaliger well noteth, Exercit. 132. the attractive force, and virtue of that mountain of Loadstone under the Pole, should be intercepted, and broken by reason of the swelling, & roundness of the earth, afore it could could come to other places far distant from this mountain▪ and it is most improbable to say, that this virtue doth penetrate through the earth to countries far distant; Or if it did, than it would follow, that in Countries, more or less Southern, the Northern end of the needle should more, or less tend downwards into the earth, and under the Horizon: but no such change of declination is observed to be.  
Fourthly, because that wheresoever any one do put the Pole of the Loadstone in respect of that Rock, yet it would follow, that a Needle being placed in the same Parallel of this Pole yet distant far from it, should tend directly to the East, and in other places of the same Parallel to the West, but not at all to the North. But experience to the contrary hereto is made, since in those places it ever tendeth towards the North. And thus much of this second opinion.  
The third, and last is of those, who attribute this virtue of the Loadstone only to the Specifica & int●rna forma thereof, whereby itself should ever bend one way, or a needle touched therewith: Even as the earth out of it specifical nature, & form tendeth towards the Centre. This Reason is assigned, not because it can be demonstrated (for it is merely in speculation) but only as for their last refuge, in that all other supposed causes thereof are found defective; which though it be over general, and little better, then Petitio princi●ij, and not much more, then to say, The Loadstone tendeth towards the North, because it tendeth towards the North: yet it is otherwise evidently confuted.  
And first, seeing there is but one internal, & specifical form of all Lodestones, and seeing it is observed, that, that very part of the Loadstone doth bear ever towards the North, which was found to lie towards the North in the Mine, or ground, and that all Lodestones do not lie after one, and the same manner in the Mine, the veins, or grain of several Lodestones lying in the Mine several ways; it therefore followeth, that this peculiar direction towards the North, cannot be assigned to the internal form of the Loadstone.  
Secondly, the form of the Loadstone (as the forms of all other compounded bodies) doth proceed from the mixture of the Elements, but we find this virtue, or propension of moving not to be in any of the Elements; How then can they impart it to the Loadstone?  
Thirdly, if the form should be the cause of it direction, then should it (in all probability) be performed by the mediation of some virtue or quality of the form. Now, all qualities caused by the mixture of Elements, originally proceed a pain is qualitatibus, and consequently they are sensible: but this quality (if there be any such) is insensible.  
Fourthly, the Loadstone being Corpus grave, hath a propension even from it form to descend downward (as we see it doth) therefore it cannot receive from the same form any other kind of motion, for so one, and the same form should afford two different motions; which is absurd to affirm.  
Fiftly, if the proper form should thus move itself, than should the stone be a living creature, for it is only peculiar to a living creature locally to move itself.  
Sixtly, and lastly; If there were no variation of the Loadstone turning itself towards the North, the cause of this motion might with more probability be assigned to the form of the stone; but the variation thereof (according to the diversity of Countries) is most divers: for in some places it hath no variation at all; but directly tendeth to the Pole of the world: in other parts, to wit, in all the Occidental Maritime places of Europe, and Africa, from Norway to the Cape of Buona Speranza, it bendeth more, or less towards the East from the North Pole: and in all the Oriental Maritime places of the North Parts of America from Terra Florida, to Virginia, nuova Francia etc. the Needle turneth it end towards the West from the Pole. Now then, seeing this irregularity, and diversity of variation is such, and so great, in so much, that in some Countries the needle turneth from the Pole thirty degrees, and in other Country's more, or less Eastward, or Westward: how can it proceed from the internal, and specifical form of the Loadstone, since the form of every body affords a certainty, and immutability of that motion, which it giveth thereto.  
And here now I will end: All which I have produced only to this purpose, to show, that the cause of the motion of the Loadstone (though the effect thereof be subject to each man's eye) cannot possibly be apprehended by Man & that it is God's pleasure, either to be the immediate cause thereof himself; or at least resolved to conceal the same from us. Now, if Man's understanding be not able to penetrate into the causes of things sensible, material, and of what we have daily trial; can it be able in the mystery of the Eucharist (being a point supernatural, and altogether removed from sense) to sound all the difficulties thereof? Or shall it presume to confine God's power within those limits, and bounds, which shall be assigned as answerable to the weak proportion, and measure of itself, concluding thus: Man's understanding cannot conceive how all those seeming impossibilities in the Eucharist can be salved: Therefore God cannot effect them. An Illation fitting to proceed from an Atheist, or an Heathen Philosopher, not from a Christian.   Loadstone, or a piece of Iron, after it is but touched therewith, should ever have their ends turned one way; The experience whereof, in that it falleth under every vulgar eye, & the reason most inexplicable, I will therefore the more laboriously insist (in the reference hereto appropriated) in refuting all the most probable conjectures given thereof by the Learned: which is not undertaken impertinently out of any venditation, or vaunt of reading, for this were idle, and a foul blot of a scholars Pen; but only to this end, to manifest, that all the Learning, and wit of Man is not able to set down any sufficient, and satisfiable cause thereof, and that consequently it is perhaps to be referred only to the immediate will, and pleasure of God; who as in this (though experimentally subject to each Man's sense) so much more in the Mystery of the Eucharist (being a sublime and supernatural point of faith) is able to accomplish that, which Man's capacity, and judgement is not able to conceive, or find the reason thereof. And therefore I admonish my Reader, that as here the Needle, before it be touched, is ready to turn itself indifferently towards any quarter, or part of the world, but after, still tends to one only coast; even so it should fall out in our judgement, which though naturally without respect it may propend to any opinion in matters in Religion, yet after it hath enjoyed that Magnetical, and Attractive touch of the Church's Authority, it ought then to direct it course only to that Faith (how intricate and perplexed soever it seems) whereunto God by his said Church persuadeth.   

THE DIFFICULTIES OF A Body wanting Circumscription of Place, AND Of an Accident without a Subject, are explained by the difficulties discovered in the Power of Seeing, and in the Circumstances thereof. CHAP. IX.  
AMONG other Elementary grounds and Principles of the Mathematics, this is one; 
a Maximus Circulus.] Apud Euclidem. Those Circles are called Maiores Circuli, whose Centre is the same Centre with the Sphere whereof they are Circles. And this is the demonstration, why the Sun being in the Equinoctial, the day, and night is of an equal length in all places, to wit, because the Horizon, and the Equinoctial are Circuli Maiores, having their Centre the same with the Centre of the world, and therefore intersecting themselves, they cut one the other into two equal parts; and consequently so much of that Circle which the Sun than runneth, is under our Horizon, as is above our Horizon.  Maximus Circulus, maximum Circulum secans, secant se invicem in duas aequales parts; secus autem de Minoribus: A great Circle cutting a great Circle, they ever divide the one the other into two equal parts. The like may we say (by allusion) of the two vast Circumferences of God's Power, and Wisdom, both which meeting together in the Centre of every thing created, and in the Creation thereof mutually intersecting themselves, they appear of one, and the same Proportion, I mean, both discovering themselves to be infinite, and surpassing all human capacity. Now these being indeed of the very essence of God (for that Axiom is true, Quicquid 
b Quicquid in Deo etc.] The reason hereof is (as is above touched) because to have proprieties as Qualities, and Accidents, implies composition, and imperfection▪ from which God is most free, as being Maximè unus, & Simplex.  in Deo est, Dei est) do with most admiration manifest themselves, among all his Creatures, chief in those which enjoy life. Among those which enjoy life, chief in Man; among all the corporeal parts of Man, chief in that small great organ of the Eye. For who will not be astonished, and burst our with the Psalmist, 
c The Psalmist.] Psalm. 103.  Quam magnificata sunt opera tua Domine, in contemplating the fabric thereof! First to behold the prominency, and bearing out of the Forehead and Nose, which serves as certain fortresses to bea●e back all sudden attempts endangering the same: Then the hairs of the Eyelids standing in most precise manner, & order, as pales, or pikes to repel, and keep of the entrance of any noisome thing: Next to observe the lids themselves, which (as Portculliss lifted up and down by the help of the sinewy chains) do let in all pleasing objects to the Eye, and forbiddeth entrance to all things damageable. After these are presented to us the many 
d Tunicles.] There are six Tunicae, or Skins, of which the Eye consisteth, to wit, 1. Adnata (otherwise called Alba) 2. Innominata. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cornea. 4. Vuea (called also Secundina.) 5. Amphiblistroides, or Retina. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Aravea.  Tunicles, and Skins, which serve (as certain walls, or Countermures) to encompass, strengthen, and fortify this little (yet rich) City of the Eye. And lastly (besides the 
e The Veins etc.] It is a Principle in Anatomy, that all Veins proceed from the liver, and give nourishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and give life; all Sinews from the Brain, and give Motion and Sense: I mean, that the gross blood in the Veins doth give nourishment; the spiritual Blood in the Arteries, life; and the Animal Spirits in the Nerves, or Sinews, Sense and Motion.  veins giving nourishment, the 
f The Veins etc.] It is a Principle in Anatomy, that all Veins proceed from the liver, and give nourishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and give life; all Sinews from the Brain, and give Motion and Sense: I mean, that the gross blood in the Veins doth give nourishment; the spiritual Blood in the Arteries, life; and the Animal Spirits in the Nerves, or Sinews, Sense and Motion.  Arreties life, and the 
g The Veins etc.] It is a Principle in Anatomy, that all Veins proceed from the liver, and give nourishment; all Arteries from the Heart, and give life; all Sinews from the Brain, and give Motion and Sense: I mean, that the gross blood in the Veins doth give nourishment; the spiritual Blood in the Arteries, life; and the Animal Spirits in the Nerves, or Sinews, Sense and Motion.  Sinews, motion to the same) as also, besides the two Optic 
h Optic Sinews.] These two Optic Sinews are termed Nerui visibiles: by these the Species, or forms of all Objects are carried from the Eyes to the common Sense.  Sinews, which serve (as the Porters between the common Sense, and the Eye) to consider the divers 
i divers Humours.] There are three Humours in the Eye. 1. Aqueus, which is in the uttermost part of the Eye. 2. Chrystallinus, whose place is almost in the middle of the Eye; this Humour is almost the chiefest Instrument of seeing, and therefore it is called Idolum, or Simulacrum Visionis. 3. Vitreus, which is seated in the inmost part of the Eye; so as the Crystalline Humour is placed between the Vitreus Humour, and the Aqueus.  Humours, which are to the Eye, as so many Rivers, by means whereof sufficient provision 
k Provision.] For these Humours give nourishment to some of the Tunicles, as also the Eye purgeth itself by the means of them.  is brought in for the maintaining of the several Parts thereof; as also all 
l Ordure.] For these Humours give nourishment to some of the Tunicles, as also the Eye purgeth itself by the means of them.  ordures (whose stay, and putrefaction would much offend it) are conveyed away.  
And thus much of the compacture, and frame of the Eye; where (if we remember) that all those parcels (most different one from another in substance, form, use, and operation) are made by God's power of one, & the same part of a little slimy matter; and by his Wisdom, and Providence are become thus subordinate one part to another, and all serviceable to the faculty of Seeing; how can we rest doubtful, that the same Power, and Wisdom are not able to effect the greatest difficulties appearing in the Mystery of the Eucharist? But to proceed further herein; all this curious structure of the Eye is framed, that this Instrument may perform the operation of Seeing, and so we find it doth. But if we should enter into the manner, how it absolveth this it faculty, we enter into a Labyrinth of intricate speculations, in regard of the different 
m Different Opinions.] There are two chief Opinions touching the manner of seeing; The one, they call Extramittendo, that is, That the Eye doth send forth certain Spiritus visibiles to the Object which the Eye seethe, and do return back again to the Eye with the true form of the said Object. The other is Intromittendo, that is, That the Species, or forms of the Object are spherically multiplied in the Air, or water, and are received in at the Eye per medium Conoidis, viz. in a Pyramidal manner.  opinions delivered hereof. Thus, that we see, it is clear: but how we see (if we believe divers) no Man yet clearly seethe.  
And now to come to that point which may seem in some sort to pattern one of the greatest obscurities in the Eucharist: we find here (following the most approved judgement of the best 
n The best Learned.] The most Learned do for the most part hold, that the Eye seethe after this second manner, to wit, Intromittendo.  Learned) that the Eye being small in Quantity, is able to contain in it the true proportion of things most great, since the forms thereof multiplied in the air, and still retaining the figure of the true Quantity, are at the last received in at the Eye, there appearing in those perfect dimensions of breadth, and length, which their subjects do truly enjoy. And which is more: we see by experience, that the Eye is able to discern the true proportion of a great body in a small glass, or in a point of a Diamond, where it is more wonderful, because the form of the said Body entereth into the glass or diamond in a Pyramidal, or Spyre-like point, and yet being multiplied from the glass, to the Eye, recovereth again (as I may say) it former Quantity, and so is presented from the glass to the Eye, as it was first from the subject to the glass: An observation most strange, were it not, that the daily, and familiar sight of any thing is ever the greatest Enemy to Admiration.  
Now, out of all this I thus infer; That if naturally the forms of things so great, can truly appear in their own bigness, in the small compass of a glass, or the Eye; cannot a Body really be in a lesser place, then naturally is answerable to the external coextension of all it parts? And where it may be here replied, that the forms, which are received into the Eye are only immaterial; we grant this to be true, and therefore we urge this Example not to parallel it exactly in all circumstances with the other, but to prove thus far (since there seems to be in some sort the like touch of the doubt) that if the one be daily performed by the ordinary course of Nature, why may not the other be also accomplished by the Omnipotency of that one (yet Vntuersall:) Nature, who gave the first being to this secondary Nature.  
A Second Point, wherein I will here insist, is, that these Species visibiles, or forms of Subjects, being multiplied in the Air, as they come to the Eye, if the Air be changed, either by any wind, or sudden alteration, yet (as the chiefest 
o Chiefest Philosophers.] Many great Philosophers of our time do teach, that such Accidences, which do naturally continue their Inherence in that Body from which they first proceed, cannot naturally remove from this their Subject into another; such is the whiteness in the Swan, and the Blackness in a Crow etc. But their judgement is otherwise in those Accidences which have their Inherence in another Subject, then that, from which they originally proceeded; Such is the beams of the Sun inhering in the Air, and the forms of Objects multiplied in the Air: In these they hold, that the Beams of the Sun, and the forms of the Objects (being the same numero) may, and actually do remove from one part of the Air into another, if so the Air itself be changed: And their Reason hereof is this: For (say these Men) the beams of the Sun, or the forms of Objects, and the like, have no affinity with the Air in respect of their original proceeding, but only by reason of existency. But any one part of the air is as indifferent, and ready to afford them existence, as another part; Therefore (say they) there can be no reason assigned, why such an Accident may not remove from Air to Air, rather than through the change only of the firster part of the Air to be extinct.  Philosophers of this time, both Catholics, and Protestants do hold) the said forms (even eaedem numero) are not extinct, but that they inhere in the next succeeding Air, and so do remove from one Subject to another Subject. Now this consideration moveth us thus to conclude; That if the same Accidences do naturally remove from Subject to Subject, without any destruction of them, cannot God supernaturally preserve an Accident without a Subject? as we Catholics do believe, that he doth so preserve the forms of Bread and Wine in the most holy Mystery of the Eucharist. And thus far concerning these difficulties.  
But now seeing we have begun to entreat of the Eye, I will end this Chapter with certain pertinent animadversions drawn from this Instrument, and applied to our understanding, the Eye of our soul.  
First then we know, that Nature hath given to Man two eyes, either of which, though they see a thing, as one thing, severally by themselves, yet both of them looking upon the same thing, do behold it, but 
p But as one.] The Reason hereof is, in that the sight of any thing is not perfectly performed, until the form thereof be conveyed to the common Sense. Now this Conveyance is made by the means of Neruus Opticus, which Neruus doth divide itself into two parts from the Forehead to either Eye: But from the Forehead to the common Sense it is but one; and therefore the form of any Object being carried through this Neruus Opticus, doth represent the Object but as one (not as two) to the common Sense.  as one, not as two: whereby we may learn, that the Natural light of our understanding ought to conspire, and join with the supernatural light of faith in apprehending one, and the same thing: And so in the Mystery of the Eucharist, our Understanding, and Reason ought not in seeing the difficulties thereof to vary from our Faith; but to subordinate, and subject itself to that heavenly, and infused Power.  
Again, that very part of the Eye (to wit, Pupilla Oculi) where with we properly see, is deprived of all Colours, to the end, that it may indifferently see all Colours: So should his understanding (who either in this Mystery of the Eucharist, or in any other, would sincerely behold the grounds, and reasons both of Catholics, and Protestants) be voided of all prejudice of judgement, wherewith the Intellectual faculty is otherwise discoloured, and blemished: for so shall he more clearly, and indifferently weigh, and consider the force of the several Reasons, and Arguments produced on each side.  
Lastly (to omit many other resemblances, and Proportions herein) the 
q optics do teach.] So we see, that the different falling of the beams of the Sun upon the Cloud, which causeth the Iris, or Rainbow, doth cause to the eye the different representation of several Colours; for as the Beams do more, or less fall upon the Cloud, so accordingly the Colours appear varied to the Eye.  optics do teach, that one, and the same Colour doth appear, as divers, either to the same Eye, or to several Eyes, according to the different Angles (to use the imposed Phrase herein) of Irradiation, or Incidency, made by the entrance of the Object into the Eye: whereby we may be admonished, that in points of faith, one, and the same Authority doth seem of a different weight, according as the Understanding is afore either lightened with God's Grace, or darkened with the mist of Passion. And thus far hereof: where we see, that the Body (contrary to the accustomed manner) is able to school, and instruct the soul.  
HERE now I will conclude this first Part, in which the Reader hath all the chief obscurities of this great Mystery explicated at large, and divers of them paralleled by other acknowledged difficulties, both in Divinity and Philosophy. For the close whereof I only wish him to have his mind ever fixed in this one position, which is: That, what Faculty, or Operation God doth impart to any thing created, the same he also eminenter retaineth to himself (since otherwise the Creature should transcend in Might the Creator) and is able to perform it without the help of any secondary Cause: being in such cases sole Agent of the same Effect: Which Axiom if he do apply to most of the 
r Most of the abstrusest Points.] To instance this ground in some difficulties of the Eucharist; God hath imparted to a Substance the faculty of supporting, and sustentating an Accidence by means of Inherency; therefore it followeth out of this Principle, that God is able of himself to support an Accident without it Subject, for otherwise he should give more power, and ability to the Subject, than he keepeth to himself, or can by himself perform, which were both impious, and absurd to maintain. In like sort God hath given this property to Place (for the better conserving of the Subject contained) that it should circumscribe every sublunary natural Body with a certain coextension answerable to the Quality of every such body: Therefore God can of himself (as we believe he doth in the Sacrament of the Eucharist) keep a Body without any such circumscription of place; since otherwise it would follow, that he hath so qualified this circumstance of place to perform that, which himself immediately cannot. This might be exemplified in many other difficulties touching the doctrine of the Real Presence, neither is there found herein (in a clear judgement) the least appearance of any Contradiction.  abstrusest Points in this Question of the Eucharist, he shall easily acknowledge, that the extending greatness of them, become confined by him who is only confined within his own illimitable Power, and unsearchable Wisdom: himself being the sole bound to himself.   
The end of the first Tract.   

THE CHRISTIANS MANNA. THE SECOND TRACT.  
The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist proved from the Figures thereof in the Old Testament; from the Prophecies of the Rabbins; from the New Testament; from Miracles etc.  

CHAP. I.  
IN the precedent Passages the possibility of the Catholic doctrine herein, is (I hope) most clearly, and irrefragably proved, partly by solving all the abstrusest difficulties, which are accustomed dangerously to invade our judgement by the assault of the Eye, of other the senses, and of natural Reason; and partly by showing, that God still is God, and his divine Majesty ever himself, I mean, that he is in Power infinite, boundless, and inscrutable; And that whensoever this proud slime of Man presumes to assign limits to him, by objecting, that Omnipotency cannot pass itself, and the like; he endeavours but to grasp the water, or to bind the Air, since he labours to restrain him (even Him) whose Ocean ever flows without any borrowed streams, whose Day still continues without ensuing Night, and whose Centre is without any bordering Circumference.  
It now remaineth briefly to demonstrate, that not only it is possible, that Christ's sacred Body, and Blood may lie really under the forms of bread, and wine, but that actually in the Eucharist so it doth. Which point, though it receive it chiefest sinews, & strength of proof from the two Oracles of Gods written Word, to wit, from the Prophetical, and Apostolical Scriptures; yet such is the petulancy and wantonness of our Adversaries in detorting those sacred Testimonies, as that they tell us, except we will admit their own expositions of the said Scriptures (though contrary to the words themselves, and to all the accessary circumstances) we do but idly diverberate the air with impertinent allegations.  
And thus, Let us produce such Texts of God Word, which contain (even by their own confessions) the Types, or Figures of the holy Eucharist during the time of the Law (which Time 
a Which Time served.] According to that, Omnia ei● contingebant in figuris. 1. Cor. c. 7.  served but as the Eve to the greatest Festival day of Christianity) as that it was shadowed by the Paschall 
b Paschall Lamb. Exod. 12.] S. Augustine saith of this Figure, l. 2. contra literas Petiliani cap. 37. Aliud Pascha, quod judaei de oue celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, & sanguine Domini accipimus.] That the Paschall Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist is further testified by Leo Serm. 7. the Passione Domini, by Cyprian. lib. de unitate Ecclefiae, by Chrysostome homil. de proditione judae, by Hierome in c. 26. Matth. by Tertullian l. 4. in Marcionem, and divers others.  Lamb, by the 
c The blood of the Testament. Exod. 24.] That this blood was a figure of the Eucharist appeareth out of Luc. 22. where our Saviour plainly saith, Hic calix nowm Testamentum est in meo Sanguine. In like sort Matth. 26. Our Lord in these words (Hic est Sanguis meus novi Testamenti) seemeth in both places to allude to the words of Moses: Hic est Sanguis Testamenti, quem misit ad vos Deus. Now, here it cannot be replied, that the blood of the Testament was a Figure only of the Passion, and not of the Eucharist, and the reason hereof is this, in that a Testament ought to be made by a free man, before his death, and by some public Instrument, for the remembrance thereof after the Testators death. All which circumstances are more truly, and lively found in the Institution of the Sacrament, then in his Passion.  Blood of the Testament, and by the Manna 
d Manna descending.] Of this we read Exod. 16. That the Manna was a Figure of the Eucharist, appeareth from our saviours own words joan. 6. Patres vestri manducaverunt Manna in Deserto, & mortui sunt: Qui manducant hunc Panem, vivent in aeternum. The same is confirmed by the Fathers: See hereof Ambrose l. 5. de Sacramen. c. 1. and, De ijs qui initiantur Mysterijs. c. 8. &. 9 Augustine, Theophylact, Cy●il, and Chrysostome in c. 6. joannis.  descending from Heaven upon the jews, wherein we affirm, that the accomplishment of these figures ought to be more noble, and worthy, than such naked representations, and that therefore if nothing be in the Sacrament but bread, and wine, it is not 
e 
It is not better.] That these Figures are not inferior (if not superior) to the Eucharist (if nothing be there, but Bread, and Wine) either for substance, or signification, it is most clear. And first touching the Paschall Lamb, If we consider a Lamb, and Bread, as things natural, the Lamb (as being a Creature endued with sense) is more noble. And if we consider them as Sacraments, that is, as external signs, the Lamb also excelleth Bread; for the Flesh of Christ is better represented by the flesh of the Lamb, then by Bread. Again, the death of Christ is more lively figured by the kill of the Lamb, then by breaking of Bread. Finally, the Innocency, & other Proprieties of Christ are better signified by a Lamb without any spot (for such the Law commanded to be sacrificed) then by Bread. In like sort, the effect of the Sacrament is better obtained by the eating of the Lamb, then by eating of bread▪ for if the effect thereof be a spiritual nutrition, we know, that flesh nourisheth better than bread; and if it be only a stirring up of a Man's faith, then doth the kill of the Lamb perform it better, in that it more lively setteth forth the death of Christ.  
Concerning the Blood of the Testament, the same former Reasons, which did prove the Lamb to be more noble than Bread, do also serve to prove, that blood is better (both for substance & signification) than the Eucharist, if nothing be there but Wine; for Blood is a more noble substance, than Wine, & the Blood of Christ is better represented by blood, then by wine. Touching the Manna, It is in like sort most clear, that supposing the Eucharist to contain in it only bread, it is inferior to the Mamna. And first considering their natures, and essences, the Manna it most excellent, as being made by the hands of the Angels, descending from heaven, and having in it all kind of tastes, or so tasting, as every one eating thereof would desire. And according to these points, we find it called Panis Angelorum, Psal 77. and Panis de Caelo, joan. 6. whereas bread is made by the hands of a Baker, coming out of an Oven, and having only but the taste of bread. In like sort if Manna, and bread be considered as external Symbols, and signs, Manna representeth, or signifieth Christ better than bread, in that it came from heaven, was endued with all kinds of tastes, and was received of every one in a like measure. Thus we see, that the Figures in the old Law, do every way excel the Eucharist (they being but Types of the same) if so nothing be therein, but bread. Now it is evident even in reason, that Figures ought to be inferior to those things whereof they are Figures; which point also appeareth out of the Apostle Colos. 2. who there compareth the Figures of the old Testament to the shadows, and the fulfilling of the said figures to the body.  
Now, whereas our Adversaries do answer to our Argument, in saying, that our Sacraments (and consequently the Eucharist) do excel the Sacraments of the old Law (even with reference had only to the external signs) because (say they) our Sacraments are more firm, as never again to be altered; and because they show, and figure out a thing already done, and not hereafter only to be done, and because they are more simple, and belong to a greater multitude of people; and lastly, in that they are more clear than the other, not so much in regard of external representation, as for the evidency, and clearness of the words there spoken. This is the answer of our Adversaries, and particularly of Peter Martyr in sua defence. de Eucharist. part. 3. pag. 692. But this taketh not away the force of our Argument▪ for all these Prerogatives of our Sacraments, ascribed by him, are extrinsical, and accidentary to Sacraments, as they are Symbols, and Signs; seeing that they altogether depend of the bare will of him, who did first institute, & ordain them; & therefore they bring small, or no dignity of signs, as they are signs; but the comparison is to be made in the signification itself, in seeking the internal dignity, and worth of signs, for those signs are better, which better do signify; but signs do signify better, or worse in regard only of their external signification.  
Add hereto, that when our Saviour did first institute the Eucharist, his death was to come, and consequently it did then figure a thing to come.  
Lastly add, that the Scripture, and the Fathers do not teach, that our Sacraments do not excel the old Sacraments, because they better signify, but because they were but as figures, and the Eucharist the thing figured, so as the comparison made both in Scriptures, and by the Fathers, is the comparison of the things absolutely in themselves, without any reference had of the signification of them.   better if not inferior to those Legal Figures, either in regard of their natural substances, or their signification implied by them: Yea, let us tell them, that they debase overmuch the jewish Sacraments, as teaching, that they did but adumbrate shadows, and represent Representations, since they account them no better, than Types of Types, and Figures of Figures; yet cannot this at all sway the judgements of our Adversaries, which is carried away violently with the stream of prejudice, and partiality.  
Let us bring forth the Ancient 
f Ancient Rabbins.] Among the Rabbins, which have prophesied hereof, we find, that Rabbi simeon, lib. Revelat. Secretorun. thus saith, The Sacrifice, which after the Messiah his coming Priests shall make etc. they shall make i● of bread, and wine etc. and that Sacrifice, which shall be so celebrated upon every Altar, shall be turned into the body of the Missias.] Rabbi Cabana, ad cap. 46. Genes. writeth, That the Sacrifices which shallbe offered of wine, shall not only be changed into the substance of the Blood of the Messiah, but also into the substance of his Body. The Sacrifice, which shall be of Bread, notwithstanding it be white as milk, it shall be converted into the Body of the Messiah.] Rabbi Barachias, in Ecclesiast. affirmeth, That, at the coming of the Messiah, food shall come from heaven like a little ea●e.] Finally, Rabbi Hadarsan, in Psal. 1●6. (to omit the testimonies of others) writeth : Taste, and see, how good is God; for the bread, which he giveth to all, is his Flesh, and whilst it is tasted, it is converted into his Flesh.] So clear these jews were in this point, that Galatinus (who urgeth these their sayings) writeth of them, That they may be thought not so much to have foretold things to come▪ as to have reported evangelist-like things already done.].  Rabbins, most of them (if not all) living before our saviours Incarnation, who in a Prophetical spirit (directed no doubt by him, with whom their is no distinction of times, though himself first distinguished times) tell us, that in the after days, the Messiah himself shall offer up his own body, and blood for sacrifice, under the forms of Bread, and Wine; yet they proceed against them (and this is an ordinary disease, and distemperature of Heresy in other like cases) with a Lordly, and peremptory Arrest, pronouncing, that such their writings are Suppositious 
g 
Suppositious and Forged.] All these testimonies of the Rabbins (besides many more) are recorded by Galatinus, de arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 10. c. 5. 6. 7. etc. Yet Doctor Whitaker absolutely rejecteth them l. 9 contra Duraeum, pag. 818. And yet the sayings of the said jews in other points (recorded by the former Galatinus) are of such weight in the judgements of other learned Protestants, as that we do find them urged in their books against their Adversaries. Thus we find them produced by Parks against Willet pag. 170. by Philip Mornay in his book Touching the trueness of Christian Religion, and englished Anno 1592. pag. 434. 436. and in divers pages following. In like sort by Pau●us Phagius a Protestant, touching Traditions delivered by word of mouth; and finally by the silenced Ministers in their defence of their Reasons for their refusal of subscription, pag. 188. If then the authorities be of force to be alleged by the Protestants for proof of other points, shall they not be of the like weight being produced for justifying of our Catholic doctrine in this Controversy?  
Now, whereas some of our Adversaries to maintain, that these, and other like sayings for justifying of Christian Religion, were first forged by Galatinus, or some of his time, and fathered upon the jews for their greater credit; this is most false: for we find, that one Hieronymus de sancta Fide, being a jew, and converted to Christianity in the time of Pope Benedict the 13. (which was a good time before Galatinus) whose Physician he was, wrote a book entituling it, Hebraeo-mastyx, or Vindex Impietatis, ac Perfidiae judaicae: wherein he proveth divers points of Christianity from the three alleged Testimonies, and Sentences of the said former jews mentioned by Galatinus. This book of his is printed at Frankford Anno 1602.   and Forged.  
Let us come to the Time of Grace, when we Gentiles first became Antipodes (as it were) to the jews; since our heavenly Sun then setting to them, did instantly rise unto us, and lay down Christ's own words, wherein he ordained this most Reverend, & high Mystery, to wit, Hoc 
h 
Hoc est Corpus meum.] The Real Presence is evidently proved out of these words of the Institution, recorded by all the Evangelists. And first to give a short Exposition of every such word therein, which may enforce the true Presence of Christ's body, we say, and teach thus.  
The pronoun HOC, must be taken here, either adjectively, or Substantively; if it be to be taken adjectively, than it is to agree with some Substantive, and consequently it must demonstrate Corpus, and not Panis, because the word Panis (being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is in both tongues of the masculine Gender. And yet this pronoun being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used here by the Evangelists, and in Latin Hoc, is in both the said Tongues of the Neuter Gender: so in the other sentence following, Hic est Sanguis meus, the pronoun Hic, cannot demonstrate Vinum, because Vinum is of the Neuter Gender. Now if the particle Hoc, be taken substantively, then Hoc must here signify Haec Res, but that this word Hoc, or Haec res, should predicate of the bread there present, were ridiculous and absurd, for we do not usually say Hoc, signifying Haec res, if the thing be present, and known, except the said thing be of the Neuter Gender; and the reason hereof is, in that seeing the Subiectum ought to be more known, than the Pradica●um, if therefore the Subiectum be known to the hearers in particular, it ought not to be delivered by an universal Name, but only than it is so universally to be delivered, when it is only known in general. Therefore seeing the Apostles did at the Last Supper see bread in our saviours hands, and knew it to be bread, it had been an absurd kind of speech, if our Saviour had said of the bread, Hoc est. Corpus meum, since he ought to have said, Hic Panis est Corpus mevin.  
This point is also made more evident out of the Greek Text: for if Hoc should have demonstrated Bread, then by the same reason, the pronoun Hic, in these words, Hic est Sanguis meus, should demonstrate Vinum, and not Sanguis. But S. Luke is manifestly against this second point, who cap. 22. thus saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. viz. Hic Calix nowm Testamentum in Sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, where the words in Greek signifying, qui effunditur, are not joined in construction with those words, in Sanguine meo, but with the other words Hic Calix. Therefore whereas S. Luke saith, that the Cup was shed for us (but the Cup itself, or the wine in the Cup is not shed for us but the blood of Christ) it followeth that Calix here doth not signify a Cup of wine, but a Cup of blood; Therefore it remaineth by force of inference of the former premises, that the pronoun Hoc in the words of the Institution doth demonstrate not Bread, but that which is contained under the species, and form of bread, the which thing, though afore it was bread, yet after the words ended, and perfected by our Lord, it was the body of Christ.  
Touching the Verb (EST) in the said words of the Institution, which word our Adversaries do strive to prove, that it is here taken for Significat, whereas the Catholics do teach, that the word Est implieth here no other signification, than it own natural signification.  
Now this is proved; First, because we find not Tropes, or Figures to be placed in Verbs, but by reason of some peculiar thing, or nature, which is implied in one Verb, and not in another; but the Verb ●●st signifieth nothing else, than a Conjunction of one thing with another, or a common being incident to all things. Again, this Verb Est, ca● never leave it own signification, in that it is the Copula of all Propositions. Therefore since of necessity it is in every Proposition, it cannot leave it own signification, and receive another. Lastly, and chief, this Verb hath the most simple, and most common signification, so as all other Verbs may be resolved into it, and something beside; Thus were solves Plato legit, id est, Est l●ge●●; hence it followeth, that this verb Est (because it being the most simple of all Verbs, cannot be resolved into itself, and something beside) cannot be drawn to receive the signification of any other Verb. Now against this doctrine, the example of words objected, when Est in taken ordinarily for Significat, prevaileth nothing: As for example, ●raecari; est Ora●e, the reason here of being, in that the essence of a sign is signification, therefore in all such Propositions by the Verb Est, i● understood the essence of the same sign. Now then, seeing in those said former examples, and propositions one sign doth predicate of another (for words are nothing else but signs) it followeth, that the Verb Est is taken for Significat, and yet without any Trope therein.  
Touching the word CORPUS, in which word most of our Adversaries do choose rather to place the figure, then in the former Verb Est: Now, that this word Corpus cannot signify figura● Corporis (as our Adversaries pretend) is most evident. And, first this is proved out of the words following, to wit, Quod pro vobis d●tur; in Greek being for the word datur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ as also out of these other following touching the Cup, Qui pro vobis effunditur; in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now, these two Greek Participles, being put in the Nominative case, aught to be joined with a Substantive of the same case, therefore they are to be joined in construction with that which ●● called Corpus, and Sanguis, and not with any words put in other cases, as Corporis, and Sanguinis; Therefore either the true Body, & Blood is in the Eucharist, or his Body by way of representation, and signification only, to wit, the Bread, and Wine were given for us, and shed for us, which is absurd to affirm.  
Secondly, the same is proved from the former observations touching the pronoun Hoc, for seeing that this pronoun doth not demonstrate. Bread, there is nothing left, of which these word● ●ig●●● Corporis, should predicate, except they will say, that the true▪ and natural Body of Christ is a sign, and figure of itself.  
Lastly, the Body of Christ, wheresoever it is read in Scripture, is either taken for his Mystical Body, to wit, the Church, or for his true, and natural Body: but for a sign, and figure of his body, we never find it to be taken. Therefore the Construction of the Sacramentaries given of the words of the Institution is most forced, & without any example, or precedent of that kind throughout the whole Scripture. But the more evidently to prove, that the words of the Institution cannot be taken figuratively, I do further present (besides what hath been already alleged) to the Reader these few ensuing Observations.  
First, that this pronoun Hoc, designing some particular thing, prevents all Figurative constructions; And therefore we find, that in other acknowledged Metaphorical speeches of Christ touching himself, the pronoun Hoc is wanting, as in these, Ego sum Ostium, Ego sum Vit● etc.  
Secondly, In all Metaphorical speeches, that are used by way of Explication, it is not accustomed, that one thing do predicate, or be affirmed of another thing, except the Praedicatum be some such thing, in the which the propriety (according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chief intended) is more known and evident, than it is in the other thing, of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed. And this is the reason, that in Metaphorical Propositions one thing doth predicate of another, for the most part in genere, or in specie at least; But no such observation is here found in the words of the Institution. For here (according to our Adversaries) the Body, and Blood of Christ are affirmed of Bread, and Wine, and yet the virtue of nourishing (which they here assign to be the ground of the supposed figurative speech) is less evident and known in the Body and Blood of Christ, then in the Bread and Wine, which before his pronouncing of the words, Christ did hold in his hands.  
Thirdly, It is to be observed, that in the words of the Institution, the Body and Blood of Christ do not expressly predicate, or are affirmed of Bread and Wine, but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing, but with confusion and uncertainty, to wit, of the pronoun Hoc. And yet in other metaphorical speeches ever a thing which is of one nature, doth predicate of another thing of a different nature, as Christus erat petra etc.  
Fourthly, we are here to note the words following; to wit, quod pro vobis datur, qui pro vobis effunditur etc. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation. But in all Metaphorical Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded, but what doth more clearly express the propriety of that thing, from the similitude whereof the Metaphor is drawn.  
Thus one may say : Caesar was a Lion, by reason of his courage & fortitude, which later words are added to express more clearly the nature of the Metaphor. But now if the addition of words following, doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor, but absolutely doth show the truth of the thing therein affirmed, then doth such an Addition manifest withal the Propriety of the precedent affirmation: as in these words : That Christ suffered upon the Cross, who was borne of a Virgin, where we find, that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor, do intimate a Propriety and literal acception of the former words concerning Christ. In like sort we say, that those words : Quod pro vobis tradetur, &, Qui pro vobis fundetur etc. Which stalbe delivered for you etc. and, Which shall be shed for you etc. do not import and signify any virtue of nourishing, which they should have done, if the Propositions (to which they are adjoined) had been Metaphorical; but they do signify, that Christ's Body and Blood were the price of our Redemption, which point hath no necessary conjunction with the virtue and faculty of nourishing. And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution.   est Corpus meum, &, Hic est Sanguis meus etc. A text in respect of a 
i A Sacrament instituted herein.] Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plain words, lest otherwise we should err in the use thereof, as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law, and of Baptism.  Sacrament instituted herein, of a Testament 
k A Testament left thereby.] That the Eucharist containeth in itself a Testament, appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nowm Testamentum in meo Sanguine. But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plain, and literal words, than a Will or Testament, that thereby may be prevented all occasion of contention, as touching the Will of the Testator. And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament, which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper, and familiar words. The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men.  left thereby, and of a Precept, 
l A Precept, or Law.] That there is a Divine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist, appeareth out of those words, Accipite, Edite, hoc facite. But the words of Laws, and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous, and clear, since otherwise occasion of erring would presently arise: Hence is it, that not only the decalogue, but also other Passages of the old Law, wherein certain rites are ordained, are set down in very plain, and proper words. In like sort we say, that seeing the Institution of the Eucharist containeth in itself (in the judgements of all) one of the chiefest dogmatical points of Christian Religion, it therefore aught to be delivered without any Tropes, or Figures: for we find that all such principle Articles of Religion, and Faith are delivered in Scripture in a most facile, and easy phrase of speech.  and Position of faith contained therein (ever to continue in the Church) necessarily challenging a literal, plain, and obvious Interpretation: Yet our Tropical, and Figurative Sectaries are not here afraid (o monstrous impiety!) even to force, and violate with their strained Glosses the true sense thereof.  
Let us examine the former words, by recurring to the Greek, wherein the Evangelists (our Lords true Historians) did first write, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.] This point is explicated above at the letter (h) in the explication of the pronoun Hoc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where the words do by all natural Construction signify, that the Cup was shed for us, and consequently that Wine was not in the Cup. They reply, that the words (here making for us) are mere 
n Surreptitious.] So saith Beza, as not being able to answer to the argument of the Catholics, drawn from the Greek Text.  surreptitious, and in time by negligence crept out of the margin into the text; thus daring in a supercilious, and impudent manner, to expunge out of the holy Writ itself, what may seem to enervate, and destroy their Typical Communion.  
Let us pass on further to such Texts of the Apostle, which do imply an use, and practice of the Eucharist; as, Calix 
o 
Calix Benedictionis.] 1. Cor. c. 10. In English thus: The Chalice of benediction, which we do bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the Bread, which we break, is it not the participation of the Body of Christ? Now this place affords divers Arguments in proof of our Catholic doctrine. And First from those first words, Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus. Out of which words we deduce, that Consecration is necessary to the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but it were not necessary, if the Eucharist were but only a Figure of our saviours Body, since for the effecting of thus much, the first institution of Christ, and his will manifested in the Holy Scriptures were sufficient; for the Paschall Lamb, and Manna were figures of Christ's Body, & Sacraments (according to our adversaries doctrine) and yet there was not required any consecration for the making of those figures. In like sort we find, that no Consecration is used to the water of Baptism, to make it thereby a Sacrament.  
Another Argument may be taken from the words, Panis, quem frangimus. In which place the word Fractio, is as much as Immolatio, or Oblatio, according to that of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur: For all these are the words of the same Apostle in the same Epistle, and entreating of the same matter. Besides the Apostle here describeth the Cup, not by words of distribution, but of Consecration: Therefore it is most probable, that he did in like sort describe the Bread by way of Consecration, not of distribution. Now then, if in this place Frangere, doth signify Immolare, to immolate, or offer up in Sacrifice; than it inevitably followeth, that the word Panis, doth not here signify natural wheaten bread, but the very Body of Christ, which is supersubstantial, & celestial Bread; for no man will say, that we do immolate, and offer up to God plain natural Bread.   benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nun communicatio Sanguinis Christi est? Et Panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio Corporis Christi est? As also the said Apostle in another place, Qui 
p 
Qui manducat.] 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth, and drinketh unworthily, eateth, and drinketh judgement to himself, not discorning the Body of our lord]  
Now out of this Text, thus we argue: Hear certain are reprehended for the receiving of the body of Christ vnworthili●, and of such it is said, that they eat, and drink judgement, and not life to themselves. But of these it cannot be said, that they receive the body of Christ in spirit, and Faith (because in so doing they should receive it profitably) therefore they receive it in Body alone, and consequently the Body of Christ is really, and truly in the Eucharist, since the Body of Christ, ●s it is in heaven, cannot be taken with our bodily mouth.  
It cannot be replied hereto (as some of our Adversaries have written) that such persons are said by the Apostle to eat judgement to themselves, because they do not receive truly the Body of Christ, which God doth offer to them in those signs, which is as much, as if they should cast it upon the ground, and betrample it. This refuge availeth nothing, the reason thereof being, in that the Apostle in this place faith not, that such offend in not receiving, but in receiving unworthily; so as their sin consisteth in the taking of it, not in the omission thereof, and not taking.  
Neither will that other answer of Caluin, lib 4. Instit. c. 17. ●. 3●. & of Peter Martyr in comment huiu● loci, advantage them any thing a● all, who teach; That the meaning of the Apostle in this former place is, that the wicked are said to eat, & drink to their own damnation, in that by taking of the Eucharist, they wrong the Symbols, or Signs of Christ's Body: Now (say they) the injury offered to a Sign, or Image, redoundeth to that of which it is a Sign, or Image. This answer overthroweth themselves, in that it enforceth them to acknowledge, that they wrong the Catholics, against whom they at other times inveigh so much (even charging them with idolatry therein) for giving a certaine honour to the Images of Christ, & the Saints, and teaching that the reverence given to them is transferred from them to Christ, and his Saints. As in like sort, the wrong, or injury done to the Images (in which point the Sectaries of this Age do exceed) results to Christ, and his Saints. Again, if this were the only reason of S. Paul's words, than he which receiveth the Eucharist in mortal sin (so that he come not with an intention of violating, or dishonouring the Symbols of Christ's Body) should not be guilty of Christ's Body, nor eat judgement to himself, and yet in so doing, he is most guilty thereof. The reason of this Inference is, in that, if an Image be destroyed, or defaced by any means, so that it be not done with an intention of dishonouring the Saint (whereof it is an Image) there is no offence committed against the Saint. Lastly, by force of this Answer, it should not be lawful for a sinner, to look upon the picture of Christ, nor to hear the word of God, since both these do represent, and offer Christ unto us. Hence then we may conclude, that it was not the Apostles meaning, that therefore they did sin, who did receive the Eucharist unworthily, because it doth represent Christ.   manducat, & bibit indignè, judicium sibi manducat, & bibit, non dijudicans Corpus Domini. And again he there faith, that such an one, reus erit Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini: In all which words the often, and reverent ingemination of flesh, of blood, of the Body of Christ, of the most dreadful comminations, and threats to the unworthy receivers thereof, may seem well to Paraphrase, and comment our saviours own words, and to free them from all ambiguous acceptation: Yet do they most pertinaciously persist in their former Allegorical Constructions, abastarding thereby the native, and genuine sense thereof.  
Let us not only fortify our doctrine with the warrant of God's word, but also repel all weak assaults, & forces, gathered out of certain wrested Texts of the said Word, for the impugning of this our faith; for thus do our adversaries bandy Scripture against Scripture, as if the Pens of the Evangelists, and the Apostles had at unawares made some blots, or blurs of contradictions or mistake.  
Now to this their drift many Passages are urged by them; As first, divers 
q 
divers examples.] Many examples of this kind are alleged by the Sacramentaries; as Agnus est Pascha, id est Transitus, Exod. 1●. Petra erat Christus, 1. Cor. c. 10. Baptis●●●s est lavacrum regenerationis, Tit. 3. Septem boves sunt septem anni, Gen. 14. Ego sum ostium, joan. 20. and divers other such like.  
To these I answer, First, that most of these places are s●lfly expounded. And, first as touching that, Petra erat Christus, These words (according to the exposition of Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others upon this place) are not to be understood of the material Rock, which signified Christ, for that followed not the jews, but of the spiritual, and invisible Rock, which provided all necessary things for the jews, which Rock was properly, and truly Christ as God. Now, though the Trope be, that Christ is there called the Rock, ye● by the addition of the word Spiritualis, the Trope is explained, and therefore this Proposition, Spiritualis petra erat Christus, is taken properly and not figuratively.  
To that other, Baptis●●● est lavacrum regenerationis, I say, that Baptism doth not signify only here the Lavacre of Regeneration, but it truly washeth the soul of Man from sin, if the effect thereof be no● hindered by our indisposition.  
To that, Agnus est Pascha, we reply, that Agnus Paschal●s, the Paschall Lamb is not here Tropically called the Pascha, because it signified Transitum, but it was called the Pascha, properly, no otherwise then as the Festival Day was called Pascha, from the word derived à Transitu Domini; because the Lamb was then sacrificed, and that Day was made Festival in remembrance of that Transitus, or Pass●ouer.  
To that, Septem boves sunt septem anni.] we say it is a Parable, and in such Parables, Similitudes, and V●●ions, the verb Est is ●●ken for Significat, and yet without any Trope; the reason hereof being, because (as is above touched) th● whole essence of all such things i● placed in signification; And therefore the sense of these words is no●, that the seven Oxen did signify the seven years, but that the Oxen appeared in vision to signify those years.  
Secondly we answer, that in all examples alleged by our Adversaries, there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope, & Figure: but of the words of the Institution there followeth no explication.  
Thirdly, in most of the examples alleged by our Adversaries (for there are divers others produced by them) ever▪ pr●dicat●● dispatatum de disparato, that is, that which is of a most different nature, is said of another thing of a like different nature, ●● in those, Boves sunt Anni, Christus est Ostium etc. for seeing that in these, and such like, the Propositions cannot be by any means properly, and literally true, we are forced to expound the same by▪ Tropes, and Figures; But in these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, there is no such kind of strange and unnatural predication, at least in the appearance of the words themselves.  
Lastly, if we should admit that in the examples produced, Est is taken for Significat, yet seeing this verb is more often taken in it own natural signification, than otherwise, it followeth, that it should be so taken in the words of the Institution, rather than without sufficient reason to the contrary, to be expounded figuratively.   Examples (to countermand the natural construction of the words of the Institution) wherein by the word Est, is understood Significat. In like sort they object, where it is said, That the Eucharist is to be taken in 
r In Remembrance of Christ.] Hoc facite in meam commemorationem: Do this in Remembrance of me.] From hence it followeth not, that because we are commanded to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ, that therefore Christ's Body is not there really present. For the meaning of these words is set down by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. saying, Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat: you shall show the death of our Lord, v●till he shall come.] Therefore we are commanded to take the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lord's death, and Passion, which is not present, but absent, or rather it is not, but was.  Remembrance of Christ; That, Christ shall not leave 
s Not leave Heaven.] Act. 3. Oportet illum Caelum suscipere usque ad tempus restitutionis omnium. Whom (meaning Christ) Heaven must receive, until the time of the restitution of all things.] It followeth not from hence, that Christ never leaveth Heaven: Ergo his Body is not in the Eucharist; for we teach, that Christ ought not to leave Heaven, or to descend with a Local Motion, when he is in the Eucharist, for here no question i● made of the Article of Ascension, but rather of Christ's Omnipotency; to wit, whether Christ by his Divine Power may place himself in several places at one Time; of which Point it is sufficiently treated above in the first Part of this Treatise.  Heaven, till the consummation of the world; That Christ to show himself to have a true Body consisting of flesh, and bones etc. would have it touched 
t Have it touched.] Palpate, & videte, quia Spiritus carnem, & ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere. Handle, and feel, for a Spirit hath not flesh, and bones, as you see me to have. Luc. 24.] To argue thus: It is felt, and seen, Ergo, It is a body, is a good consequence▪ and this is the force of our saviours words. But it is no good sequel to argue thus negatively (as our Adversaries here do.) It is not felt, not seen, Ergo, it is not a Body; for it may be, that a true body may be present, and yet neither seen, nor felt, either in that it is covered with a new Body, or else because God may hinder, that it shall not transmit any s●nsi●les species to the sense of sight. Besides it may be effected by divine power, that a Body may exist indivisibly after the manner of a spirit, and yet it is impossible, that a spirit should exist divisibly after the manner of a true, and natural Body. But of this point also I have discussed in the former part hereof. , and felt; That the Eucharist even after Consecration is called 
u 
Is called Bread.] The Eucharist is called indeed Bread in the two former texts of the first to the Corinthians; yet it followeth not, that therefore Christ's Body is not in the Eucharist; for it may be called Bread, in that, in the Hebrew Phrase under the name of Bread is understood all kind of meat.  
Again, it may be so called, in that the Scripture is often accustomed to call things, as outwardly they appear; so it calleth the Brazen Serpent, a Serpent; Angels appearing in men's shape, Men▪ the brazen Oxen of the Temple, Oxen etc. Therefore in that the Eucharist externally differeth nothing from Bread, no marvel if it be so termed.  
Thirdly the Eucharist may be called Bread, because it is made of Bread, or because it was Bread before. Thus we find, that Matth. 11. the blind are said to see, and Exodus 7. the wands changed into Dragons, were notwithstanding after called wands; And Genes. 3. Eve is called the Bone of Adam.   Bread; That the jews (who received not the Eucharist) did nevertheless eat the same spiritual 
x The same spiritual meat.] 1. Cor. 10. Patres nostri eamdem ●scam spiritualem manducaverunt, & eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt▪ All our Fathers did eat the same spiritual food, and did drink the same spiritual drink.] This place proveth not, that the jews did eat the same spiritual meat, which we Christians do eat (which point is to be proved, or else these words make nothing against the Real Presence) but it only evinceth, that all those jews, which then did live (as well the wicked, as the virtuous) did eat the same spiritual meat; And therefore S. Augustine to distinguish the spiritual meat of us Christians from that of the jews, thus saith: Aliud est Pascha, quod judaei de oue celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, & sanguine Domini accipimus.  meat with Christians; That whatsoever entereth in 
y Entereth in at the Mouth.] Matth. 15. Omne quod intrat in ●s, in ventrem vadit, & in secessum emittitur.] Hear our saviour speaketh only of meats, which are taken for the nourishment of the body, for such meats do hold their ordinary course; wherefore when after his resurrection he did truly eat, and drink, yet seeing he did it not to the end of nourishing his Body, therefore that meat, and drink so taken by him, had not the ordinary passage with other meats described by our Saviour. In like sort, the Body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful not to nourish their bodies, but their souls, is not corporally digested, nor hath the common passage with other meats.  at the mouth, is to have it ordinary, and natural passage with common meats. Finally, that our Saviour himself affirms, that it is the spirit 
z 
The Spirit which quickeneth.] john 6. Spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro non prodest. It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.] From which place our Adversaries do gather, that seeing the flesh profiteth nothing, that therefore Christ's flesh is not truly in the Eucharist: which Inference is false; for here the literal sense of these words is not, that the flesh of Christ doth not profit, but that a carnal understanding of spiritual things doth not profit, and so is this place explicated by Cyprian Serm. de caena Domini, Origen, lib. 3. in epistola ad Romanos, Chrysostome upon this place, and by divers others. Now this construction hereof is proved, because almost in every place in the Scriptures, the flesh is distinguished against the spirit; as we find in Gen. 6. Matth. 16. Rom. 8. Gal. 1. and in divers other places; Therefore our saviours meaning in the former words is, that to think, that the flesh of Christ is to be eaten after a carnal manner, as other meats are, to wit, to be cut in pieces, to be boiled, to be converted into our proper substance by force of the natural heat (in which sense the Capharnaites did afore think our Lord to have spoken) that thus carnally to imagine, profiteth nothing; and therefore our Lord immediately subjoineth, Verba, quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt, that is, they are words explicating divine, & spiritual things, and such as bring eternal life, and therefore they are not to be understood after a human, and carnal sense.  
But let us suppose, that Christ spoke of his flesh, yet it proveth nothing against his being in the Eucharist, both because by the same reason, we may conclude, that the bread is not in the Sacrament; for if the body of Christ profiteth us nothing, much less will a little piece of wheaten bread profit us: Again, if our Lord had spoken of his flesh, he would not have understood it absolutely, but only that the flesh without the spirit profiteth nothing; since otherwise our Lord should have crossed himself, who saith even in the said Chapter, Qui manducat carnem meam, habet vitam aeternam.] Lastly, it is no less than a great impiety to deny, that the flesh of Christ (being united with his Divinity) profiteth us nothing, seeing that S. Paul. Coloss. 1. attributes all our salvation to the flesh of Christ, since he saith, that we are reconciled to God by the said flesh.   which quickeneth, and that the flesh profiteth nothing. Let us (I say) display at full, how in these Texts, they even divorce the letter from the true sense of the Holy Ghost, and that they are so impertinently, or forcedly applied by them, as that they appear hereby (to use the Prophet's Idiom) 
a In sua fortitudine confusi.] Ezech. 16.  in sua fortitudine confusi, their weakness thus rising out of their imaginary strength, yet as men desirous still to entertain further contestation, and dispute, they never cease to make their sallies, and attempts out of these weak fortresses; thus here enlarging overmuch the sense of the letter, where it is to be rather straightened, as afore straightening it, when it was to be enlarged, and ever forgetting, that (notwithstanding all contrary machinations of Sectaries whatsoever) it is recorded in the Scripture, that 
b Scriptura non potest solui.] john 2.  Scriptura non potest solui.  
Let us (laying aside the written Word) allege the divers, stupendious, and astonishing Miracles (Gods peculiar Language, & Dialect, wherein he immediately speaketh to Man, persuading him without words, and instructing him without Letters, or Characters) whereby his Divine goodness hath vouchsafed to seal up the truth of this high Mystery (for here we may break forth with the Psalmist, 
c Mirabilia testimonia tua.] Psal. 120.  Mirabilia testimonia tua) and these not borrowed out of any fabulous Legend, nor grounded upon uncertain hear-sayes, but on the grave testimonies of most ancient, and learned Authors, and circumstanced with time, place, persons, and other particulars of Moral Certainty.  
Examples hereof are divers: As that the B. Sacrament, in proof of our Catholic doctrine, hath cured 
d Possessed persons] In vita S. Bernard. l. 2. c. 3. Where it is recorded, that a woman being a long time most dangerously possessed with a Devil, S. Bernard bringing the Blessed Sacrament, and holding it over the head the of possessed person, dispossessed the Devil.  possessed persons. That it hath (to the same end) appeared sometimes in the form of a 
e human shape.] Paschasius, lib. de Corpore Domini. c. 14. mentioneth, that a certain godly Priest prayed denoutly unto God, that he would vouchsafe to let him see that Body, which he verily believed did lie under the forms of Bread, and Wine, who at the length obtained his desire, and saw the Body of our Saviour in the shape of a young child.  true human shape. That the misbelievers, or doubters therein have been 
f 
Punished by God.] S. Bernard in the life of S. Malachias reporteth, that a Clergyman denying the Body of Christ to be really in the Sacrament, was oftentimes admonished by Malachias, but he not acknowledging his Heresy, Malachias prayed to God in these words: Dominus faciat te veritatem confiteri, vel ex necessitate.] to which words the Heretic said Amen. Whereupon presently he was taken with a mortal disease, acknowledged his Heresy, was reconciled to the Church, and instantly after died.  
In like sort Tilmannus Bredenbach●us, l. 6. Sacrarum collationun. c. 60. reporteth, that in a City of Geldria Anno 1561. die 8. Aprilis, the Parish Priest of the Town did carry (after the custom of Catholics) the Blessed Sacrament to a sick woman, and passing through a a street, where two young youths were wagering, whether of them could soonest swallow down their Easter Egg, the one of them being an Heretic, said, that he could sooner swallow down his egg, than the Woman could swallow her God; whereupon he putting the Egg into his mouth, the Egg did stick in the midst of his throat, and he perceiving the same, did take a white candle (which was near to him) and with it endeavoured to thrust the Egg down, but he fainting, instantly died, his face growing most black, and ugly to behold; And after he being opened, the Egg was found not in the throat, but in the other part called aspera Arteria, or Windpipe.   punished by God, even with death.  
Lastly (to omit some of other kinds) that the truth hereof hath been confirmed by the testimonies (such as they could give) even of 
g 
Bruit Beasts.] Antoninus in summa historiali, part. 3. titul. 24. c. 3. relateth, that S. Antony disputing with a certain Heretic (who denied the Real Presence) in the Country of To●osa, the Heretic demanded, that the truth thereof might be confirmed by S. Antony, by some Miracle, and said, that he without some such proof would not believe the Real Presence. It was concluded between them, that the Heretic having an Ox, or some such beast, he should forbear to give him any meat at all for the space of three days, and then after S. Antony should bring the Blessed Sacrament where the Beast was, and the Heretic should set before him some corn, if then the Beast should not touch the corn, but prostrate himself (in such sort as he could) before the Blessed Sacrament, that then the Heretic would be content to believe the Catholic doctrine therein; All which being thus far prepared in the presence of infinite people, S. Antony holding the Eucharist in his hands, spoke to the Beast certain words, whereupon the Beast having Corn before him, did eat no part thereof, but with bowing down his head, and body, did prostrate himself before the Blessed Sacrament to the great wonder, and confirmation of the faithful.  
Another Example here happened in our Country in the Church of S. Paul in London, as Waldensis reporteth (who was there present) tom. 2. c. 63. A certain Mechanical fellow, not believing the Real Presence, was convented in the Church before the Archbishop; and obstinately answered the Bishop, that he would rather worship a spider, than the Eucharist; at the speaking whereof, instantly there came down a huge Spider by his thread, or Web from the top of the Church, hastening to enter into the Heretics mouth, which was prevented, but by much difficulty of the standers by.   brute Beasts (for it is said, 
h Glorificabit me bestia Agri.] Esay 43.  Glorificabit me Bestia agri:) Thus Creatures, which want Reason, have here exceeded in use thereof Men, who only enjoy Reason: Yet do they hold all such narrations but as forged wonders, and condemn with a censorious temerity the believers of such, of a mere doting 
i Doting credulity.] So do most of the Sacramentaries answer, as thinking all such reports to be mere fictions.  credulity; or at the most repute them, as prestigious 
k Sleights of the Devil.] So answereth Peter Martyr to these Miracles lib. contra Gardinerum, confirming this his answer from the Examples of Marcus, and Magus, who both being Arch-heretickes wrought appearing Miracles by the power of the Devil. But I would demand of Martyr, what comparison is there between those Heretics, and these other holy Men? Again, I say, that this his Answer cannot be applied to those Miracles here alleged, which consist in the death of Men, for their deaths were true deaths, and not counterfeit, or forged.  sleights of the Devil. But here by the way, we are to advertise them, that if indeed, there were ever any such Miracles exhibited for the confirmation of the Catholic faith herein, then is their Sacramentarian Heresy to be utterly abolished; If none such were ever performed, than what greater Miracle, then that an Article of Faith mainly impugning all sense, and yet not warranted by any Miracle, should for so many ages generally be believed? Or what stronger Reason in defence thereof, then for it to be unanimously embraced, and received, being above Reason?  
Let us show, That as God was before the Devil, so Truth (which receiveth her emanation, and flowing from God, the first Truth) is more ancient than falsehood, the attendant of those Apostating, & revolted spirits.  
Thus is Antiquity the badge of Truth, and Novelty of Error. Now, that the Catholic Faith of the Eucharist is more ancient, than the Sacramentarian Heresy, we prove even from the Nature of the Conception, Birth, and Growth of every Innovation of Faith. Of our Faith there can be no instance pretended, when first it 
l 
When first it began.] I know well that most of the vulgar Sacramentaries divulge in their writings, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation first came in, in the Lateran Council holden under Innocentius the 3. yea Doctor Whitaker himself is not ashamed to teach so much lib. 7. contra Duraeum. pag. 480. The falsehood of which common error is by several means discovered.  
First, because that Council was gathered chiefly to condemn the contrary doctrine of Berengarius, than first broaching this Heresy; so as this Council did then suppress, and disallow all innovation of doctrine; which very point is acknowledged by Fox himself, Acts, and Monurn. pag. 1121. who thus there writeth: About the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresy, and in that number was first Berengarius, who lived about Ann. Dom. 1060.  
Secondly, It is most improbable, that a Council gathered out of all the most distant Nations of Christendom, should upon a present so conspiringly embrace an innovation of doctrine so contrary to Sense, as the Catholic doctrine herein is.  
Thirdly, and Lastly, The Protestants themselves do acquit this Council from bringing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, since they do charge divers Fathers therewith, living long before this Council of Lateran. As for Example (to omit those confessions of the Protestants, which hereafter upon another occasion shall be alleged) we find, that Doctor Humphrey in jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5. thus writeth : In Ecclesiam quid invexerumt Gregorius, & Augustinus? Intulerunt onus cerimoniarum etc. Transubstantiationem etc.] In like sort we find, that Vrsinus Commonefact. cuiusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Caena, pag. 211. reprehendeth Theophylact, and Damascene for the doctrine of Transubstantiation in these words: Theophylactus, & Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem.] Yea Damascene was so full in this doctrine, that he is charged therewith by divers other Protestants, to wit, Doctor Fulke against Heskins pag. 217. & 204. Oecolampadius l. epist. Oecolampad. & Zuing. l. 3. pag. 66●. so true is that confession of Antony de Adamo (a famous Protestant) who thus writeth hereof in his Anatomy of the Mass, pag. 236. I have not hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real, and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first begin.] And thus far of this point; where only it can be objected, that as the former Council invented only the word Transubstantiation, but not the doctrine; so the Council of Nice invented the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though the doctrine thereof were afore.   began, and entered into the Church; whereas of the other, we are able to note the Author who first did disseminate it, to wit, Berengarius 
m Berengarius Archdeacon.] This appeareth out of Paschasivi lib. de verbis Instit. Sacramenti.  Archdeacon of Angiers. The Time when: Anno 1051. The place where: France. The paucity (at the first beginning) of his followers; some few scholars first alured to him by gifts. The astonishment of the Church hereat, as wondering at so strange a Paradox (like men gazing at a new appearing Comet:) And last the 
n Contradiction, and Opposition.] For he was written against by Lanfrancus, Guitmunaus, and Algerus.  Contradiction, Opposition, & Censure of the Church given against his doctrine in ten 
o Tenseverall councils.] To wit, in Concilio Romano, Vercellensi, Turonenfi, Romano under Nicolas the 2. Romano under Gregory the seventh, Romano under Innocentius the 3. Viennensi, Romano under john the thirteenth, Constantiensi, Tridentino.  several councils, his Heresy being condemned in them all, and himself personally Anathematized in some of them: So deservedly was he deprived of the Communion of the Holy Church, since he laboured to deprive the Church of her Holy Communion.  
Add hereto, for the greater accession of reasons herein, that he was so irresolute in this his Opinion, as that he did abjure it three several times; so forsaking his faith twice (for so often he revolted after his Oath taken) with breach of Faith, though finally he died therein Catholic. And thus much of the first origen of the Sacramentarian Heresy, from whence it appeareth, that it is of a far later Date, than our Catholic Faith; the discovery of all which particulars doth sufficiently argue the falsehood thereof; since it is true, that to reduce an Heresy to the beginning thereof, is a confutation of the said Heresy: Let us (I say) allege all this, yet will our Adversaries maintain the former Innovator, though not as an Inventor of any New Heresy, but as a Restorer (forsooth) of a former more ancient Faith: whereas indeed it is most certain, that before the revolt of Berengarius, this rare Utopian Novelist, jumping in doctrine with Berengarius, and our Sacramentaries, was 
p Never heard of.] For though Ignatius in epist. ad Smyrnenses maketh mention of some, who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist; yet those Heretics were not properly, and formally Heretics in this point, but chiefly in the Article of the Incarnation; for seeing they denied, that our Saviour took upon him true flesh, they consequently, and by way of inference only, denied that his flesh was in the Eucharist.  never heard of in any place or tyme.  
And as touching so many councils condemning Berengarius, they reject, and traduce them all most unworthily, affirming them either to be Schismatical, or at the most but Men, and therein subject to Error. Fie of this jewish obstinacy of our Sectary, who spurns at the alleged Testimonies of whole councils (the highest Tribunals in God's Church) because they are but Men, and yet himself expecteth (for Heresy cannot subsist without Pride) that others should swear fealty to his judgement, being but the silly weening of one man..  
Lastly, let us demand of them (that seeing they cannot be induced to admit our Interpretation of Scripture, nor any other afore alleged Authorities or Reasons; and seeing it is against the custom of all Schools, & against Reason itself, that the Parties should become their own judges, & that they relying only upon Scripture, themselves only should expound Scripture) whether they will be pleased to acknowledge for Umpires in this point the most ancient and learned Fathers; Men in their life time, though much disterminated by Sea, and Land, yet all breathing one, and the same Faith; And though Neutrals to our present factions, yet parties (no doubt) to the causes of the said factions: Finally such, as we (who now live in these Autumnal, and decaying days of the Church) may in their writings be able to glass the face, and beauty of Christ's intemerate Spouse, I mean, the purity, and integrity of the faith of Christians, during the Period of the Primitive Church. But here even at the sound, and name of the Primitive Church, our Adversaries grow pale, and yet they blush; they are afraid to accept of these conditions, as men guilty to themselves of their future overthrow; and yet they are ashamed, that the world should at length discern, that they refuse so reasonable an offer, and that they must needs break with that Illustrious and Famous Church, the rays and beams whereof being sent so far off, do reflect a greater heat of admiration and reverence, than such, as are nearer at hand can perform.  
In these straits, present shame preponderating, and weighing down with them all after-dangers, they accept of this our proffer, and so (like Bank-rupts vaunting most of their riches, before their near approaching breach) they pretend great 
q Great confidence etc.] Answerably hereto did M. jewel make his acclamation at Paul's Cross. O Gregory, O Austen, O Hierome etc. If we be deceived, you have deceived us: this you taught us. And then further saith in the said Sermon. As I said before, so I say again, I am content to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Adversaries, or if all the learned Men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor, or Father, or out of any old General Council, or for the space of six hundred years after Christ. Which general Challenge M. jewel did make concerning 27. several Articles of faith. And which Challenge was afterward iterated by D. Whitaker in respon ad rationes Campiani rat. 5. in these words: Audi Campiane, quamea die juellus vocem verissimam ac constantissimam emifit, quando ad sexcentorum annorum antiquitatem provocavit, vobisque obtulit, ut si vel unicam ex aliquo Patre, aut Concilio, claram & dilucidam sententiam afferetis, non recusaret, quin vobis palmam concederet▪ ea est nostrum omnium Professio; idem omnes pollicimur, fidem non fallemus. In like sort M. Willet in his Antilog. pag. 263. writeth: I take God to witness, before whom I must render account etc. that the same faith and Religion, which I defend, is taught and confirmed in the more substantial Points by those Histories, councils, Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. Finally, M. Sutcliffe in his Examination of Doctor kellison's Survey saith: The Fathers in all points are for us, and not for the Pope.  Confidence in the Fathers (poor men, well knowing, that they are wounded almost with every splinter, and little passage of their writings:) And which is ridiculous, some of them give out (such is the Serpentine malice of Heresy) that we either in this Controversy, or any other, are unwilling to submit ourselves to the sentence & final determination of the Fathers, and dare not endure the touch of such a proof. From which unworthy recrimination we all so far disclaim, as that even in this question here controverted we will be content, indisputably to resign our judgements to the judgements of the Fathers; so willingly we remember, that it is said 
r Interroga de diebus.] Deuteron. 4.  Interroga de diebus antiquis.  
Therefore in the subsequent Chapters, I will set down such material, and weighty Testimonies of them, as we produce in defence of our Faith herein; and will satisfy such their obscure sayings; wherein our Adversaries do chief insist for the impugning of the same: and lastly I will prove by the confessions even of their own Brethren that the writings of the Fathers, do altogether fortify, and confirm the Catholic, Faith in this high Mystery: So shall the impartial Reader perceive, that falsehood is ever supported with falsehood, and Heresy begun with lies, doth finally end with lies, like unto warrie Meteors, which still resolve into that, of which they were first engendered.   

THAT THE ANCIENT FATHERS taught the Real Presence. AND First of such their Testimonies, as concern their Appellation, and Naming of the Eucharist. CHAP. II.  
SUCH was the confidence of 
a Confidence of Samnel.] 1. Reg. c. 10.  Samuel in God, that after he had anointed Saul King of Israel, he was content, that Saul for the time should relinquish all former right obtained by law full Inauguration, and should adventure his regaining thereof by trial of Lots, not doubting, but that God would infallibly temper, and dispose the Lots for Saules advantage.  
And such is the assurance, which we now show herein: For whereas we have already drawn our chiefest forces from the holy Scriptures, and other most convincing proofs, for the advancing, & warranting of our Catholic faith in this weighty Controversy; Nevertheless (as provoked thereunto through the circular tergiversation of our Adversaries) we are pleased (for the present) as supposing ourselves to be disimpatronized of our best Forts, to suffer the matter to be definitively decided by the voices, and suffrages of the ancient Fathers, as by so many Lots; being acertained, that God hath altogether directed their pens (through a prenotion, and foreknowledge of these lamentable times) for the justifying, and maintaining of this our doctrine; for 
b Dominus Deus.] 2. Machab. 7.  Dominus Deus aspiciet veritatem.  
This proof made by the Fathers, we cannot but willingly embrace, in that we do acknowledge them to have been most shining Lamps in the Church of God; and therefore we will here use the light of their Testimonies, as a means to find out the light of the Truth, imitating therein the three Magis, of whom the Church saith: Lumen requirunt lumine, since a Star did guide them to their Sun.  
And here (for the greater satisfaction of our Aduesaries) I will restrain myself to those Fathers, which lived within the first five hundred years, both because they do but scorn with an unaccustomed insolency (the very eye, and countenance of Heresy) all Doctors of later times; as also in that they set down the Circle of these Ages, as the Horizon, which terminates, and ends our sight between the first supposed light of their Gospel, and the Babylonian, and Cimmerian darkness (to speak in their language) of Romish superstition.  
But hear it will not be amiss to instruct the Reader aforehand, in what Age or Century very Father (whose Authority shall hereafter be alleged) did live, that thereby he may know how near or remote in time every one of them was to our Saviour, and his Apostles.  
In the fifth age or hundred years from Christ, did live Gaudentius, Chrysostome, Hierome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Porclus Constantinopolitanus, Theodoret, Gelasus, Leo, Hilarius Pope, Eusebius Emyssenus.  
In the fourth Century, the first Council of nice was celebrated; in the same age lived Athanasius, Hilarius, Cyryl of jerusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Optatus, Gregorius Nyssenus, and Nazianzenus, Ephrem, Epiphanius.  
In the third Age, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian.  
In the second, justinus Martyr, Pius Pope, Irenaeus.  
In the first, even in the time and days of the Apostles, the disciples of S. Andrew, Ignatius, Dionysius Areopagita: where we are to remember, that a Father (as for example justinus Martyr) may be said to live in the second age, and yet to have been but a hundred and some very few years distant from Christ; And the like proportionably may be said of divers Fathers of the other succeeding Ages.  
With these then (and no others) at this time will I hold intelligence, whose judgements, and sentences (as so many pointed weapons) shall every way endanger our Sacramentary; since the admitting of their Authorities proclaims his certain Overthrow; the rejecting, his most dishonourable retiring, and giving back.  
Now, in the handling of this point for the more perspicuity, and clearness, I will reduce such testimonies of the Fathers, as I intent to allege, to certain principal Heads.  
The first whereof shall be taken from the different appellations of this great Mystery, given by the Protestants, and by the Fathers: where we are to remember, that since Man's immanent Thought (which is an inward progression of the Mind) is best become Transient, or externally manifested by the Mediation of words; Therefore Nature (God's obsequious Agent) hath imparted to him the use of Speech, which Speech ought among men to be a true & sincere Interpreter of the Souls mental Language, for we find those to have been greatly reprehended, Qui 
c Qui linguis.] Rom. 3.  linguis suis dolos● agebant. Hence is it, that as long as Man conforms himself to Gods intended use herein, his conceit, judgement, & opinion had of any thing, is best discovered by his words delivered upon the same.  
Now then let us see, how the Fathers in words entitle this Sacrament. First we find, that they call it, the Body, and Blood of Christ; again they further proceed, and call it, The precious Body of Christ, Man's Price, The pledge of Man's health, The most dreadful Mysteries, and the like. But what? Is this the Dialect of our Adversaries? Or, are they accustomed to speak in this manner of language? No. For when they speak of the Eucharist, their natural and mother tongue, is to term it only the Symbols, and signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
d Quantum distat.] Psalm. 103.  Quantum ●●stat ortus ab occasu? If then our Adversaries can in no case brook to speak hereof, as the Fathers did, how can it probably be presumed, that they believed therein, as the Fathers did? Since words are the true Counterpane of the Mind, written with the pen of it own Tongue.  
But now to come to these Testimonies, wherein the Eucharist is thus termed, and to begin with the latter part of the fifth Age, that so ascending up by degrees to higher times, we may consequently ascend in force, & weight of Argument, drawn from such their Authorities. And here because many testimonies will occur far more pregnant, & clear for us Catholics, than the Protestant Reader (not conversant in the Father's works) will perhaps expect, and thereupon might conjecture some sleight, & imposture to be used in the Englishing of them, I have therefore thought good to set down in every passage, & head of their authorities, six testimonies each of them at large in Latin of several Fathers (for to observe this Method all were needless, as tending only to fill up paper.) The places that in this sort I make choice of, are such, as seem more convincing, & evident than the rest, so that if the Reader do see, that the more forcible authorities are free from all suspected corruption in the translating of them, he may the more probably assure himself, that the rest are in no sort wrested from their true, and natural meaning; for who in this sort corrupteth, is presumed to use his art in those passages, as make most for his advantage. Thus shall the Reader discern the catholics integrity, candour, & confidence in this weighty Controversy.  
First then occurreth S. Leo, who thus writeth Serm. 6. de jeiunio septimi mensis. Sie sacrae mensae communicare debetis, ut nihil prorsus de veritate Corporis Christi, & Sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, & frustra ab illis, Amen, respondetur, à quibus contra id quod accipitur, disputatur.] So you ought to communicate of the holy Table, as that you doubt not at all of the Body & Blood of Christ. For this is taken by the mouth, which is believed by faith, and in vain they do answer, Amen, who dispute against that which is taken.]  
S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who was Precedent of the General Council of Ephesus, against Nestorius the Heretic, epist. ad Nestorium saith: Sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones etc. Thus do we come to the mystical blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the holy Body, and precious Blood of Christ, who is the Redeemer of us all; we take it not, as common flesh (God forbidden) nor as the flesh of a man sanctified, but the proper flesh of the Word himself.] Which testimony was approved by the General Ephesine Council.  
S. Augustine expounding those words of the Psalm 21. Manducaverunt, & adoraverant omnes divites plebis, in epist. 100LS. c. 17. ad Honoratum, thus writeth : Et ipsi adducti sunt etc. And they are brought to the Table of Christ, and they take of his body, and blood; they worship only, but they are not fed therewith, because they do not imitate: for they eating him who is poor, do not brook, that themselves should be poor.] Hear for further explication we may add, that proud and wicked men do take from the Table of our Lord the body, and blood of Christ, and that they do adore it; from the which it followeth, that (according to S. Augustine's judgement) by the body of our Lord, is not understood the sign of the body, to wit, Bread, because Bread it not adored, neither is understood the body of Christ, as it is in heaven, and not upon the Altar, because S. Augustine saith, it is taken from the Table of our Lord, and by they wicked.  
The same S. Augustine also in lib. 2. contra Aduersarium Legis, & Prophetarum, c. 9 thus writeth: Mediatorem Dei & hominum, hominem Christum jesum carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli cord, atque ore suscipimus: quamuis horribiliùs videatur humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humanum Sanguinem potar●, quàm fundere. We take with a faithful heart, and mouth the Mediator of God, and Man, to wit jesus Christ being Man, who gives his flesh to us to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken; though it may seem a more horrible matter to eat Man's flesh, then to destroy Man's flesh, and to drink blood, then to shed blood.] Where he saith that Christ's flesh is not taken only with the heart, but with the mouth: Again it is not more horrible to eat Man's flesh, and drink Man's blood only in figure, & representation, then to kill a Man, or shed his blood.  
He also lib. 9 Confess. c. 13. speaking of his Mother saith: Adcuius pretij nostri etc. To the Sacrament of our price (meaning the Eucharist) thy handmaid did bind her soul with the band of faith.]  
Again Tomo nono tract 11. in joan. explicating that, jesus non se credebat ijs, saith, this saying to agree with such as are Catechumeni, to whom our Lord gave not his Body. Thus he saith : Si dixerimus Catechumeno etc. If we say to one that is but Catechumenus, Dost thou believe in Christ? He answereth, I do believe, and he signeth himself with the sign of the Cross of Christ, neither is he ashamed of the Cross of his Lord; for behold he believeth in his name. But let us demand of him, Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of Man, & drink the blood of the son of Man? He knoweth not what we say, for Christ herein hath not commended himself to him.] But if the body of Christ be taken in the Eucharist, only in sign, and by faith, than Saint Augustine saith false, that Christ hath not committed himself to the Catechumeni, for they have Christ in sign, and they eat his body by faith, because they believe in Christ, and sign themselves with the sign of the Cross. Besides, there were no reason, why the Eucharist should not be given to the Catechumeni, seeing that more clear signs are given to them, to wit, the written, & preached word of God.  
In the tenth Tome serm. 2. de verbis Apostoli, he calleth the Eucharist, Precium nostrum, in these words: Audivimus ver●cem Magistrum etc. We have heard the true Master, the divine redemptor, the Saviour of Man, commending to us his Blood, which is our Price; for he did speak of his Body and Blood, which Body he said to be Meat, and Blood to be Drink. Such as are Faithful acknowledge the Sacrament of the faithful.] Hear he speaketh not of the figure of his Blood, since the figure thereof is not our Price. Neither can they say, that this meat, and drink is taken only by faith, for he there adjoineth, that it is the Sacrament of the faithful, which the faithful only do know, intimating thereby, that only the faithful do understand this Mystery, how the Body and Blood of Christ can be meat, and drink.  
Lastly, in sermone ad Neophytos, as Paschasius witnesseth epist. ad Feudegardum he saith: Hoc accipite in pane, quod etc. Take that in the Bread, which did hang upon the Cross; take that in the Cup, which flowed from the side of Christ.] But his Body did hang upon the Cross, and Blood issued from his side.  
S. Cyril of jerusalem, Catechesi 4. Mystagogica, thus plainly writeth : Haec Beati Pauli doctrina satis potest efficere vos eertissimos de divinis Mysterijs. This doctrine of S. Paul is of force to make you assured of the divine Mysteries.] And after he saith: Cum Christus ipse sic affirmat, atque dicat de Pane, Hoc est Corpus meum, quis deinc●ps aude●t dubitare? Ac eod●m quoque affirmante, ac dicente, Hic est Sanguis meus, quis, inquam, dubitet, ac dicat non esse illius Sanguinem? Seeing that Christ himself affirmeth, and speaketh of Bread, This is my Body, who after this dare doubt thereof? And he in like sort confirming, and saying, This is my Blood, who is he (I say) that doubteth, and will say, it is not his Blood?] So clear is S. Cyril herein; his book (from whence these places are drawn) being most certain, and undoubted of, and entreating of such things, and in such Method (to wit in a Catechism) which require a most literal, and plain explication.  
S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate, de veritate Carnis etc. There is no place left to doubt of the truth of (Christ's) flesh, and Blood; for now even by the profession (or speech) of our Lord himself, and according to our belief, it is truly Flesh, and truly Blood.]  
S. Cyprian, Serm. 5. de La●sis. Vis infertur etc. Violence is offered to Christ's Body, and Blood, and they now offend more against our Lord, with their hands and mouths, then when they denied our Lord.▪ Hence Cyprian reprehendeth such as denying Christ afore, would receive the Eucharist without any former due penance. But it cannot be a greater sin to handle with unworthy hands a Sign or Figure of Christ then to deny Christ, therefore he there speaketh not of the sign, but of the true Body, and Blood of Christ. He also in Serm. de Caena Domini (which book though perhaps it was not written by Cyprian, yet our Adversaries confess, that it is written by a most ancient, and learned Father) thus saith: Nova est huius Sacramenti etc. There is a new doctrine of this Sacrament, and the evangelical Schools have brought forth this first kind of learning, and this discipline first appeared to the world by Christ, the teacher thereof. That Christians should drink blood, the eating whereof is most strictly forbidden by the authority of the Old Law. Thus the Law restraineth altogether the eating of blood, but the Gospel commandeth to drink it.] But the old Law did not forbid the taking of blood in figure; for the jews did drink in figure the blood of Christ, in drinking the water which flowed from the Rock.  
Origen homil. 5. in diversa loca evangel. where he entreateth of the Centurion's child, thus saith: Quando sanctum cibum, illudque incorruptum accipis epulum, quando vitae pane, & poculo frueris, manducas, & bibis corpus, & sanguinem Domini, tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur. Et tuergo humilians temetipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem, & dicito: Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum. Voi enim indignè ingreditur, ibi ad iudictum ingreditur accipienti. When thou takest the holy meat, and this incorruptible banquet, when thou enjoyest the Cup, and Bread of Life, thou eatest, and drinkest the Body, and Blood of Christ; Then doth our Lord enter into thy house. Therefore thou humbling thyself, imitate this Centurion, and say: Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldst enter into my house. For where he entereth unworthily, there he entereth unto the judgement of the receiver.] Here cannot be understood the Bread signifying Christ's Body, because the Bread is not Epulum incorruptum, an incorruptible Meat, or Banquet; neither to the Bread can it be said : O Lord I am not worthy etc. Neither can here be understood the body of Christ, as it is eaten by Faith; because than it could not be said: Where he entereth unworthily, there he entereth unto judgement of the receiver. For our Adversaries do teach, that Christ is taken by faith of the godly only, and not of the wicked, and that the godly take it to salvation: and that which the wicked do take unworthily, is only the external signs.  
Tertullian lib. de resurrect. Carn. Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur: Caro inungitur, ut anima consecretur: Caro corpore, & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be made clean, the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh feedeth of the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nourished of God.] But the flesh is washed really, and truly with water, as also it is anointed really, and truly with oil; therefore it ought really, and truly to feed upon the Body, and Blood of Christ.  
Ignatius, epist. ad Smyrnenses (as Theodoret citeth, Dialog. 3.) thus saith: Eucharistias, & oblationes non admittunt, quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse Carnem salvatoris, quae, pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. They do not admit (to wit, certain Heretics denying that Christ had true Flesh) the Eucharists, and Oblations, because they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for our sins, the which the Father through his benignity raised up again.] Hear Ignatius saith not, that the Flesh of Christ is given to us in some one manner, or other (as our Adversaries would expound him) but he saith, that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Hear also we are to note, that these Heretics (against whom he here speaketh) did refuse the Eucharist, lest they should be enforced to confess, that Christ had true flesh, if they did admit the Eucharist, which was the Flesh of Christ. But if the Eucharist did only signify the flesh of Christ, they had no reason to deny the Echarist, for they did not deny the Images, and Figures of Christ, but only his true Flesh; for such bodies as are only apparent, and not true bodies, may be painted, or figured out in Images, as appeareth by the Images, and Pictures of Angels.   

OF THE FATHER'S AUTHORITIES. touching the Change made in the Eucharist. CHAP. III.  
A SECOND Branch of the Father's Testimonies, may extend itself to the Change, which is made in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which change, that it is real, is necessarily included in their writings. For they teach, that after the Mutation is once made, the Bread remaineth not: and in further acknowledgement hereof they purposely do parallel it with other real Mutations. As first with that of the Water turned by our Saviour into Wine; But if an imminent Act of his will was of Power to turn water into wine, cannot a Transient operation of the said will (breaking out into words of a positive Assertion) change wine into Blood? Secondly, they compare the change here with that of the Wands of Moses turned into Serpents. But what proportion can there be, between these stupendious Mutations, and a little representative Bread, and Wine, still remaining Bread, and Wine? Therefore we may justly say, that as those true Serpents 
a True serpents.] Exod. 7.  of Moses did eat up those counterfeit Serpents made in emulation thereof by the false Prophets, even so ought the real Transelementation taught by the Fathers, exile, and banish this but Sacramental, and Sophisticated change, brought in by the Sacramentaries.  
They further teach, for the more facilitating of this great work, that he, who could first give the Essence and Form to every thing, could more easily superinduce a second form. And therefore with good reason one of them saith, Non 
b Non minus est.] Ambros. de mysterijs initiand. c. 9  minus est novas rebus dare quàm mutare Naturas. Since the first includeth an Absolute, and primitive Creation, the very Masterpiece of God's Omnipotency, and such as Man cannot apprehend, but by apprehending, that Nothing is Something. The second implieth a former Existence of something, and consequently only a new kind of investing of it. Which later point (much more the First) the Fathers ascribe only to his power, who causing all changes, is yet himself unchangeable, and producing all mutations, is immutable: Ego 
c Ego sum Dominus.] Malach. 3.  sum Dominus, & non mutor.  
Now then by reason of the true, and real change here made, the Fathers do further write, that our Sense (which in other things hath a great Sovereignty over our judgement) is here deceived; for though the Eye would persuade us, that there is Bread, and Wine in the Eucharist, yet they say plainly, that there is neither bread, nor wine; thus teaching, that the understanding here corrects the Eye in seeing, though only by the Eye it learns, that there is any seeing; and affirming, that the understanding (for Faith is an Act thereof) which seethe not at all, here only truly seethe. Thus if we believe those ancient Doctors, a Faith wrought out of sense only, is no better, than Israel (whereof the 
d The Apostle.] 1. Cor. 10.  Apostle speaketh) according to the Flesh.  
But now to descend particularly to their authorities sorting to the passages of this Chapter. First then Eusebius Emissenu serm. de Corpore Dom. saith : invisibilis Sacerdos etc. The invisible Priest doth change through a secret power of his word the visible Creatures into the substance of his body and blood.] And again he saith more plainly: Quando bencdicendae etc. When the Creatures (which are to be blessed) are placed upon the Altars, before they be consecrated with the invocation of the highest Power, they are the substance of Bread, and wine; but after the words of Christ, they are the body, and blood of Christ. What marvel, if those things, which he could create by his word, he can change being already created?  
Proclus Bishop of Constantinople lib. de Trad. divinae Liturgiae. Per quas preces Spiritus sancti adventum expectabant, ut eius divina praesentia propositum in Sacrificio panem, & vinum aqua permixtum, ipsum illud corpus, & sanguinem salvatoris nostri jesu Christi efficeret. By the force of these prayers (meaning the words of the Institution) we expect the coming of the Holy Ghost, that so, his divine presence might make the bread, and wine mingled with water, the very Body, and Blood of jesus Christ our Saviour.  
Augustine serm. quem citat Beda in c. 10. prioris ad Cor. Non omnis panis etc. Not every bread, but that receiving the benediction of Christ, fit Corpus Christi, is made the Body of Christ, where the word (fit) includeth here a true change at least against the Lutherans.  
Chrysostome homil. 83. in Matth. Non sunt humanae etc. The words here performed, are not in the power of Man; we only hold the place of Ministers, but it is he that sanctifieth, and changeth the things.] And then after : Qui dixit etc. He who said, This is my Body, confirmed the fact with his word.] And homil. de Eucharist. in Encaenijs. Num vides panem? num vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? Absit, ne sic cogites. Quemadmodum enim sicera adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit; sic & hic puta, mysteria consumi corporis substantia. Dost thou see Bread? Dost thou see Wine? Do these things pass into the Common passage, as other meats do? Let it be far from thee to think so. For even as wax (laid near to the fire) doth assimilate itself to it, nothing of the substance thereof remaining, or superfluously redounding; So mayst thou suppose the Mysteries here to be consumed by the substance of the body.  
Gaudentius, tract. 2. de Exod. Ipse Naturarum Creator, & Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus (quia & potest, & promisit) efficit proprium Corpus: & qui de aqua vinum fecit, & de vino Sanguinem suum. He who is the Creator, and Lord of all Natures, who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth, and again who of the bread maketh his proper Body (for he is able, and he promised to do it) and who made wine of water, and of wine his own Blood.] And after again : O altitudo divitiarum etc. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom, and knowledge of God Do not think that terrestrial, which is made heavenly by him which passeth into it, and made it his own Body and Blood.] And finally, Non infringamus os illud etc. Let us not break that most  and firm bone, This is my Body, This is my Blood. Now what remaineth in the sense of any one, which he cannot conceive by this exposition, let it be consumed, and burnt away with the ardour, & heat of faith.  
Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium. Videmus quod accepit salvator etc. We do see, what our Saviour took into his hands (as the Evangelist noteth) that he did rise from Supper, that he did take these things, and when he had given thanks, he said, This is mine, and This, and This. And we do see, that it is not equal, nor like to the proportion, or Image in flesh, to the invisible Deity, to the lineaments of Members, for this is of a round form, and insensible according to Power; And he would through grace say: Hoc meum est, Hoc, & Hoc; And yet every one believeth his speech, for who believeth not to be his very true Body, doth fall from grace, and salvation.] Now when he here saith, that it is to be believed, though it be repugnant to sense, this must needs be understood of the Body itself, and not of the signification thereof, since the sense rather helpeth, then hindereth, why we should believe the Sacrament. And when he saith, that we ought to believe, that it is ipsum verum Corpus, the true Body, hereby are excluded all Tropes, and Figures.  
S. Gregory Nyssen, Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo etc. Wherefore we now truly believe even by the word of God, that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God etc. That these things, which are seen (to wit bread, and wine) are changed into that Body of oar Lord, is to be attributed to the virtue of Benediction.  
S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis, Panis meus etc. Perhaps thou sayest, My bread is usual bread; but this bread, is bread before the words of Consecration, but after Consecration is finished, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ] Though our Adversaries do answer this place, by rejecting this book, as not written by S. Ambrose, yet is it cited under his name by Lanfrancus, Guitmundus, and others, who lived above five hundred years since. In like sort in his book de mysterijs init. c. 9 he thus writeth : Fortè dicas; Aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris, quòd Christi Corpus accipiam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest ut probemus, quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus non esse hoc, quod Natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio consecravit? maioremque vim esse benedictionis, quàm Naturae, quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur? Virgam tenebat Moses, proiecit eam, & facta est serpens etc. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio, ut naturam converteret, quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris operantur? Nam Sacramentum istud, quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur etc. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae, ut ignem de Caelo depon●r●t, non valebit Christi Sermo, ut species mutet Elementorum? De totius mundi operibus legisti: Quia ipse dixit, & facta sunt, ipse mandavit, & create a sunt: Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat, non potest ea, quae sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? Non enim minus est novas rebus dare, quàm mutare Naturas. Perhaps thou mayst say; I see another thing, how provest thou to me, that I take the body of Christ? And this remaineth yet for us to prove. What then, or how great examples may we use, to prove, that it is not that, which Nature form, but what benediction hath consecrated? And that there is greater force of Benediction, then of Nature, for even Nature it self is changed by Benediction? Moses' holding a wand in his hand, did cast it from him, and it became a serpent etc. Now if Man's Benediction, or blessing be of such force, as that it can change Nature, what do we say of that divine Consecration where the very words of our Lord our 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 power, as to draw fire from heaven, shall not the words of Christ 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 are made; he commanded, and they are created. Therefore the words of Christ, which of nothing could make that, which was not, can they not change those things, which are, into that, which afore they were not? for it is not a less matter to give new natures to things, then to change Natures.] So clear, and evident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true, and real change in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
S. Cyril of jerusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum etc. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turn water into Wine, which is near to Blood, and is he not worthy to be believed, that he hath changed wine into blood? Wherefore with all assuredness let us take the body, and blood of Christ: for under the form of Bread is given to thee his Body; and under the form of Wine is given his Blood.].  
The same Father in the same Book also saith thus: Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem, & nudum vinum, corpus enim est, & sanguis Christi, secundum ipsius Domini verba: Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit; tamen fides te confirmet, ne● ex gustu rem judices etc. Hoc sciens, & pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis, non esse panem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse Corpus Christi: Et vinum quod à notis conspicitur, ta●●tsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur, non tam●● vinum, sed Sanguine in Christi esse: which latter words are afore related. Do not then consider it as bare Bread, or bare Wine; for it is the Body, and Blood of Christ according to the word of our Saviour himself. For though sense may suggest this to thee, yet let thy faith so confirm this, as that thou judge not the matter from thy taste.] And again after. Hoc sciens etc. This knowing, and accounting it as most certain, that this Bread, which we see, is not Bread, though our Taste do tell us that it is Bread, but it is the Body of Christ; and the Wine, which we behold, though it seemeth wine to our sense of Taste, yet it is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ] And can any Catholic at this time speak more plainly, then are the sayings of this Father? One, who is most ancient, learned, and of whose book (from whence these testimonies are produced) there was never any doubt made.  
S. Cyprian serm. de Coena Dom. Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro, & sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas; ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit Essentia. This Bread, the which our Lord gave to his Disciples, is changed not in outward appearance, but in substance, and by the Omnipotency of the Word it is made Flesh. And as in the Person of Christ the Humanity did appear, and the Divinity did lie hid; so in the visible Sacrament, the divine Essence hath ineffably infused itself.] But what Omnipotency is required to give a signification to any substance? Or if the Change be only by adding a new signification, how can the Bread be said to be changed, non effigy, sed natura? Lastly, the Divinity was truly, and really latent in Christ's Humanity, therefore the Body, and Blood must be truly and really latent under the forms of Bread, and Wine; which to be Cyprians meaning appeareth even by the word Ineffabiliter, there added by him; but what difficulty, or mystery is it, that Bread should signify Christ?  
Tertullian l. 2. ad Vxorem: where speaking of Christian Women that are married to Gentiles, and showing that such marriages are hurtful to the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament, thus saith: Non s●iet Maritus etc. The Husband shall not know, what thou dost taste before all other meats; and if he did, he believeth not the Bread to be him, whom it is said to be.] Which words do evidently imply a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ.  
Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haereses. cap. 34. disputing against such Heretics, as denied Christ to be the Son of the Creator, thus disputeth : Quomodo autem constabit ijs etc. How shall it be made evident to such men, that Bread (whereupon thanks are given) to be the Body of Christ, and the Cup, the Blood of him, if they will not acknowledge him to be the Son of the Maker of the World? That is, the Word of him, by the which Word, the Wood doth fructify, the Springs do flow; who first giveth a kind of grass, than an Ear of corn, lastly the Ear full of wheat.] Hear we are to observe, that Irenaeu● proveth Christ to be the Creator from this, that Bread by force of Consecration is made the Body of Christ; therefore he believed that Bread was really, and truly changed into the Body of Christ, and not only in signification; for it is not an imposition of a new signification, but a true, and real change which necessarily requireth God's Omnipotency.   

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONTAINING The Comparisons of the Eucharist with other Great Mysteries. CHAP. FOUR  
A THIRD point (which indeed is the Centre wherein the Lines of divers such passages do meet) manifesting the Father's belief herein, may be the Observation of their Comparisons of the Eucharist with other things. Thus they compare it with the Paschal Lamb, with the Manna, with Panis Propositions; teaching, that it doth transcend all these, as much as a Divine, and inconsumptible substance excels a terrene, and corruptible, the Body the shadow, and the Truth the Figure. But if Christ's Body be here only by representation, then is the Eucharist a thing corruptible, a shadow, and a mere Figure; and then may our Saviour worthily use towards them the expostulation in Esay, Cui 
a Cui comparastis me?] Esa. 46.  comparastis me.  
Others also in regard of the sublimity thereof, compare it with the Creation (as I touched before) where (not to insist in other points) we find, that by force of the Creation, all Creatures are contained in the Creator (for in ipso vivimus etc.) and by force of this Sacrament, the Creator is contained (after a peculiar manner) under the forms of some of his meanest Creatures.  
Some likewise do teach (besides other such comparisons) that Christ in the Sacrament is to the eye of the soul, as when Angels by assuming bodies appeared to Men, though these being spiritual, seemed corporal, and Christ being corporal appeareth here only as spiritual.  
Finally, divers of them seem to equal it with the Mystery of the Incarnation; and one Father resembleth the difficulty herein to that, where Christ (being as well God as Man) was borne of a Woman, and a Virgin. Now, if the chiefest obscurity in the Eucharist doth rest in Types, Representations, and Resemblances, how cold, disproportionable, dissorting, yea absurd and false are the comparisons here made with those former stupendious Mysteries of Christianity, and particularly of the Incarnation? Where (to omit all other passages thereof above our capacity) we find the Vine to bud out of the Branch; the Ocean to flow from a shallow River; and the Sun to borrow it light from a small Star.  
First then occurreth S. Leo serm. 7. the Passione Dom. who thus saith:  ergo Vinbrae etc. That therefore the Shadows might give place to the Body, and Images, or Resemblances to the presence of the Truth, the ancient observation is taken away by a new Sacrament; the Host is changed into an Host, blood excludeth blood, and the Legal Solemnity whiles it is changed, is fulfilled, and accomplished.  
S. Augustine l. 3. Trinit. c. 10. Illas etiam Nubes etc. What man knoweth, how those Clouds, and Fires were made, which the Angels assumed, and took on to signify, what they were to deliver or speak, yea though our Lord, or the Holy Ghost appeared in these forms? Even as Infants knew not that, which is placed upon the Altar, and consumed after the celebration of Piety is finished, how it is made, and by what means it is used in Religion. And if they never learned, either by their own experience, or of others, and should never see the forms of those things, but in the celebration of Sacraments, when it is offered, & given, and said to them by most grave authority, whose Body, and Blood it is, they would believe no otherwise, but that our Lord appeared only in that form to the fight of men, and that kind of liquor only flowed from his wounded side. Hear we are to note, that these Infants could not believe, that those things which they there did see, were the Body, and Blood of Christ, only by way of signification; but truly, and properly. For of themselves they could not understand these Tropes; neither can it be said, that these children had a false faith, for it is said, they believed so, Authoritate gravisima.  
Again, lib. 2. contra litteras Petiliani, c. 37. Aliud est Pascha, quod judaei de oue celebrant, aliud quod nos in Corpore & sanguine Domini accipimus: There is one Pascha, which they yet celebrate of the Lamb but that is another, which we receive in the Body, and Blood of our lord] But if he should speak of our Lord's Body in sign only, his words were false, because the Paschall Lamb was in signification the Body of Christ, as well as the Bread; as is proved above.  
He also in epist. 86. ad Casulanum, where reprehending one Vrbicus, for teaching that the Law was so turned into the Gospel, as that a sheep should give place to Bread, and Blood to the Cup, thus writeth: Dicit cessisse pani pecus etc. Vrbicus saith, that sheep did give place to Bread, as being ignorant, that even then Panes Propositionis, the breads of Proposition, were wont to be placed upon the Table of the Lord, and that now himself taketh part of the body of the immaculate Lamb: in like sort, he saith, that Blood did give place to the Cup, not remembering, that himself now taketh Blood in the Cup.] And then a little after S. Augustine subjoineth: Quanto ergo melius etc. How much better, and more agreeingly might Vrbicus have said, that those ancient things did so pass away, & so became new in Christ, that the Altar should give place to the Altar, the sword to the sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, sheep to sheep, blood to blood.] But here Vrbicus (according to the sentence of our Adversaries) did not err, for if we respect the sign, or representation only, Christ was no less in the Sheep of the Old Law, than now in Bread; and his Blood no less in that Blood, then in our Wine. And therefore in our adversaries judgements, the sheep did truly give place to Bread, and Blood to Wine.  
S. Hierome in Comment Psal. 109. Quomodo Melchisedech etc. Even as Melchisedech being King of Salem offered up Bread, and Wine; so thou offerest up thy Body, and Blood, being true bread, and true Blood. This our Melchisedech hath delivered to us these mysteries, which now we enjoy, for it is he, who said: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum etc.] In this place the body, and blood of Christ is clearly opposed to the Bread, and Wine of Melchisedech: And his Body, and Blood is here called True Bread, and True Blood (to wit, in regard of the effect, which is to nourish our Souls, but not in respect of Nature) for if we respect the Nature of Bread, the Bread of Melchisedech was true Bread.  
He also in Comment. c. 1. Epist. ad Titum. Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis etc. There is as great difference between Panes Propositionis (the showbread) and the Body of Christ, as there is between the Image, and the Truth; between the Examples of Truths, and those Truths, which are prefigured by the Examples.] Where we are to note, that in this place Hierome entreateth particularly of the Eucharist. Now if in the Eucharist be the Truth which was figured per panes Propositionis, then there is not in the Eucharist material Bread signifying the Body of Christ, but the true Body itself; for the body of Christ (even in the judgement of all) was that Truth, which was prefigured by those Breads.  
S. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in 1. ad Cor. compares the Magis with us, saying to this effect, that the Magis had this body in the Manger, but we have it upon the Altar; They had it only in the arms of a woman, but we in the hands of a Priest; they only saw the simple body of Christ, but we see the same Body, but withal do know his power, and virtue. Thus in this Antithesis doth S. Chrysostome conclude, that we have his body in a more worthy sort, than the Magis had it; which he could not affirm truly, if we have his Body only in sign, and representation.  
And Homil. 51. in Matth. Adeamus Christum etc. Let every one of us, which are sick, come to Christ; for if those, which only touched the edge of his garment, were all perfectly recovered, how much more shall we be strengthened, if we shall have him whole in us?] Hear he cannot speak of Christ as in sign only, in that, there is not so great a virtue of the sign of Christ, as was of the hem of his garment.  
Likewise, Homil. 24. in priorem epist. ad Corinth. he saith : Dum in hac vita sumus, ut terra nobis Caelum sit, facit hoc mysteriam. Ascend igitur ad Caeli port as, & diligenter attend, imò non Caeli, sed Caeli Caelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. Etenim quod summo honore dignam est, id tibi in terra ostendam. Nam quemadmodum in Regijs non parietes, non tectum aureum, sed Regium Corpus in Throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est: ita quoque in Caelis regium Corpus, quod nunc in Terra videndum tibi proponitur; neque enim Angelos, neque Archangelos, non Caelos, non Caelos Caelorum, sed ipsum horum omnium Dominum ostendo: Whilst we here live, this Mystery maketh, that the Earth becometh Heaven to us. Therefore ascend to the gates of Heaven, yea not only of Heaven, but of the highest Heaven, and observe diligently, and then thou shalt behold, what we here say: for what is worthy of chiefest honour, that I will show thee here upon the earth. For, even as in Prince's Courts, not the walls, nor the Chamber, or Cloth of Estate, but the Body of the Prince sitting in his Throne, is the chiefest thing there: even so is the like of that Princely Body in Heaven, which is here upon the earth set forth to thee to behold; for here I do not show thee the Angels, nor archangels, not the Heavens, nor the highest Heavens, but I show thee the Lord of all these.] But there is none, but he had rather see the Angels, and archangels, than Bread, and Wine representing only Christ.  
And also Chrysostome in the same place maketh another comparison in these words following: Si puer Regius etc. If the Prince's Child clothed in Purple, and crowned with the Diadem, should be carried by thee, wouldst thou not (casting away all other things upon the ground) take him into thy arms? But now here, when thou takest, not the Son of any Prince, being but a Man, but the only begotten Son of God, art thou not afraid, and dost not thou cast from thee the care of all secular things?] But if Chrysostome did here speak of Christ only in Sign, and representation, the comparison should have been made only between the Image, or Picture of the King's Son, and not with the Son himself  
And Homil. ad Neophytos. Sicut Regnantium statuae etc. Even as the Statues, or Images of Princes have been accustomed to secure such, as have fled to them for Sanctuary, and this not because they are made of brass, but in that they do bear the Image of the Prince; even so that blood did free (meaning that Blood of the Lamb in the old Testament, which was sprinkled upon the Posts to free the Israelites from the striking Angel) not because it was blood, but because it did figure out the coming of this Blood. But now if the Enemy shall see, not the blood of the Type cast upon the posts, or walls, but the blood of Truth shining in the mouths of the faithful, he will much more withdraw himself from hence. For if the Angel gave place to the Example, how much more will the Enemy be terrified, if he shall behold the Truth itself?] In which place we see, that Chrysostome placeth the truth of the Blood, not in the mind, but in the mouths of the Faithful.  
And, Homil. 51. in Matth. O quet modo dicunt etc. O how many do now say, I would see the form of Christ, and his favour, I would see his vestments, and even his shoes! Now thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him.] Where he meaneth, that we see, feel, and eat Christ truly, and really under those forms of Bread, and Wine, which are properly seen, and touched.  
Again, he saith in the same place: that there was never Shepherd, who fed his shep with his own flesh, as Christ did, and that divers Mothers are to be found, who deliver over their Infants to others to be nursed, contrary to the proceedings of our Saviour: which comparisons can have no fitting proportion, if we eat the Body of Christ only in Figure, and sign.  
Lastly (to omit for brevities sake divers others of his similitudes) he thus writeth Hom. 2. ad Pop. Antiochenum: Helias melotem etc. Helias did leave to his disciple his vestment, but the Son of God ascending to Heaven, did leave his flesh; But Helias by leaving it, was disuested thereof; whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us, yet ascending to Heaven, there also hath it.] So frequent is this holy Father in Comparisons, and Similitudes, all brought in to show the excellency of that thing, which we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which if it were not the body, and blood of Christ, then were these comparisons most cold, and disproportionable.  
Gaudentius Tract. 2. de Exodo. teacheth, that the jews had not all one Paschal Lamb, but divers, in that every family did kill it peculiar Lamb; but that among the Christians one, and the same Lamb (to wit, the body, and blood of Christ) is offered up, and eaten in all the Churches. Which words signify, that the body of Christ is not offered up only in representation, since in that sense the jews had one, and the same Lamb, in that all their Lambs did signify one Lamb, to wit Christ.  
S. Basil l. 2. de Baptismo c. 2. thus writeth : Simo tales minae etc. If such threats be ordained against those, who come rashly to such holy things as are sanctified by Man; what shall we say of him, who is temerarious, and rash towards such, and so great a Mystery? For by how much Christ is greater than the Temple, according to the voice of our Lord, by so much it is more grievous, and terrible, rashly to touch the body of Christ in impurity of soul, then to approach to Rams, or Bull● etc.] But this saying of S. Basil cannot be true, except the body of Christ be really in the Eucharist For between Christ, and the Rams sacrificed by the jews the difference is infinite; but between those Rams signifying Christ, and bread figuring our Saviour, the difference is but small.  
S. Ambrose lib. de Mysterijs initiandis, c. 9 teacheth, that a more excellent meat is given to us in the Eucharist, than ever the Manna was to the jews. The like he hath l. 4 de Sacramentis c. 3. 4. & 5. But Manna was both for substance, and signification (as is proved afore) better then bread, only representing the body of Christ.  
Again, lib. 6. de Sacramentis c. 1. Sicut verus est Filius Dei etc. Even as our Lord jesus Christ is the true Son of God, not as Men are his Sons by grace, but as a Son of the Substance of the Father: so it is true Flesh, even as himself said, which we take.] Out of which sentence it followeth, that as Christ is truly and really the Son of God: So is that, which we take in the Eucharist, the true body, and blood of Christ.  
Again, lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9 he proveth the same from the mystery of the Incarnation in these words: Liquet, quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo generavit, & hoc quod conficimus, Corpus ex Virgine est. Quid hic queris Naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cùm praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus jesus partus ex Virgin? It is manifest, that a Virgin brought forth a Son beyond the course of Nature; And this Body, which we make, proceedeth from the Virgin. Why dost thou here expect the course of Nature, since our Lord jesus is borne of a Virgin above nature?] But if the Bread did only signify our saviours Body in the Eucharist, this proof of S. Ambrose had been superfluous.  
S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate, speaking of the Truth of the Body, and Blood in the Eucharist, thus concludeth: An hoc veritas non est &c. What, is not this Truth? Let it not be a truth to those, who deny Christ jesus to be true God.] Thus Hilarius here proveth the Mystery of the Eucharist, by the Mystery of the Trinity.  
S. Athanasius (as he is cited by Theodoret in 2. Dialog.) thus writeth: Corpus est, cui dicit etc. It is a Body, to whom it was said, Sede à dextris meis, of which Body the Devils with all the wicked Powers, as also the jews, and Grecians were Enemies; by means of which Body (Christ) was both the High Priest, and an Apostle; and this Body is specified in that Mystery, which is delivered to us, when himself said: This is my Body which is delivered for you, and the blood of the New Testament, not of the Old, which is shed for you. But Divinity hath neither a Body, nor Blood.] Hear he proveth, that Christ hath a true Body, in that Christ as an High Priest gave his Body to us in those words, Hoc est Corpus meum: but if his true body were not delivered to us thereby, his reason would prove nothing against the Heretics denying the Truth of his Body, in that it might be replied, that the Eucharist was but a Figure of the apparent, and seeming body which they taught, that Christ had.  
S. Cyprian sermone de Coena Domini, saith: Coena disposita etc. The Supper of those sacramental Banquets being prepared, the Old, and New Institutions did there meet together, and the Lamb (which the Ancient Tradition proposed) being spent, the Master gave to his Disciples an inconsumptible meat.] Hear by the words, Cibum inconsumptibilem, cannot be understood the Body of Christ, as it is eaten by Faith, because in that the jews by their Paschall Lamb had that meat (to wit by representation) as well as we Christians. Neither by the said words can be understood the Bread in the Eucharist, because Bread is as well consumptible, and to be spent, as a Lamb is.  
In the same Sermon he also saith: (of which place I have entreated before) Sicut in Persona Christi etc. Even as in the Person of Christ, his Humanity appeared, but his Divinity was hid, or latent, so in the visible Sacrament, the Divine Essence doth ineffably infuse itself.] From which words, the truth of the Doctrine of the Eucharist is proved from the Mystery in the Incarnation.  
Origen homil. 7. in Lib. Numeri: Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus, nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei est verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit, Quia caromea est verè cibus. Then (to wit in the Old Law) the Manna was meat obscurely, & Enigmatically, but now indeed the Flesh of the Word of God is true meat, even as himself said: Quia caro mea verè est cibus.] But the Manna was the body of Christ tropically, and figuratively.  
Tertullian lib. de Idololatria, thus saith : Pr●h Scel●●l semel judaei etc. O Villainy! the jews once offered violence unto Christ, but these Men daily do wrong his body. O that their hands might be cut off!] In which place he inveigheth against certain men, who made such Priests, or at the least Deacons, which were artificers, or makers of Idols. But if Tertullian had thought, that there were only, Bread in the Eucharist representing the Body of our Saviour, he would not compare such, as handled the Sacrament unworthily with those which crucified Christ. Where also we are to note, that he there speaketh not of such, who with affectation, and intended purpose did wrong Christ by violating the Sacraments, but of those only, who being sinners, dared to deliver the Sacrament to the Communicants.  
Irenaeus l. 4 contra Haeres. c. 34. Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis Panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & caelesti; sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistian, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Even as the Bread proceeding from the Earth, receiving the invocation of God, is not now common Bread, but it is the Eucharist, consisting of two things, to wit, a terrene thing, and a celestial thing; so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not corruptible, as having thereby the hope of rising again.] Where Irenaeus maketh a Comparison between the Eucharist, and the Article of the Resurrection. But our Body really & truly after the Resurrection shall become immortal, and not in signification only, therefore the Bread is truly become the Body of Christ, and not in signification only. Now how the Eucharist may be termed terrena, see S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose in the sixth chapter of this 2. Tract.  
S. justinus Martyr, in Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum Imperatorem, saith: Non enim ut communem Panem, neque communem Potum haec sumimus; Sed quemadmodum per Verbum Dei Incarnatus jesus Christus salvator noster, & carnem, & sanguinem pro salute nostra habuit: sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei, ab ipso Eucharistiam factum cibum, ex quo sanguis, & carnes nostrae per mutationem aluntur, illius Incarnati jesu, & carnem, & sanguinem esse edocti sumus. We do not take these, as common Bread, and common Drink; but as jesus Christ our Saviour being Incarnated by the Word of God, had flesh, and blood for our health & salvation: even so we learn, that through the prayers of the Word of God, that meat (whereby our blood, and flesh are nourished through the alteration thereof) being made the Eucharist, is the Flesh, and Blood of jesus, who was incarnated.] In which words, there is a comparison between the Eucharist, and the Incarnation of Christ, and he proveth the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist from the Mystery of the Incarnation, inferring, that by the same power the Bread might be made the Body of Christ, by the which power God was Incarnated: but if he did understand, that the Bread was the Body by representation only, then in vain is brought the Example of the Incarnation, since it is no Miracle, that Bread should signify the Body of Christ. Add hereto, that justinus Martyr if he did mean the Body only in sign, had reason to explain himself to the Emperor, in that he here did write an Apology for the Christians, to whom (besides other crimes) it was objected that in the mysteries of their Religion they did eat Man's flesh.   

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES CONFESSING The inexplicable greatness of this Mystery. CHAP. V.  
THE fourth Classis may contain such passages of the Fathers, wherein is acknowledged a Supreme Mystery in the Eucharist. For first, they teach, that it transgressing the bounds of human capacity, is to be apprehended only by faith. Thus advancing the dignity, and worth of faith, as being able to understand that, which the understanding (of which Faith is but an Act) cannot naturally understand: So cloudy, & dark is that Faculty of the mind, except the mists thereof be dispelled, and dissipated by the illuminating beams of God's grace. Hence it ariseth, that they are very frequent in their exhortations, that we should not fluctuate in any uncertainty of judgement, but assure ourselves (by disclaiming from sense, humbling our judgements, and voiding our minds of all prejudice of opinion) of the infallible Truth thereof, since it is wrought by the virtue of his words, who is Truth itself 
a Veritas, & Via.] john 14.  Ego sum Veritas, & Via. So well those holy Doctors did know, that the more Crystalline, & clear the chiefest faculties of our Souls are become, and the more polished, & freed from all natural blemishes the glass thereof is, the more perfectly we may behold this high Mystery, since during our exile here, all such abstruse difficulties we do but see as it were per 
b Per speculum.] 1. Cor. 13.  speculum in enigmate. But when we are arrived by means of death into our Country (for Heaven is the souls proper Orb) than all such heavenly mysteries, being now over ponderous, and weighty for us, as pressing our understanding too much; shall bnecome there most light, and easy to be apprehended, according to that (to speak allusively) in Philosophy, Nullum Elementum ponderat in sua propria Sphaera: for than we shall contemplate not only all Creatures, but other things worthy of knowledge, intuitively in God, as now we do behold God discursively in his Creatures.  
But to return. The Fathers finally do refer the miraculous change made in the Eucharist, only to God's Illimitable Puissance, within which vast circumference, every thing is contained, that may in any sort exist, confessing fully, that it cannot be wrought by any inferior Power, for he only is able to perform such (as I may term them) possible Impossibilities; since his Omnipotency doth facilitate that, which otherwise in Nature is not factible.  
Hear now I refer to the judgement of the impartial Reader, how unaptly, and untowardly all such passages of the Fathers are applied to Bread, and Wine, signifying only the body, and blood of our Saviour. We will then come to those Testimonies acknowledging so great a Mystery herein.  
Eusebius Emyssenus (or whosoever else was the Author of that Treatise, entitled Sermo de Corpore Demini, which Book was alleged by Paschasius Corbeiensis eight hundred years since) thus writeth in the said book: Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum etc. Let all doubt of infidelity departed from thee, since ●e, who is the Author of the gift, is witness of the Truth.] And again: Ad cognoscendum etc. To know, and perceive the Sacrifice of the true Body, let the Power of him who consecrateth it, confirm thee therein.] So clear is this Father herein.  
S. Leo Serm. 14. the Passione Domini. Ipsum per omnia etc. Let us taste him fully, both in spirit, and in flesh.]  
S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in joan. explicating those words, Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum? thus writeth : Firmam fidem Mysterijs adhibentes, numquam in tam sub●imibus, rebus illud Quomodo, aut cogitemus, aut proferamus, etc. We firmly believing these mysteries, never let us in such high points either think, or bring forth this word Quomodo, How? etc.]  
S. Augustine l. 3. de Trinitate c. 4. Quod cùmper manus etc. Which thing (speaking of Bread) when it is brought by men's hands to that visible form, it is no otherwise sanctified to be so great a Sacrament, then by the invisible working of the spirit of God, since all those things, which are in this work performed by corporal motions, God doth work.] But this working of the holy Ghost is not necessary, that Bread should signify only the Body of Christ. Add hereto, that S. Augustine in this place doth reckon the work here in the Eucharist among other great Miracles, to wit, the Rain of Hebas obtained of God, the Wand of Aaron which budded fresh, the Wand of Moses turned into a Serpent, the water turned into wine by Christ.  
And in Psal. 33. Conc. 1. upon those words of the Psalm, Et ferebatur manibus suis etc. thus writeth. Hoc quomodo potest fieri in homine, quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David, secundum literam non invenimus; in Christo autem invenimus: ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum; ait, Hoc est Corpus meum: ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. Who can understand, how this can happen in Man? For who is carried in his own hands? A man may be carried in the hands of another, but in his own hands he cannot be carried. How this may be literally understood in David, we find not, but in Christ we find: for Christ was carried in his own hands, when commending his body, he said, Hoc est Corpus meum, for than did he carry that body in his own hands.] But if Christ did carry his body in his own hands, only in sign, and representation (as a Man bearing about him the picture of himself) then were it no difficult thing; and yet S. Augustine saith, it is a thing impossible, and cannot be performed, but only by Christ. Neither do our Adversaries satisfy this place in replying, that Christ did carry himself in a Sacrament, but none but Christ can institute a Sacrament, and consequently none can carry themselves, as Christ did. This, I say, availeth nothing, because our Adversaries do confess, that Christ is said to carry himself in the Sacrament, not because a Sacrament is an Instrument of conferring Grace (for this they deny) but because it is a sign of Christ; and so in this last respect there is no difficulty for one to carry himself.  
Finally S. Augustine, tract. 26. in joannem, explicating that, Panis, quem ego dabo, Caromea est, thus writeth : Hoc quando caperet caro, quod dixit panem carnem? vocatur Caro, quod non capit Caro. When would flesh conceive, or apprehend how he called Bread Flesh? That is called Flesh, which Flesh apprehendeth not.] But flesh, or a sensual understanding may easily conceive, that bread may be called flesh figuratively, and by way of representation only.  
S. Hierome epist. ad Hedibiam quaest. 2. Nec Morses dedit etc. Neither did Moses give to us true Bread, but our Lord jesus is the Guest, and the Banquet, the Person eating, and the thing eaten.] But it cannot be truly said, that Moses did not give Panem verum, that is, the body of Christ, if the Eucharist were no otherwise the Body of Christ, then by signification. Add hereto, that S. Hierome here implieth a difficulty, in being the thing eaten, and the party eating; which point cannot be referred to Christ eating Bread, which only representeth his Body.  
S. Chrysostome, Homil. 60. add popul. Antiochenum, saith: Credamus ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etiamsi sensui, & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur, quod dicit. Superet & sensum, & rationem nostram sermo, quaeso, ipsius, quod in omnibus rebus, sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus, non illa, quae ante non iacentes solummodo aspicientes, sed verba eius quoque tenentes: nam verbis illius defraudari non possumus: Sensus noster deceptu facillimus est, quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est Corpus meum, nulla dubitatione teneamur, sed credamus.] Let us believe God in every thing, neither let us gainsay 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 the Holy Mysteries, not only beholding those things, which lie before us, but also laying full hold of his words; for his words cannot deceive us, but our sense may easily be deceived.  
Also in Homil. 51. in Matth. Qui mains, id est, animam etc. He that laid down a greater thing for thee (to wit his soul) why should he disdain to deliver to thee his Body? Therefore let us Priests, as well as others hear how admirable a thing is granted to us; Let us hear (I beseech you) and let us tremble thereat, for he hath delivered his Flesh to us he hath laid down himself to be sacrificed.]  
And the same Father l. 3. de Sacerdotio. O miraculum! o Dei benignitate! etc. O the Miracle! o the goodness of God He that sitteth above with his Father, even in the very same instant of time is handled with the hands of all, and delivereth himself to such, as are willing to entertain, and embrace him.]  
Gaudentius tract. 2. in Exod. saith: Quod annuntiatum est credas etc. Thou mayst believe that, which is showed thee, for that, which thou takest is the body of that Heavenly Bread, and the blood of that sacred Vine, for when he delivered conseerated Bread, and Wine to his Disciples, he said: Hoc est Corpus meum. Hic est Sanguis meus. Let us believe him, whom heretofore we have believed, for Truth knoweth not to lie.]  
S. Ephrem lib. De Natura Dei minimè scrutanda. c. 5. thus writeth : Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia? Si ista curiosè rimaris, iam non fidelis, sed curiosus vocaberis. Esto fidelis, atque innocens, participa immaculato corpori Domini tui fide plenissima, certus quòd agnum ipsum integrum comedis. Why dost thou search things which are inscrutable? If thou dost weigh these things curiously, than thou shalt be called not faithful, but curious. Be thou Faithful, and Innocent; participate thou of the immaculate Body of thy Lord, being assured through a most strong faith, that thou dost eat the very whole Lamb itself.]  
And the same Father after in the said book: Hoc sanè excedit omnem admirationem etc. This verily exceedeth all Wonder, all Thought, and all Speech, which the only Begotten Son of God Christ our Saviour hath performed to us. He hath given to us fire, and the spirit to eat, and drink, to wit his Body, and Blood.] Hear the Miracle exceeding Man's capacity, the difficulty of believing it, and the inscrutablenesse thereof do prove, that the Eucharist in his judgement, was not only material bread signifying the body of Christ.  
S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 2. de Paschate, thus writeth: Absque confusione, & dubio come de corpus, & sanguinem bibe, si saltem vitae desiderio teneris: neque sermonibus, qui de carne habentur, fidem deneges, neque ob passionem offendaris. Constans esto, firmus, & stabilis, in nulla re propter Aduersariorum sermones fluctues. Eat his body, and drink his blood without any confusion, or doubt, if at least thou have any desire of health: neither deny thy faith herein for any speeches, which may proceed of flesh, neither be thou scandalised by reason of his Passion. Be thou constant, firm, and stable, neither fluctuate, nor doubt thou by reason of any speeches of the Adversaries.] where we are to note, that he persuadeth his Reader to this so great a Mystery, though the Adversaries (to wit, the Gentile Philosophers) do scoff thereat, meaning in that the Christians believed, that they did eat the Flesh of Christ; which cohortation of Nazianzene were needless, if only we do eat the flesh of Christ in sign, and Figure.  
S. Gregory Nyssene Orat. Catechetica. c. 36. & 37. thus writeth : Considerandum est, quomodo fieri queat, ut cùm unum illud corpus assiduè per totum orbem terrarum, tot fidelium millibus impertiatur, totum cuiusque perpartem evadat, & in seipso totum permaneat. It is to be considered, how it can be effected, that, that very one same Body can daily throughout the whole world be distributed to so many thousands of the faithful, it notwithstanding remaining whole in itself, and whole, or entire in every part.] But this were idly demanded, if the Body of Christ were eaten only in sign, since there is no difficulty in apprehending the eating of it in sign, and figure.  
S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 5. saith: Deinde ipse Dominus jesus testificatur nobis, quòd corpus suum accipiamus, & sanguinem, numquid debemus de eius fide, & t●st●ficatione dubitare? Et infra: Dicit tibi Sacerdos, Corpus Christi, tu dicis, Amen. Hoc est verum. Quod confitetur lingua, teneat affectus.] Furthermore even our Lord himself doth testify unto us, that we take his Body, and Blood. What ought we to doubt of his credit, and testimony? And afterwards. The Priest saith to thee, The Body of Christ, thou sayest, Amen. This is true: therefore let thy affection hold that, which thy tongue confesseth.]  
The first Council of nice (as it appeareth in the Acts of the said Council) thus saith: Item etiam hic in divina Mensa etc. Furthermore in this divine Table, let us not only with humility consider the Bread, & the Cup, but lifting up our mind in faith, let us understand, that, in that sacred Table, there is placed that Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, & that he is unbloodily sacrificed by Priests: and we truly taking his precious Body, & Blood, do believe the taking thereof to be a sign of our Resurrection, and therefore we take not in a great quantity, but in a small, that thereby we may know it to be taken not for society, but for sanctification.] In these words the Council persuades us that we should not rest in the forms of Bread, & Wine (as if nothing were there else) but that we are to consider, that there is the true Body, and Blood of Christ, though to our Eye it seemeth otherwise.  
Now that this is the meaning of the Council, appeareth: First, because it there teacheth, that we do take Preciosum Corpus eius verè, his precious Body truly: where the word Verè doth bear an opposition to that, which is in Figure. Secondly, in that the Council saith: that the Lamb of God is sacrificed by Priests upon the holy Table, which words cannot extend to Christ, as he is in heaven only. Thirdly, in that the Council saith, that we are to apprehend by faith, that the Lamb of God is placed upon that holy Table, therefore the Council did teach, that Christ himself was upon the Altar, and not only in Heaven, as our Adversaries do hold. So forcible and strong is this grave Testimony of so Ancient, and Reverend a Council in defence of our Catholic doctrine herein.   

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES EXPRESSING The effect of the Eucharist, and the veneration exhibited to the same. CHAP. VI  
THE fifth Mount of the Father's Authorities in this Controversy is gathered, or heaped together out of such their Sentences, containing the Effect, Virtue, and Energy of the Eucharist, as also their care, reverence, and veneration exhibited to the same. Concerning the first point, they teach, that it is the Pledge of our Resurrection, and Salvation; that by it (to use the Apostles phrase) we are made divinae 
a Divinae etc.] 2. Pet. 1.  consortes Naturae, that Christ is thereby inwardly, and corporally united with us. Which corporal union (being most precious) serves as a means to procure our conjunction (caused thereby) with him, in all virtues flowing from him, as from our Saviour, and Redeemer; And therefore we are not only armed by force hereof against the assaults of all future temptations, but also Grace is derived to us, to have a true loathing, and contrition of our former Impieties, & withal to receive a full remission of the same; for we hold, that this Holy Mystery is not only a Commemoration, but also an application of Christ's death to us, and we willingly acknowledge, that touching the expiation of our Sins, the fire of the Father's wrath is only quenched in the Blood of the sons Passion.  
All which Celestial Operations, as streaming from the Blessed Eucharist, he may more easily believe, who will consider, that Christ is the proper Sphere, wherein the soul reposeth herself; His grace being the spiritual Air that she anhales, and draws in, the which she no sooner ceaseth to Breath, than she ceaseth to live; for it is written, She, who 
b She who liveth.] 1. Tim. 5.  liveth in sin, dieth while she liveth.  
Now as for the second Point; we gather out of their Writings, first that they were most solicitous, & careful, that no part of the Consecrated Host should fall upon the ground; and if casually it did, then was that place scraped, and the small parcels thereof put in the fire. Secondly, that they did adore the Sacrament; which Action how can it be given by them without manifest danger of Idolatry, if nothing but Bread, and Wine be there? Thirdly, that they taught, that the Eucharist was to be invoked, according to that of S. Basil: Verba Inuocationis, dum ostenditur Panis Eucharistiae etc. quis Sanctorum nobis in Scripto reliquit?  
Finally, that even Angels (capitibus inclinatis) did attend upon the Altar, whilst the most dreadful Sacrifice of Christ's Body, and Blood was offered up in the forms of Bread, and Wine: Hostia in manibus (saith one 
c One Father.] Chrysost. homil. 21. in Act Apostol.  Father) adsunt Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest filius Dei; cum tanto horrore astant omnes. Which Harmony, and Consent of doctrine in the monuments of so many of the Fathers, if it seem harsh, and distunable to our nice sectaries, we marvel not, since they have vowed, that their ears shall receive no other intelligence herein, then from their Neighbours, their Eyes. But we Catholics, who cannot brook to have the humanity of Christ (which we assure ourselves to be in the Eucharist) divorced from the Divinity, do easily believe, that in this most holy Oblation, his Godhead is there waited on with millions of Angels: No less happy than are those most blessed Spirits for enjoining the honour of such an Attendance, then are those men, in whom he vouchsafeth for the time to Inn, that in him themselves may hope for ever after to dwell.  
First then S. Cyril of Alexandria l. 4. in joan. c. 15. thus writeth : Sicut scintilla ignis etc. Even as a spark of fire lighting upon hay, or straw, doth presently inflame it all; even so the word of God joined to our corruptible nature by means of the Eucharist, doth make it all to rise immortal, & glorious.  
And, l. 10. in joan. c. 13. Non negamus recta nos fide etc. We do not deny, that we are joined with Christ spiritually in true faith, and sincere charity, but we altogether deny, that we are not in no sort conjoined with him according to the flesh, and we affirm it to be altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures. And a little after, he thus enlargeth himself: An fortassis putat etc. What is it to be thought, that we know not the virtue of the mystical Benediction? The which being in us, doth it not make through the communication of the Flesh of Christ, Christ himself corporally to dwell in us?] Where we see, that he teacheth, that we receive Christ not only by Faith (as our Adversaries do teach) but also corporally, so making an Antithesis, or opposition between these two manners of receiving him.  
S. Augustine l. 9 Confess. c. 13. speaking of his Mother Monica, thus writeth : Tantummodo memoriam sui etc. Only she desired, that she might be remembered at thy Altar, where she knew that Holy Sacrifice to be dispensed, by the which that Handwriting, which was contrary to us, is canceled.] But here this Victima or Sacrifice cannot be any thing, but the Flesh of Christ, for the Bread was not sacrificed for us, and where he saith, that this sacrifice is dispensed, or ministered, at, or from the Altar, he showeth that he meaneth not Christ, as he is taken by faith only, but bodily by mouth.  
And, Epist. 118. c. 3. he teacheth great Reverence to be given to the Eucharist, saying, that such as do frequent the Sacrament daily out of devotion, or forbear it sometime for devotion also, may be compared to Zachaeus, or the Centurion, whereof the one said, Lord I am not worthy, that thou spouldest enter into my house, the other received him into his house. Which comparison had been most disproportionable, if we take nothing but Bread, as the sign of Christ's Body.  
And, in Psal. 98. expounding those words, Adorate scabellum pedum eius, saith : That the Footstool of our Lords feet is the Earth, according to that of Esay 66. Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum. Now S. Augustine expounding how the Earth may be adored without sin, thus writeth: Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaro hi●, & invenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, adoretur Scabellum pedum eius; Suscepit enim de terra terram, quia Caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae, carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulau●t, & ipsam carnem manducandam nobis dedit ad salutem: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi priùs adoraverit. I nuentum est quemadmodum adoretur tale Scabellum pedum Domini, ut non solùm non peccemus adorando, sedpeccemus non adorando. I doubting herein do turn myself to Christ, because I seek him here, and do find, how without a●y impiety the Earth may be adored, the footstool of his feet may be adored; for he did take earth from earth, because flesh cometh of the earth, and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary. And because he did here walk in that flesh, and gave that flesh to be eaten by us for our health: now no man doth eat that flesh, except he adore it before. Hear than it is found, how such a Footstool of the feet of our Lord may be adored, so as that here not only we do not sin in adoring, but we sin in not adoring.] Now here it cannot be replied, that the meaning of this Father is, that the faithful do eat the Body of Christ existing only in Heaven with the mouth of faith, because the Faithful do only adore it. This is false, for even according to the judgement of S. Augustine, the wicked do adore the Body of Christ, and eat his Body from the Altar. For, epist. 120. ad Honoratum c. 27. where speaking of the wicked, he saith : Adducti sunt ad Mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore, & sanguine cius, sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur, quia non imitantur.  
Finally, S. Augustine l. 50. Homil. 26. warneth most earnestly, that Men should be careful, that no part of the Host should fall upon the ground.  
Chrysostome homil. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. Et tu ad saluturem hanc hostiam etc. And thou art ready to come to this healthful host, which even the Angels do behold with fear.] And, Homil. de Eucharist. in Encaenijs. Agnus Dei immolatur etc. The Lamb of God is offered up in Sacrifice. The Seraphims are present covering their faces with wings.] But how fantastical and imaginary a conceit were it to think that these places can be applied to Bread, and Wine, signifying only the Body, and Blood of Christ?  
Again, Homil. 60. ad Populum Antiochenum, he saith: Cogita quali sis insignitus honore etc. Bethink thyself, with what honour thou art here graced, what Table thou enjoyest. We feed of that, and are united therewith, the which the Angels beholding are afraid, and dare not look upon the same in regard of the illustrious splendour thereof.] And in the like sort, Homil. 61. Huic & supernae potestates etc. The higher powers do assist, and wait hercupon, because they behold the virtue of the things there placed, more than we do, and do admire the inaccesible splendour, and lightness thereof.] And that these places of this Father are to be taken literally, appeareth out of another place of his writings, to wit l. 6. de Sacerdotio in these words : Ego verò & commemorantem quemdam audivi etc. I did over hear one reporting, who told, that a certain old and venerable Man (to whom many mysteries had afore been revealed) was vouchsafed by God to be made worthy of a Vision, and that during this time (viz. of celebrating the sacrifice of the Altar) he did see whole multitudes of Angels to descend suddenly down (as much as the sight of Man could endure) being clothed with shining vestments, and standing round about the Altar; and bowing down their heads in such sort, as if one should behold shoulders bearing themselves in the presence of their King. Thus far S. Chrysostome. The truth of which narration I do not so much urge (since I presume our Adversaries will esteem it as fabulous) but I urge, that S. Chrysostome thought it to be true (since otherwise he would never have recorded it) and consequently, that he believed, that Angels were truly, and really present at the Altar during the time of the celebration of the Eucharist.  
In like sort, Homil. 41. in priorem ad Corinth. Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus, aut accedimus, pro istis Agnum illum iacentem, & peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes. We do not in vain celebrate the memory of the dead at the Divine Mysteries; neither do we in vain approach, beseeching that Lamb there lying for them, & taking away the sins of the World.] which words imply manifestly, that the Eucharist was in his time invoked.  
The same Father, Homil. 60. add Pop. Antiochenum. Non sufficit etc. He could not be contented to become Man, to be beaten in the mean while with wands, but he doth bring us into one mass (as I may say) with himself: Neither fide solùm, sed reipsa, by faith only, but in very deed, he hath made us his Body.] In which place, we find the very distinction invented by our Adversaries to be excluded by S. Chrysostome.  
In like manner, Homil. 61. add Popul. Antiochenum, he affirmeth, that Christ's Flesh by means of this Sacrament is mingled with ours, not only by Charity, but reipsa, in very deed. See him also Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. where he saith, that we are so united to the Body of Christ by the Eucharist, as his Body was united to the word by the Incarnation, to wit, truly, and really, and not figuratively; but all these sayings of Chrysostome were very idle, if we received Christ only in a sign, and by representation.  
S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae Sororis eius, thus writeth: Add altar cum fide procumbit, cum, qui superillud colitur, magno cum clamore obtestans. She (viz. Gorgonia) did prostrate herself before the Altar with faith, praying to him with great clamour, who is worshipped upon the said Altar. But Gorgoma prayed not to Bread, or Wine. Which action of hers (as she acknowledging thereby the true presence of Christ's Body, and Blood upon the Altar) is much reprehended by Peter Martyr l. contra Gardinerum, object. 38. saying: that she was not well instructed in Christian Religion; so far different was his judgement from the judgement of S. Gregory herein: but of this place more hereafter.  
S. Gregory Nyssene, Orat. Catechetica c. 36. & 37. among other things thus writeth: Quemadmodum parum fermenti etc. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole mass like to itself; so that body which is made immortal by God, entering into our Body, doth transfer, and change it into itself.] And after: Fidelium corporibus etc. That Body is joined with the bodies of the faithful, that by that conjunction with the Immortal Body, Man may be made partaker of Immortality.  
S. Ambrose, l. 1. in Lucam, expounding those words, Apparuit ill● Angelus, thus writeth: Non dubites assistere Angelum, quando Christus assistit, Christus immolatur. Do not doubt, but that an Angel is there present, when Christ is there present, when Christ is sacrificed.]  
The same Father l. 3. de Spiritu sancto c. 12. expounding those words of the Psalm. 98. Adorate scabellum pedum cius, thus writeth : Itaque per scabellum terra etc. Therefore by the Footstool the Earth is understood, & by the earth, the Flesh of Christ, which we now do adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord jesus, as we have said before.] Where he saith, that the Flesh of Christ (being united with the Word) is adored by us in the Mysteries, that is, in the Eucharist.  
S. Cyril of jerusalem thus writeth : Sic Christophori erimus, id est, Christum ferentes etc. So shall we be Christophori, that is Men bearing Christ, when we shall receive his Body, and Blood into our Members, and as S. Peter saith: We shall be made Partakers of the divine Nature.]  
S. Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate: Sienim verè verbum etc. For if the Word be truly made Flesh, & we truly take the Word made Flesh, in our Lord's meat, how can he not be thought to remain naturally in us.] And in the same place he also saith : De naturali in nobis Christi veritate etc. Of the natural verity of Christ in us, whatsoever we speak, we speak foolishly, and wickedly, except we learn of him, for it is he, that said: Caro mea verè est esca.  
Origen Homil. 13. in Exod. expounding the 21. Chapter of that Book, saith: Volo vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis; nostis, qui divinis mysterijs inesse consucuistis, qucmodo, cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum omni cautela, & veneratione seruatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur; reos enim vos creditis, & certè creditis, si quid inde per negligentiam decidat. I will admonish you by the examples of your Religion: You know well, who have been accustomed to be present at the divine Mysteries, how when you take the body of Christ you observe with all wariness, and veneration, that no part of the consecrated Gift do fall down, for you believe them to be guilty (and you believe truly) if any parcel thereof do fall down through negligence.  
Tertullian lib. de Corona Militis, speaking of divers Christian Rites : Calicis, aut Panis etiam nostri etc. We do suffer with grief, that any part of our Cup, or bread should fall upon the Earth.]  
S. Irenaeus l. 8. contra Haeres. c. 34. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt. etc. How do they say again, that the Flesh cometh into corruption, and receiveth not life, which is nourished of the body, and blood of our Lord?] Where he maketh the receiving of the Eucharist to be a Pledge of our Resurrection, and Immortality.  
S. Pius the first Bishop of Rome of that name, did set down certain severe punishments for such, by whose negligence any part of the Body, or Blood of our Lord did fall upon the ground, yea, or upon the Altar, commanding the place to be licked with the tongue, & to be scraped. But if the Eucharist were not the true Body of Christ, but only by representation, there were no reason, why there should be greater diligence given to prevent, that no part thereof do fall upon the ground, then there was, that the water of Baptism, the Images of Christ, or the Holy Bible should not fall upon the ground. His Decree touching the former point appeareth out of Gratian de Consecrat. distinct. 2. Can. Si per negligentiam etc.  
S. Dionysius Areopagita lib. de Hierarchia Ecclesiast. c. 3. part. 3. thus speaketh to the Blessed Eucharist. O Divinissimum, & Sacrosanctum Sacramentum obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi; & perspicuè nobis fac appareas; nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari, & aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple. O most Divine, and most holy Sacament, vouchsafe to remove from thee the veils, or coverings of those signifying signs, & appear to us perspicuously, and fill our spiritual Eyes with a singular, and clear resplendency of thy Light.] Hear it cannot be said, that he did so invoke the bread, because such Invocation were most ridiculous. Neither can it be said, that Dionysius did make an Apostrophe, or Change of speech, from the Symbols of the Eucharist to Christ signified thereby, invoking Christ before the Symbols: for here Dyonisius doth not invoke Christ, as he is in Heaven, but invokes the Sacrament itself, and demandeth of it such things, as are to be obtained of God alone. Add hereto that the ground of this Answer doth warrant the Catholics praying before Images, for if a man may pray to Christ before the Symbols of his Body, by the same reason may he pray to him before his Image.  
The said Father also in the former book, thus further writeth: Pontifex, quòd Hostiam salutarem etc. The Priest when he sacrificeth the healthful Host, which is above him, doth excuse himself, speaking to it: Tu dixisti, Hoc facite etc. Thou hast said, Do you this etc.] But the Bread is not above us, neither is there more reason, that we should excuse ourselves for handling the Bread, then for handling the Water of Baptism; or other sacred things belonging to our Christian Faith. Such was the reverence of this most ancient Father (for he lived in the time of the Apostles) to wards the blessed Sacrament. And though our Adversaries do impudently maintain, that this book was not written by the said Dyonisius, yet others of them do acknowledge at least, that it is the work of a most ancient Father, yea Peter Martyr prizeth this book, as he is not afraid to wrest a place of the said work, for the defence of his Heresy herein. Now, that the Author of this work is most ancient, it appeareth from this one consideration, to wit, that the Author thereof is cited for an ancient, and reverend Father by S. Gregory, Homil. 34. in evangel. but if S. Gregory, who lived above a thousand years since, did account this Author for an Ancient, and Venerable Father, than what estimation of him ought we to have?   

OF THEIR TESTIMONIES SHOWING That the Celebration of the Eucharist, containeth a proper, and true Sacrifice. CHAP. VII.  
THE last Branch of Authorities shall be deduced from the common Doctrine of the Fathers, which teacheth, that when our Saviour had in place of the disobedient, and degenerating Iewes adopted us Gentiles, that even out of a more than Seraphical, & burning charity towards us, he was content before his death to bequeath to his Church the true Sacrifice of himself, there to be daily offered up under the forms of Bread, and Wine. The which was (according to the 
a The Psalmist.] Psal. 109. in these words : juravit Dominus, & non poenitebit eum: Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.  Psalmist) so long afore shadowed by that of Melchisedech, whereof one 
b One Father.] viz. Chrysostome homil. 35. in Genes.  Father with reference thereunto saith: Videns Typum, cogita (oro) & veritatem: and of which (by reason of it perpetual continuance to be in the Church) the once Glory, and Pride of Africa thus writeth: 
c Perpes est hoc.] Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini.  Perpes est hoc Sacrificium, & semper permanens Holocaustum.  
Now here it will not seem needful to allege the Authorities of the Fathers (though most frequent, and punctual therein) expounding the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as a Type of the Eucharist, therefore (for greater brevity) I will content myself in laying down the Sentences, and judgement of the said Doctors, wherein they plainly acknowledge, that the Eucharist doth contain in itself a Sacrifice, not in a forced, and Metaphorical, but in a true, and native acception of the Word. And yet for the more clear convincing of our Adversaries herein, I will for bear all Inferentiall Deductions drawn by long circuitions, and ambages of sequels, and will tie myself only to such their sayings, wherein we find the Eucharist to be called Sacrificium, Victima etc. or where the words, Immolare, Offer, and the like, are said of the Eucharist; or finally where the word, Altar, is expressly mentioned, which word (even by the confession of Doctor 
d Doctor Reynolds.] viz. in his Conference with M. Hart. pag. 552.  Reynolds) necessarily implieth a true Sacrifice. Which point being once cleared, we shall thereby more easily discover the malice of our sectaries against God's Church, since they labour to wound her in the Maister-veyne of Christian Religion, by depriving her of the most available, & healthful Oblation of Christ's Body, and Blood, left for the better expiating of Man's sins. Which Mystery of our Catholic Faith these new Brethren are loath to acknowledge, in that (besides other Reasons) it comprehendeth, as being a Sacrifice, no small difficulties. For it is a Sacrifice remitting our Sins, where no Blood 
e No Blood is shed.] Christ's Blood was to be shed in a bloody manner but once, in that he was but once to die, according to that Heb. 9 Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many. And from his Passion the Sacrifice of the Eucharist receives it virtue, and force. And therefore in this sense Sins may be said to be remitted in the Eucharist by shedding of blood. Besides Christ's blood is truly shed (though in an unbloody manner) in the Sacrifice of the Mass, through the worth whereof our Sins are remitted.  is shed, and yet without 
f Without shedding of blood.] Heb c. 9  shedding of Blood there is no remission: or if blood be here shed, yet in an incruent, and unbloody manner. Where what is here sacrificed remains 
g Remains inconsumptible.] Christ's Body in the Sacrifice of the Mass remains inconsumptible, in that it being glorified, is impatible, and not capable of any such alteration, or change. And yet his Body, as it is a Sacrifice may be said in some sense to be consumptible, in that by the reason of the receiving, and eating of it, it ceaseth to be under the forms of Bread, and Wine, and consequently ceaseth to be that (to wit, to lie under those forms) which afore it was. Now that there should be a Transmutation, and change of the thing sacrificed, is apparent, in that it is one particle in the definition of a true Sacrifice, as also the same appeareth by the example of all the Sacrifices in the Old Law.  inconsumptible, and yet every such true Litation necessarily implies a consumption, and destroying of the thing sacrificed. Where Innocency assails Iniquity; and to prevent the punishment of God for the sin of Man, both God 
h God and man..] In that Christ's Body is upon the Altar, and that his Humanity is never more to be severed from his Divinity; therefore it followeth that his Divinity is there present with his Humanity, as in the first Tract is fully demonstrated.  & Man are upon the Altar: Where the holy thing was but once to be immolated 
i Once to be immolated.] To wit, in a bloody manner, and this was performed but once, viz. at the time of his Passion: And yet he is often to be sacrificed in the Eucharist, in that himself faith, Hoc facite. , and yet was commanded to be often immolated: Where being a true Sacrifice, is yet (according to the 
k According to the Apostle.] Viz. 1. Cor. 11. in these words : Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec veni●t.  Apostle) a Commemoration of a true Sacrifice: Where that, which descended from 
l Descended from God to man.] The Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, that is, an external sign of an invisible Grace, and refection, which is conferred to us, whilst we take the Eucharist aright; so it proceedeth from God (as all Sacraments do) but as the Body of Christ is there sacrificed up by the Priest, so according to the nature of a Sacrifice, it is offered by him to God.  God to Man, is offered up by Man to God: Where the 
m The Creator.] In that the Priest receiving the Body of Christ, his body is there accompanied with the Divinity of Christ, as is said above.  Creator by means thereof vouchsafeth to be contained within his Creature; and the Supreme Agent within his Mynisteriall Agent: Where (as one Father saith, 
n Idem est Conuiva etc.] S. Hierome Epist. ad Hedibiam quast. 2.  Idem est Conuiva, & Conuivium; idem comedens, & qui comeditur. And (as another teacheth) where one and the same body is borne up by the hands of the said body; Ferebatur 
o Perebatur Christus.] So writeth S. Augustine in Psal. 33. contion. 1.  Christus in manibus suis: So the hands became the Altar, whereupon the Body was sacrificed: Finally, where the Priest is become the Sacrifice, according to that Father: Caro sacrificij nostri corpus est effectum Sacerdotis nostri.  
But to leave these subtleties; Hear we are to advertise the Reader, that the Father's teaching the Eucharist to comprehend in itself a true Sacrifice: This their doctrine cannot be applied to Bread, and Wine. First, because the Sacrifice of Bread, and Wine either in respect of the natural Substances of the things themselves, or their significations, and representations, is inferior to the Sacrifice of the Old Law (as appeareth above in the Figures of the Eucharist.) And secondly, in that the Fathers do ascribe an infinite virtue to the Sacrifice here made (of the power whereof we have entreated in the former precedent Chapter) but no such imputative efficacy can with any probability be assigned (especially now in the time of Grace) to the sacrificing of a little Bread, & Wine: Thus according to the Fathers, what to a vulgar Eye here seems to be offered up, is not: and what is, seems not.  
And now to proceed to these their Testimonies: First we read (besides those few places already alleged, though ranged to some one of the former heads, in regard of the particular respect there specified) in S. Leo, serm. 8. the Passione, and in S. Cyril l. de Adoratione in spiritu, & veritate: That the Body of our Saviour is offered up as a sacrifice in the Mystery of the Eucharist.  
S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitate, c. 14. Quid gratius offeri, aut suscipi posset, quàm Caro Sacrificij nostri Corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri? What can be offered up, or accepted more thankfully, then that the Flesh of our Sacrifice should become the Body of our Priest?]  
The same Father l. 2. quaest. Euangel. q. 3. showing, why Christ commanded the Leprous Man to offer up Sacrifice for his cleansing, thus writeth : Quia nondum institutum erat etc. Because as yet this Sacrifice (being the Holy of Holies) which is his Body, was not as yet ordained.] The said Father lib. de Civit. Dei 8. c. vlt. & l. 22. c. 8. maketh frequent mention of Altars.  
S. Chrysostome l. 6. De Sacerdotio. Per id tempus, & Angeli Sacerdoti assident, & caelestium potestatum universus ordo clamores excitat, & locus Altari vicinus in illius honorem, qui immolatur, Angelorum choris plenus est; id quod credere abundè licet, vel ex tanto illo Sacrificio, quod tunc peragitur: At that time the Angels draw near to the Priest, & the whole Order of the Heavenly Powers causeth great voices, and the place near to the Altar, by reason of the honour of him (who is there immolated) is full of Angels; which thing we may fully believe in regard of so great a sacrifice there performed.]  
Again, Homil. 17. in Epist. ad Hebraeos. In multis locis etc. In many places are offered not divers Christ's, but one only Christ every where, remaining entire both here, & there, being but one Body, not many Bodies.] And, Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. he saith : Pro victimarum etc. He hath commanded himself to be offered up in place of the slaughter of sheep, and such like Sacrifices.] And, Homil. 53. ad Populum: Si quis vellet etc. If any should endeavour to destroy this Altar, would not you destroy, and kill him with stones?] And, Homil. 20. in 2. epist. ad Corinth. Tu Altare honoras etc. Thou dost honour the Altar, which receiveth upon it the Body of Christ]  
S. Gregory Nyssene, Orat. de Resurrect. Dominus praeoccupans impetum judaeorum etc. Our Lord preventing the violence of the jews (being both Priest, and Lamb) made himself a Sacrifice. But thou demandest of me, when this did happen? Even then, when he gave to his Disciples his Body to eat, and his Blood to drink.  
S. Ambrose in cap. 1. Lucae. Cùm sacrificamus etc. When we do sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is immolated.] And, in Psalm. 38. Etsi nunc Christus non videatur offer, ipse tamen offertur in terris, cùm corpus cius offertur. Although Christ may be thought now not to offer, notwithstanding he is offered here upon Earth, when his Body is offered.]  
Optatus Milevitanus l. 6. contra Parmenianum, thus writeth : Quid est enim tam sa●rilegum, quàm Altaria Dei, (in quibus aliquando vos obtulistis) frangere, radere, & removere? in quibus vota populi, & membra Christi portata sunt? quo Deus Omnipotens sit? quo postulatus descendit spiritus Sanctus? unde à multis ● ignus aeternae salutis, & tutela fidei, & spes resurrectionis accepta est? What is more sacrilegious, then to break, to scrape, to remove the Altars of God upon the which yourselves sometimes have offered? In the which the Vows of the People, and the Members of Christ are borne? where God (who is Omnipotent) is called upon? whereupon the Holy Ghost (being prayed unto) descendeth? from whence the Pledge of eternal Salvation, and the defence of faith, and hope of the Resurrection is taken.] And a little after: Quid est Altar etc. What is the Altar, but the seat of the Body, and Blood of Christ?] And again: Quid vos offenderat Christus etc. In what hath Christ offended you, whose Body, and Blood doth there stay by certain times?] And again after, Hoc tamen immane etc. Notwithstanding this cruel, and heinous offence is performed, whensoever you have broken the Chalices, which are the Porters, or carriers of the blood of Christ.] Eusebius l 1. daemon. evang. c. 6. writeth much concerning Altars in the time of the Gospel.  
S. Cyprian l. 1. ●p. 9 speaking of a certain Priest deceased, who for leaving of a temporal, and worldly prohibited business to be performed by another Priest, deserved not (according to Cyprians judgement) to have the sacrifice offered for him, because (saith he) he did withdraw the Priest of God from the Altar.  
Tertullian lib. de Poenitentia mentioneth kneeling before the Altars of God.  
Dionysius Areopagita c. 3. Eccles. Hierarch. makes mention of Altars.  
Hippolytus Martyr Orat. de Antichristo, bringeth in Christ thus speaking: Venite Pontifices, & Sacerdotes, qui preci●sum corpus, & Sanguinem meum quotidie immolastis.] Come hither ye High Priests, and other Priests, who daily do sacrifice my precious body, and blood.]  
In the Canons of the Apostles (viz. 3. & 4.) there is frequent speech touching Altars.  
Lastly S. Andrew the Apostle (as his Disciples do write in his Passion) thus saith : Ego Omnipotenti Deo immaculatum Agnum quotidie sacrifico etc. Qui cùm sit verè sacrificatus, & verè à popi●o carnes eius manducatae, integer perseverat, & vinus.] I do daily sacrifice unto Almighty God the immaculate Lamb. Who, when he is truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten of the People, doth nevertheless persevere whole, and alive.]  
Thus have I gone over certain principal Heads, carrying in themselves a natural dependency (●rke the four Beasts in Ezechiel, which were joined one to another by their wings) wherein is contained, a short Compendium of the Father's writings in this Point; out of which abstract, we may easily extract their Faith, and Belief had in this high Mystery, and withal conclude, that the Sacramentaries are no more distant, & remote from the Times, wherein the Fathers lived then from the Doctrine maintained in the said times. For (as we have showed) the Fathers not contenting themselves with ordinary, positive, and measured speeches delivered of the Eucharist, do use high, and superlative Titles of the dignity, and worth thereof: The Sacramentaries only afford such appellations, as Nature hath already given to the same. The Father's acknowledging herein a true, and real Change, have paralleled it with the greatest supernatural Changes whatsoever: The Sacramentaries can find no other alteration, but that afore it being common Bread, & Wine, is now only reserved (a strange, and stupendious Mutation) for the use of their Winy Communion.  
The Father's postpose the Types of the Old Law to it, yea compare it with the chiefest Articles of Christian Faith: The Sacramentaries as long as they teach, that it but Typically representeth the Body, & Blood of Christ, can at the most but prize it at the equal value of those Legal Figures.  
The Fathers ascribed the Conversion there made, only to the Omnipotency of God, affirming, that not sense, but only Faith is able to conceive the Mysteries therein: The Sacramentaries (for the more countenancing of their Bread, and Wine) verbally sometimes acknowledge, that a lively Faith only is of force to apprehend the difficulties of these their representing Elements. O the penetrating Faith of our Sectaries! the work (no doubt) of the Holy Ghost! the seed of Abraham, able (according to the Apostle) to move Mountains, transcending the narrow, and niggard Limits of Sense, and Reason, since it is of power (most supernaturally) to apprehend, how one thing may represent, and signify another thing! But to pass on.  
The Fathers do attribute even most divine, and celestial effects to this Sacrament: The Sacramentaries, what efficacy they assign thereunto (to wit, the apprehending of Christ by Faith) do teach, that it riseth only from the signification, and remembrance of Christ implied in the external Signs, the which may as availably (even by their own Principles) be performed by any of their ten-shilling-Sermons.  
The Fathers exhibited with great humility all due reverence, & adoration to Christ's Body there present: The Sacramentaries cannot be induced to give any such respect at all. Finally, the Fathers do maintain, that the Eucharist is a true, and Propitiatory Oblation: The Sacramentaries acknowledge no other Oblation in the Church, then only a spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer, and Thanksgiving.  
Thus we see, what Alienaton there is between the Writings of the Fathers, and of our Novellists. But we are not to marvel, that the Sacramentaries do never speak in one, and the same Catholic Idiom with those Primitive Doctors, since they are deaf herein, and will not be brought to hear, what the Church of God, either in those ancient times, or in these latter days do teach concerning the same; And we know, it is a Conclusion in Philosophy, that, He who never heareth, never speaketh.  
But before I conclude this Point, I will put the Reader in remembrance of some other Observations contained in the Testimonies of the Fathers, which may at least morally assure him, that they maintained our Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist: Most of which Observations (though different from the foresaid heads) are to be found in their former alleged Authorities: Others of them in other their Sentences: Of both which for advantaging the Readers memory, and for avoiding a wearisome prolixity, I will only refer him to the places, where such their Sentences may be read.  
As first we find, that the Father's resting upon the doctrine of the Real Presence, as a confessed Article of Christian Faith, did from thence, as from an acknowledged Principle refel divers heresies. Thus did 
a Irenaeus.] l. 4. c. 34.  Irenaeus against the Valentinians, prove from this Mystery, that Christ was the Son of God the Father; which Doctor also proveth from the same ground the resurrection of the flesh, giving a reason thereof in these words: Quoniam 
b Quoniam corpore.] Irenaeus ibidem.  corpore & sanguine Domini alitur. In like sort he proveth against the 
c Gnostici.] l. 5 c. 2.  Gnostici, that Christ came in true flesh, even from the former dogmatical point of the Eucharist. After the same manner 
d Hilarius.] l. 8. de Trinitate.  Hilarius proveth, that Christ had a true Body and Blood, in that his true flesh and blood was in this Sacrament. Finally Cyril of Alexandria 
e Cyrillus.] l. to in joan. c. 13.  teacheth against the Arian, that Christ both according to his Divinity, and Humanity did exercise his influence upon us, in that his Body and Blood was taken in the Eucharist to nourish in us a spiritual life.  
Secondly they acknowledge a great miracle to rest, that Christ as being in the Eucharist, is in divers several places at one and the same tyme. Thus doth 
f Chrysostome.] l. 3. de Sacerdot.  Chrysostome, 
g Basil.] in Liturgia.  Basil, and Gregory 
h Nyssenus.] Orat. de Paschate.  Nyssene.  
Thirdly they assign a reason, why Christ would latently be under the forms of bread and wine, to wit, lest otherwise the Communicants should receive his body with horror and fear: So 
i Ambrose.] l. 4. de Sacramentis.  Ambrose, 
k Cyril.] apud D. Thomam, in Catena, circa caput 2●. Lucae.  Cyril of Alexandria, and 
l Theophilact.] in c. 26. Matthai.  Theophilact do teach.  
Fourthly they affirm, that Christ, as he is taken in the Eucahrist, is neither corrupted nor diminished, placing a great difficulty therein, as we find out of 
m S. Andrew.] In his Passion written by his Disciples.  S. Andrew. The like we read in 
n Cyprian.] Sermone de Coena Domini.  Cyprian 
o Augustine.) Serm. 2 de verbis Apostoli. , Augustine, and Cyril 
p Cyril.] Catech. 5. Mist.  of jerusalem. But this difficulty were idly suggested, if Christ were in the Sacrament only in representation.  
Fifthly, they teach, that the Union of Christ with us in the Sacrament is not only spiritual, and fide tantum, but reipsa, in very deed and truly. This is affirmed by 
q Hilarius.] l. 8. de Trinitate.  Hilarius, and 
r Chrysostome.] homil. 45. in joan. & 83. in Matth.  Chrysostome. Yea they further proceed, writing, that this spiritual Union which is made through faith and grace, doth rise from the corporal Union of Christ with us, as the Effect proceedeth from the Cause; so 
s Cyril.] l. 4. in joan. c. 14. & 15.  Cyril, and 
t Tertullian.] I de resurrect Carnis.  Tertullian.  
Sixtly, they maintain, that the Body of Christ is truly taken, aswell by the wicked, as the virtuous and godly, mere contrary to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, who affirm, that Christ's Body (because it is in the Sacrament only Typically) is only taken by the faithful. Yea the Fathers are not afraid to say, that his Body is received by the wicked o'er sacrilego, with a sacrilegious mouth, so distinguishing this kind of receiving, from a spiritual and fruitful receiving. See hereof 
u Augustine.] tract. 27. in joan. & l. 5. de Baptismo contra Donat. c. 8.  Augustine, 
x Chrysostome.] homil. 83. in Matthaeum.  Chrysostome, 
y Origen.] in Psal. 37.  Origen, 
z Cyprian.] l. 3. epist. 15.  Cyprian, and 
a Basil.] l. 2. de Baptismo c. 3.  Basil.  
seven they do teach, that Christ at his last Supper did eat his own Body. Thus 
b Chrysostome.] Homil. 83. in Matth.  Chrysostome, and 
c Hierome.] In Hedibiam.  Hierome. But this cannot probably be understood according to the Calvinian participation through Grace and faith, since no new accession, or increase of Grace came to Christ after the very first moment of his Incarnation. Besides it is most absurd to say, that the Flesh of Christ is the instrumental cause of the Grace given to Christ.  
Eightly, and lastly, they intimate divers things touching the Praxis, and use of the Blessed Eucharist, which are altogether incompetent to a Typical and figurative Presence. As first (to omit the Adoration and Invocation of the Eucharist, already entreated of) they did place a great religious act in taking this Sacrament fasting: as 
d Augustine.] epist. 118.  Augustine, and Chrysostome do witness: yea 
e Chrysostome.] Epist. 3. ad Ciriacum.  Chrysostome affirmeth it to be a sin to take it not fasting. They also affirmed that a most diligent examining of our Conscience ought to precede the participation thereof: So 
f Chrysostome.] l. 6. de Sacerdotio.  Chrysostome. They commanded that it should not be seen of such as were Infidels: So 
g Dionysius.] Cap. 7. Eccles. Hierarch.  Dionysius; and which is more that it should not be seen of the faithful yet unbaptized, as appeareth out of 
h Augustine.] Tract. 11. in joan.  Augustine. Hence it is that in the presence of the misbelieving Infidels they used most secret and cautelous phrases, speaking of the Eucharist, as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles: So 
i Augustine.] Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol.  Augustine. And, Norunt, qui mysterijs imbuti sunt. So 
k Origen.] Homil. 13 in Exodum. & 9 in Leviticum.  Origen. They taught that in extremity of sickness it was to be taken of every Christian pro Viatico, as appeareth out of the first Council of 
l Council of nice.] Canon. 12.  nice, 
m Eusebius.] l. 6. c. 34.  Eusebius, and 
n Chrysostome.] l. 6. de Sacerdot.  Chrysostome. Finally, hither may be referred, what the Fathers of the Primitive Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples, Vestments, Chalices, and other religious Vessels, all used in the celebration of the Eucharist; All which things, as 
o Hierome.] Ad Theophilum Alexand.  Hierome saith, propter consortium corporis & sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur. And 
p Optatus.] l. 6. contya Parmenianum.  Optatus writeth, that they being contaminata, Sacrilegos faciunt. And hence it riseth, that it was objected to the Arians by Athanasius, that, fregerunt mysticum Calicem, which offence was acknowledged to be most heinous by the Council of Alexandria, as 
q Athanasius.] Apologia 2.  Athanasius writeth. To the same end (to wit, as tending to the sacred function of consecrating the Eucharist) may be referred what the Fathers have written of the Dignity of Priesthood: Of which point entreats 
r Nazianzen.] Apolog. 1. & Oratione ad julianum.  Nazianzen, 
s Chrysostome.] Lib. de Sacerdot.  Chrysostome, and others; as also of their vowed 
t Vowed Chastity.] Of which point do occur most frequent authorities in the writings of the Fathers.  Chastity, principally directed for that purpose.  
Now, who shall weigh all these several Observations, accompanied with the former heads set down at large, and all literally, and plainly expressed in the Father's Writings; and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but all most suitable & agreeable to the worth of his true and real being there, how can he be otherwise persuaded, then that those Doctors did jointly agree with us in this high Article of faith? Wherefore the determination of this matter (to wit, whether the Fathers were Sacramentaries, or Catholics herein) I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned (for this were to wrong their judgements, in making a Point so evident, the Object of their grave Resolutions) as I refer it, even to the five Senses of the ignorant and illiterate.   

OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Evasions to the Authorities of the Fathers. CHAP. VIII.  
ALTHOUGH in setting down the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters, I have illustrated most of them with such short Animadversions, as best unfold the true Sense of the said Authorities, & consequently prevent all such sleighty elusions, as are used by our Adversaries for the avoiding of the same: Nevertheless I have thought good here to amass together all their divers kinds of Answers, being severally applied in general to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads (for commonly to all Testimonies of one Nature, they do appropriate one, & the same Answer.) Thus shall the discreet Reader have at once a Synopsis, or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble evasions, being full of tergiversation, and distrust.  
Now then, one Kind of their Answers (if so I may term it) is to give no answer at all; for when they are pressed with such perspicuous, and evident places of the Fathers, as are in no sort to be obscured with any mist of words (for the Sun is sometimes so radiant, as that it cannot be overclouded) then in their Replies to Catholic Books therein, they are content, not taking notice thereof (like men of good natures) to suffer all such sentences quietly to pass by them in God's name, & the Kings. Thus we find most clear passages of the Fathers set down in Catholic Books, yet never answered by Caluin, Peter Martyr, or others, who have undertaken a refutation of the said Books, but altogether passed over, as if no such places had been objected: Such careful Pylotes they are, as willing to avoid the most dangerous Rocks. Which course of theirs I cannot condemn as impoliticke, since it is less disaduantagious silently to give way to all such Assertions, then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same; for we see, that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance.  
Of the many Authorities of the Fathers, whereunto the Protestants (to wit Caluin, Peter Martyr etc.) give no Answer at all, I have thought good to note these few, viz. The Passion of S. Andrew. Origen homil. 13. in Exod. in ●. 25. & hom. 5. in diversa loca evangelii. Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog. Gregory Nyssene Orat. Catechet. c. 36. & 37. Ephren lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda. Gaudentius Tract. 2. de Exodo. Chrysostome H●mil. 83. in Matth. & 51. in Matth. & Homil. 21. in Acta. & Homil. de Eucharist. in Encaenijs. & lib. 6. de Sacerdotio. Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione divinae Liturgiae: besides many other Testimonies of these, and other Fathers.  
The first form then of their Positive Answers may be assigned to those authorities, wherein the Fathers do absolutely call the Eucharist, the Body, and Blood of Christ; as where they teach, that we do eat his Body, and drink his Blood, or that the Body, and Blood, which we receau● in the Eucharist is our price, the Pledge of our Salvation, or the like.  
To the Testimonies of this Nature, our Adversaries do shape a double Answer. For either they understand those places of the True Body, and Blood of Christ, as it is in Heaven, and received by us by faith; or else of the signs thereof, which we truly, and really do take in the Eucharist. But if we do observe intensely, and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages, it will be evident, that neither part of this Answer is in any sort satisfactory.  
For first, that the Father's meaning is not, that we take his Body (as it is in Heaven) by faith, is proved, in that you shall for the most part ever find, that in such places they teach, that we receive it from the Altar, or at the Priest's hands (and consequently not as it is in Heaven) or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body, and Blood: or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words, as do force the Place to be interpreted of his Body, and Blood, as it is under the external forms, and not as it is in Heaven.  
And as touching the second Branch of their former Evasion, to wit, that the said Testimonies are not to be interpreted of the Bread, and Wine signifying, and figuring his Body, & Blood, in which they say Christ's Body is symbolically taken, is no less manifest; the reason whereof being this: Because the words of those Testimonies do almost ever intimate some effect, or efficacy of the Eucharist, which to Bread, and Wine is incompetent; as that it nourisheth our Souls, or that it is the Price, or Pledge of our Salvation, or hope of our Resurrection, or that it suffered for our Sins, or some other such spiritual work, energy, or operation, whereof the bare Symbols of the Eucharist are not capable.  
Thus may the observant Reader clearly discern the feebleness of this their Answer, and conclude with himself, that such Testimonies of the Fathers cannot be construed of Christ's Body, as it is in Heaven; since the Words precedent, or consequent restrain it to the Altar: Nor of Bread, and Wine Symbolically, and Sacramentally representing the Body, and Blood of Christ; since Bread, and Wine cannot produce the spiritual Effects there specified: so clear it is, that our Sectary in approaching to answer the said Sentences, doth inevitably run upon some one circumstantial pike, or other, of the said authorities, wherewith he is most dangerously wounded.  
That this my Reply may be more clearly conceived, I will instance it in this one Testimony following which shall serve, as a Precedent for all the rest of the same nature; The like couse of exemplifying I will observe in all other kinds of their Answers; and though such places were afore alleged, yet here they are produced upon a different occasion.  
S. Augustine then in l. 6. Confess. c. 13. thus writeth touching his Mother: Tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desideravit, unde sciret dispensari Victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chyrographum, quod erat contrarium nobis.] Only she desired, that remembrance of her might be made at thy Altar, from whence she did know the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed (or given) by the which the hand-writing, which was contrary to us is defaced.] Out of this place we prove (as we showed above) that by Victima sancta here specified by S. Augustine, is understood the Body and Blood of Christ. Now here it cannot be answered, that the Body of Christ is meant, as it is in Heaven; because he saith, that this Victima is dispensed, or distributed from the Altar, which thing agreeth not with his Body, as it is in Heaven: Neither can it be said (as some seem to interpret it) of the Bread, and Wine Typically signifying the Body, and Blood of Christ, in that the Bread & Wine was not the Sacrifice, which was offered for us upon the Cross. And thus much of this first kind of our adversaries Answer.  
Another form of evading the pressures, & weights of the Father's authorities is this: That if in the alleged Authority, there can be found but any one word, which is to be accepted not literally, but figuratively, metaphorically, or in some other forced construction; then our Allegorical Sectary infers thereupon, that the whole Sentence (though most strongly fortifying the Catholic doctrine herein) is to be taken figuratively, & not literally, urging, that seeing, both the points are contained in one, and the same Sentence, or Period, and that the one by our confession is not to be understood literally, why should the other objected by us, be taken literally?  
The Transparency of which Answer is easily seen through. And first we are to know, and observe, that every thing, which is not delivered in plain, and literal words, proceedeth not always from an intention of Rhetoric, or Amplification in the Writer, but often even out of Necessity, since sometimes we are forced thereunto, as not having that native habit of speech, & words, wherewith otherwise we would apparel the true conceits of our Mind; which scarcity of apt words, may perhaps be sometimes found in the writings of the Fathers: yet hence it followeth not, that all the rest (adjoined thereto) must partake of the same want.  
Again, whether this kind of writing riseth out of a defect of words, or out of a delicacy, and choiceness of a Man's pen, yet the Argument hence deduced is inconsequent, since by this reason we may infer, that almost no one Text of the Apocalyps may be alleged as literally to prove, or disprove any thing: and why? because some adjoining parcel thereof is set down in a Figurative kind of speech. And thus we cannot allege (contrary to all ancient Expositors) that Text in the Apocalyps, These are they, which have washed their Robes, & have made them white in the Blood of the Lamb, cap. 7. to prove, that Martyrs, and other Saints of God are saved by the Blood of Christ: because (forsooth) in the said Sentence there are two Metaphors; to wit, the long Robes (whereby are signified the Bodies of the Saints) and the word Lamb (meaning thereby Christ) and therefore it should follow upon the said ground, that the word Blood, must also be here a Metaphor, not signifying blood indeed (and so excluding the Blood of Christ from our salvation) but some other thing shadowed thereby. Yea which is more (if this kind of Answer were ) we could scarce produce any one sentence of the Psalms, literally to be expounded of Christ, or his Church (in which authorities we christian's mainly insist against the jews) since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes, Schemes, and other Figurative speeches; And yet we see, that it is most incongruous to maintain, that any whole Psalm is to be interpreted Allegorically, because we find certain Figures in some Passages thereof.  
Thus it is evident, how defective this Answer is, which consisteth in resolving the Father's sentences into Figurative Senses. But our adversaries boldness stayeth not here in depraving after this sort Man's word; but extendeth itself to corrupt in like manner (by over much origenizing, and mystically interpreting it) Gods sacred word.  
This second Form of Answer I will illustrate with this Testimony following. S. Chrysostome Homil. de Eucharist. in Encaenijs, thus writeth. Num vides Panem? num Vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? Absit, ne nec cogites. Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit; sic & hic put a mysteria consumi corporis substantia. Dost thou see Bread? dost thou see Wine? do these things go into the common passage, as other meats? Let it be far from thee to think so. For even as Wax being put in the fire, is assimilated, or made like to it, no part of the substance remaining: or redounding: So here imagine, that the Mysteries are consumed through the Substance of the Body.] Of this place I have entreated above. But here now we are to take notice, that our adversaries labour to delude the force thereof by answering, that those words of this Testimony Mysteria consumi, are not to be understood literally (for so they should be false) in that the external Forms of Bread, and Wine (which are contained in the word Mysteria) are not consumed by the accession of the Body of Christ: for we see that the Accidences of Bread, and Wine remain even after Consecration; seeing then, say they, that these words are not to be taken literally, but figuratively, therefore the whole sentence aforegoing is also to be taken figuratively, and not literally. And thus they seek to evade this most pregnant Testimony; whereby the Word Mysteria is understood, that the Substance only of the Bread, and Wine are consumed.  
A third Branch of their Evasions, shoots out to such authorities of the Fathers, as refer the effectuating of this Mystery to God's sole Omnipotency, marshalling it (in regard of the difficulties discovered therein) with the abstrusest points of Christianity, and ranging it (by reason of the great Miracle there exhibited) with the greatest Miracles ever performed by God.  
Now their Answer hereto is, that the Eucharist is wrought by the Omnipotency of God; for seeing it is a Sacrament, not Man, but God only (and consequently his Omnipotency is here necessarily exacted) is able to institute the same. How roving, and wandering this is from the scope, and drift of the Fathers shall here appear. First from the words of the Fathers themselves, which do even depose a contrary meaning in them; for they in those places alleged of this nature, do not assign the Omnipotency of God to the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament (for hereof they intimate for the most part, not the least touch) but to it, as therein one Substance by force of certain words, is truly turned into another Substance.  
Secondly, the weakness of the former Answer appeareth, in that we grant, that an Omnipotency indeed is required to the Institution of any Sacrament, whereby it should justify a Man: but our Adversaries will not believe, that the Sacraments (as Instruments of Christ, & where due preparation is) do confer immediately Grace (for this were in them an over-unkind relinquishing of Sense, and too strait an Intercourse, & Commerce with their understanding) but they teach, that the Sacraments do justify us, only by signifying, and representation; because (say they) they are made things to us, in the signification whereof we apprehend Christ by Faith. And so their Omnipotency here formally resteth in creating a new signification of a thing; to wit, that the natural substance of the Sacraments should represent, & signify Christ, whom (afore his Institution thereof) they did not signify. Now, if Omnipotency must necessarily concur to the making, that one thing may signify another thing, then by the said ground every silly Alewife is Omnipotent, in that her red Lattice, or Bush at the door (things of themselves indifferent, as not carrying any reference to her profession) are made by her to be a sufficient Type, Sign, or Representation to the Passengers, of the Ale which she hath to sell; so clear it is, that a Real change, not an Imposition of a new signification requireth an Omnipotency. Now (as in the former I have done) I will instance this answer in some one authority.  
S. Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. (of which place I have entreated above) thus writeth: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro etc. This Bread, which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in outward show, but in nature, is by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh.] Now, what intimation is here made to ascribe the Omnipotency of God here expressed, to the Eucharist, only in that it is a Sacrament? Or with what tecture, or pretext of Reason can any such exorbitant construction be here forged? since (as is already proved) an Omnipotency is required in the Institution of Sacraments, that they may truly perform that, which they do signify, to wit, that they do justify Man (but this efficacy of them, our Sacramentaries do altogether reject) but no Omnipotency is exacted to make, that a thing may signify what afore it did not, for this not only God, but Man is able to perform.  
Their fourth Answer belongeth to such places, which prefer the Eucharist before the jewish Types, and Figures (wherein Christ was as perfectly shadowed and signified as in the Eucharist, if there be nothing else there, but Bread, and Wine.) The insufficiency of the Sacramentaries Answer hereto made, is fully, and at large displayed in the Marginal References touching the diversity of the Types of the Eucharist, and the Eucharist itself: to which 
a To which place.] Viz. the first Chapter of this second Tract.  place I refer the Reader, partly as affecting here expedition, & brevity; and partly as being loath, wearisomely to cloy with a needless iteration of one, & the same thing, the fastidious ears of our curious Age.  
Another form of their shuffling Answers is that, wherewith they labour to break through all such Passages of the Fathers, which do assign any reverence whatsoever to the Eucharist either of Adoration, Invocation, or in any other sort. To all which they give us this yawning, heedless, and doubtful solution: That if any such reverence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist, it was not terminated in the Eucharist itself, but directed to Christ (signified therein) and so by the mediation of those earthly Elements, transferred to him, who is in Heaven; no otherwise then when the Papists (for thus do they particularly instance) praying before Images, direct not their prayers to the Image, but to Christ, or the Saint represented therein. But here I would ask them what secret Intelligence they (now coming so long after) can have of the Father's minds, and intentions herein? If they insist in the words, we find no appearance of the least glance thereof; if they call to mind the practice of the Church of those Ages (the securest scholy, or Paraphrase of the Father's writings) it seals up the Truth in our behalf.  
Furthermore I say, that the Sacramentary is of a Lethargious, and forgetful constitution (a point, according to the old Oportet etc. very disaduantagious to his profession;) or if not so, then is he so Serpentinely affected against the Catholics, as that, so he may be opposite to them, he is content to be unfaithful to himself. For at other times he riots both in Pulpit, and by Pen with great profusion of Words, and Time, telling such as will believe him, that the Catholics do pray to Pictures, and place in them a kind of Divinity; whereas now, he is content (courteously) to acknowledge the lawful, and religious practice of the Catholics therein; since he cannot cast any aspersion of Idolatry, or superstition upon us, but he is forced (except he will receive a more dangerous Wound) to insimulate the Fathers within the said Error.  
Hear than I demand of them (for they are most fugitive, and uncertain in answering hereunto) will they acknowledge the Father's Reverence, Adoration, and praying to the Eucharist itself? why then do they longer so pertinaciously persist in defending their Sacramentarian doctrine? Will they seek by inflexions, and windings to divert the honour done to the Sacrament, to Christ only (represented therein) as he is in Heaven? If so, why do these Anti-Saints, and Enemies of God's Servants at other times spend themselves out in such estuation, and heat of railing invectives (the scumne of base malice, and proper Scene of too many of our sectaries) against the Catholics for performing that, which now for their own advantage in a different example, though like reason, they willingly (yet falsely) obtrude upon the Fathers; thus if the Sacramentary do escape the sword of jehu, yet shall the sword of Elisaeus slay him; and thus we see, how weak this his answer is, wherein his gain here made, is like to the gain of ground, which a running Water causeth, getting no more on the one side of the Bank, than it looseth on the other.  
This their Answer shallbe exemplified in that Testimony of S. Dionysius, who lib. de Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3. part. 3. thus writeth: O Divinissimum, & Sacrosanctum Sacramentum! obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi, & perspicuè nobis fac appareas; nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari, & aperto tuae Lucis fulgore imple. O most divine, and holy Sacrament! vouchsafe to open (or remove) the coverings of thy signifying signs, and make thyself to appear clearly to us, and fill our spiritual Eyes with the open Fulgor of thy Light.] Whereto Peter Martyr lib. contra Garainer. part. 1. object. 150. answereth according to the tenor of the former Evasion. Where we see (besides what is already said) that Dionysius doth not here invoke Christ only before the Sacrament (as the Catholics do before his Image) but he doth invoke the Sacrament itself, & desireth such things of it, as are required only of God; from whence it followeth, that Dionysius thought, that Christ being God, and Man, was contained truly in the Sacrament, or rather, that Christ with the external Symbols together was the Sacrament.  
The sixth, and last Ward, wherewith our Adversaries seek to put by the dangerously pointed Sentences of the Fathers, is appropriated only to such their Authorities, wherein it is affirmed, that in the celebration of the Eucharist, there is a true, & Real Sacrifice performed, meaning the offering up by the words, and hands of the Priest the very Body, & Blood of Christ to his Father. Now, to these Authorities they frame an answer woven of several threads, either of ignorant, or wilful mistake. For, they say that the Eucharist might be termed by the Fathers a Sacrifice for divers reasons. And first, by reason of the Oblation of the Faithful, who in the Supper of our Lord do consecrate themselves too God. Or, of the Preaching of the death of our Lord. Or of the divers exercises of Piety (as of Faith, Hope, Penitency, Charity etc.) or of Prayers, or of Thanksgiving to God, or finally of the Alms: all which several points, were particularly performed (say they) in those former ancient times in the Celebration of the Eucharist, & which may be rightly termed Spiritual Sacrifices.  
Now, that these Actions (supposing that in a Metaphorical construction they might be so styled, and were used then) are not understood in the former passages of the Fathers, I thus prove, in that those Doctors plainly teach, that the Body, and Blood of Christ is the Sacrifice, which is offered up in the Church, but those former Actions cannot be meant, and signified, (by any kind of speech ever heard of) by the Body, and Blood of Christ. As for example, S. Ambrose writeth in Psal. 38. Etsi Christus nunc non videatur offer, ipse tamen offertur in terris, cùm corpus eius offertur. Though Christ now may be thought not to offer up (or sacrifice) yet he himself is here offered up upon earth, when his body is offered up.] Which words can in no sort be applied to those former actions specified to be in the Administration of the Eucharist. Again, the Fathers teach, that only Priests, and no others can offer up this Sacrifice. Thus doth S. Hierome epist. ad Euagrium, yea the Council of nice itself exempteth Deacons from offering up the Sacrifice: and Tertullian l. de velandis Virginum, Women in general; and Epiphanius haeres. 79. particularly the Virgin Mary; but it is manifest, that Prayers, Alms, Laudes, giving of Thanks, an internal offering up of the Soul (of all which points the former answer is aggregated) are offered up, and performed by the whole People, much more than they may be by Deacons.  
A second Branch of their Evasions to the said Authorities is deduced from the Etymologies of the word Sacrificium, or Sacrificare, which is but Sacra facere, therefore say they, because the Consecration, or Distribution of the Eucharist is Sacra actio, the Action, or Celebration of it, is called Sacrificium, and the Minister, who performeth the same, may be said Sacrificare. which Grammatical, or Dictionary Answer (unworthy indeed the learned Ears of the judicious) is thus refelled. First, because in all Etymologies we are to respect non tam àquo quàm ad quid; not so much the Primatives, or Originals from whence they are derived, as the applications, whereunto by use, and custom they are particularly tied. And thus answerably hereto, we grant that Baptism is Sacra actio (since it is Lavacrum Regenerationis) and yet we cannot read in any place of their Writings, where Baptism is called Sacrificium, or he who baptizeth, is said Sacrificare. Again, though every sacred Action might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and abusiuè be called a Sacrifice, yet this would advantage our Adversaries nothing; since in the former testimonies of the Fathers, not the transient Action of celebrating the Eucharist, but the permanent thing, which is sacrificed (to wit the Body, and Blood of Christ) is called by them the Sacrifice.  
Lastly, though by this sleight the Sacramentaries might seem to wrench the ordinary, and natural construction of all such places, where the word Sacrificium, or Sacrificare is found, yet this is impertinent to divers passages of the Fathers above cited, wherein the words Oblatio, or Offer are. As that (besides many others) of S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitat. c. 14. Quid gratiùs offerri, aut suscipi possit, quàm caro Sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri?]  
The third, and last kind of their expounding the former Authorities, is, that the Supper of our Lord is called a Sacrifice, or an Oblation, because it includeth in itself a certain Commemoration, or Representation of a true Sacrifice, viz. of the death of Christ.  
To this we reply, that it is true, that the Action of the Eucharist is a Similitude, or Memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross: yet hence it followeth not, that the Fathers therefore thought not, that a true, and proper sacrifice was offered up in the celebration of the Eucharist. Now, that the Fathers did believe the Eucharist to be a true Sacrifice, and not only a representative Sacrifice, is clearly evicted out of these ensuing observations. First, because Baptism is a Sacrament representing the death of Christ; for the Apostle Rom. 6. teacheth, that the immersion of the party baptised representeth the death of Christ, and the taking him out of the Water, the resurrection of Christ, and yet no one of the Fathers do term Baptism a Sacrifice.  
Again, the Fathers do often adjoin certain Epithets, which are peculiar only to a true Sacrifice: Thus S. Cyprian l. 2. epist. 3. calls the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Plenum, & Verum Sacrificium: and S. Chrysostome, Sacrificium terribile, & plenum horroris. Which Adjuncts are most fond given to a mere representative Sacrifice.  
Thirdly, the Father's divers times do use the words Victima, and Sacrificium, in the plural number (so doth S. Cyprian l. 1. epist. 2. &. l. 2. epist. 3. etc.) but this phrase were most improper if it should be understood of the Eucharist, as it is only a commemoration of the death of Christ; for since only one thing is here represented, therefore the name thereof is to be delivered only in the singular number.  
Fourthly, and lastly if this consequence were of weight: The Eucharist is a Representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, Ergo, it is no true, and proper Sacrifice: then this Illation should also be necessary (for both are wrought upon one, and the self same frame) The Sacrifices of the old Law were representations of the Sacrifice of the Cross, Ergo, they were no true (but only representatine) Sacrifices. For as the Eucharist is a Remembrance, & Representation of the sacrifice of the Cross already accomplished: so they were Representations of the said Sacrifice then to come.  
And thus far concerning the Sacramentaries Evasions in general, wherewith they labour to corrupt the most forcible, and convincing places of the Fathers (so the Harpies ever defiled the purest meats.) Indeed they prevail with some of the vulgar sort, whose judgements are so aëry, vaporous, and light, as that they are not able to descend into the depth of any exquisite inquiry of things; and so by these sleights our Sectaries (rather than they will acknowledge the Father's true meaning) do retain for the time their honour, & credit with such their followers; but when this their Sophistry comes to be examined by the clear, and impartial judgement of the learned, either Catholic, or Protestant: then are their answers found to be attended with such violent, and forced constructions of the Father's writings, necessarily exhaling forth strange improbabilities, mistake, and absurdities; as that they being once scanned, are the cause of their greater, and more shameful future overthrow. And thus their fortune herein may seem to partake of the misfortune of the poor Hare, which for a time by the help of her feet, avoids the danger of the Hunters, but yet after, her said feet betray her a new to her enemies, to her greater peril.  
Now, I will close up this Chapter with one weighty consideration: It is this. Whereas the Fathers have written of the Eucharist most reverently in all fullness, and transcendency of style (as appeareth out of their places alleged) so as if their sayings be not to be disuested of their literal sense, than they irrefragably (even by our adversaries confessions) do warrant our Catholic doctrine. How chanceth, that not one Father (among so many) would never give some caution, nor the least insinuation, that either his own Sentences, or those of the rest of them (as being powered out in great abundance, all magnifying, and advancing the dignity of this Mystery) were not to be taken literally, but that they were Hyperbolical speeches delivered by them, only by way of Rhetorical amplifications? What can our adversaries reply hereunto? Shall we charge all the Fathers with forgetfulness in such a point? But that is most improbable, considering the weight of the matter, & their accustomed solicitude in things of lesser consequence? Or shall we think, that being maliciously bend against all posterity, they determinately did leave behind them such sayings, thereby to disseminate Idolatry (for no less a fault can it be esteemed in them, if purposely they did write herein otherwise, than they thought) in the minds of all Readers? But what Christian is so void of Charity, and Sense, as to traduce so many holy Fathers living in those purer times with so heathenish, and hellish an Impiety? Nay I will proceed further in this Point: It is most clear that the Fathers were so far from giving any such caution for the sensing of their writings, that some of them have left a caution just to the contrary, I mean, that their sayings touching the Eucharist are not to be perverted by any Figurative, or Allegorical constructions, but as the words do lie, are so to be taken.  
The precedent of Hilarius (a very ancient, and Learned Father) shall here serve in place of many, who as it were through a Prenotion, and foresight of this our Schismatical Age (guided by him, with whom there is no Priority or Laternesse of Time) hath set down his Syntax, or Grammar for the construction both of himself, and the rest of the Fathers in all passages touching the Eucharist. Thus than he saith c. 8. de Trinitate. Non est humano, aut Saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum, neque per violentam, aut impudentem praedicationem caelestium dictorum sanitati, alienae, atque impiae intelligentiae extorquenda perversitas est. Quae scripta sunt legamus, & quae legimus intelligamus, & tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur. De naturali enim in nobis Christi unitate etc. We are not to speak in an human, or secular sense of the things concerning God, neither through a violent, & impudent form of speech, any perversity of a strange, and wicked construction is to be extorted out of the wholesomeness of those heavenly sentences. What are written, let us read, and what we read, let us understand, and then we shall enjoy the office of a perfect faith. For what we speak of the natural Unity of Christ in us, except we learn it of him, we speak foolishly, and wickedly, for he saith, Caro mea verè est esca.] Thus far S. Hilary: So much estranged was he, and the rest of those venerable Writers from willing, that their Testimonies herein should be cast in the mould of a forced, and figurative Interpretation.   

THAT ALL THE CHIEFEST OBJECTED Authorities of the Fathers urged by the Protestants are impertinent. CHAP. IX.  
I KNOW well that Nature, and Art (Nature's Counterpane) do instruct us, that in every perfect discourse of any subject, we ought in the Front, and beginning to plant the state of the Question proposed, circumstancing it with all such due restrictious, and other cautionary explications, as the maintainers, and patrons do willingly acknowledge. For by so doing, the very entrance of the work (like unto the skill used in the Perspectives) will cast light upon the ensuing parts, and withal the Reader may (as it were) optically glass therein a contracted, and epitomized sight of the whole Treatise. Notwithstanding (contrary hereto) I have thought good in this Question of the Eucharist, thus far to defer the placing of the state thereof (except what is scatteringly touched, as occasion sometimes hath served) Which dislocation (I hope) is justly excusable, since we are not always servilely to tie ourselves to other men's precepts, for in the best Writers sometimes, Art hath overruled Art, & Method lied in breach of Method. My reason herein is, to prevent a tedious, and needless repetition of one, & the same thing, for seeing in this Chapter we undertake to show, that the doubtful, & obscure places, borrowed out of the Father's writings for the impugning of our Catholic faith, do not in any sort disable the same; it is certain, that this point will be best cleared, by setting down, what the Catholics do hold in this sacred Mystery: since in a true unfolding, & explication thereof, we shall find virtually included the solutions of the chief objected Passages; thus shall we discover, that the Sacramentaries greatest Pieces of this nature, wherewith in vain they play upon the impregnable Fort of Christ's own words, are but charged with certain roving, and hurtless paper bullets of wrested authorities.  
Well then, first we teach, that notwithstanding the true, and real being of Christ's Body, and Blood under the external forms of Bread, and Wine, the Eucharist may be termed a sign in two respects.  
First it is a Sign, since it representeth the Body of Christ dying upon the Cross, and his Blood shed upon the same, answerably to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec veniat: You shall show the death of our Lord until he come.] Which words do truly paraphrase that saying of our Saviour, Hoc facite in meam comemorationem: having therein relation to his Passion. Now in this reference we hold, that the Eucharist is distinguished from his Body, and Blood, since it is not here in the same manner, as it was upon the Cross; the Sacrament being thereof but a representation, or commemoration. And in this sense of the Eucharist being termed a sign doth Ignatius Epist. ad Philadelph. distinguish the Eucharist from Christ's Body, and Blood.  
In this sense also S. Ambrose Coment. in c. 11. in 1. ad Cor. writeth, that the Body, and Blood, which were offered for us upon the Cross, are signified in the Eucharist; as also he there saith, that the mystical Cup is a Type of our Lord's Body, & Blood. The same construction doth Basil receive, who in his Liturgy calls the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the Figure of Christ's Body.  
Hitherto also are referred those words of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Matth. there calling the Eucharist Symbolum Passionis Christi. And the same construction is to be given to that so often objected place of S. Augustine epist. 23. ad Bonifacium, where he teacheth, that the Sacraments have a similitude, or likeness of the things, whereof they are Sacraments; and that the Sacrament of the Body, and Blood of Christ is, secundum quemdam modum, the Body, and Blood of Christ, meaning thereby, that though the Body, and Blood of Christ be in the Eucharist, according to it true substance; yet it is not there as it was upon the Cross, but only in similitude; for even in this place S. Augustine speaks of the Passion, and Death of Christ. And this very explication doth that other testimony of S. Augustine admit lib. contra Adimantum. c. 12. where he saith, that our Saviour in giving his Body, did give the sign of his body, which will clearly appear to any one, who with deliberation will consider the place.  
The second Respect, wherein the Eucharist may be called a sign, is because it is a Sacrament, and every Sacrament (according to part of it definition) is Signum rei Sacrae. For we hold that those external species of bread, and wine do signify the true Body, and Blood of Christ lying under them. And in this reference of the external forms to the body, and blood veiled under them, are to be understood Origen in c. 15. Matth. where he calls the Eucharist a Typical Body. Ambrose l. de mysterijs initiandis c. 9 where he saith, that after the consecration, the Body of Christ is signified.  
Now out of these Premises we may collect, that it is a dissolute, and lose kind of reasoning thus to infer; The Fathers do call the Eucharist a sign, or Type of Christ's Body, and Blood: Ergo, they taught, that his body, and blood were not really in the Eucharist. For these two points (as we have showed above) are not incompatible, but may stand together; for even in human matters we find, that one, and the same thing may be a sign of a thing, and the thing signified: thus the wares stalled forth in a shop (as silk, cloth etc.) are signs of merchandise to be sold, & are themselves merchandise to be sold. Therefore if our Adversaries will produce any available authority touching this point, they must allege the Fathers, teaching, that the Eucharist is only a sign of Christ's Body, or that it is a mere representation of a thing being absent: but such Fatherless Positions, as these, cannot yet be found in the writings of the Fathers.  
And seeing, that the Eucharist is (as we teach) a representation of Christ's Body, and Blood in some peculiar senses. I will add (as an appendix hereto) an Annotation of certain places of the Fathers, wherein the Word Repraesento is used; the places be, Tertullian l. 1. contra Marcionem. S. Hierome in c. 26. Matth. These Testimonies our Adversaries do object, in that, it is there said, that the Eucharist doth represent Christ, or the body, and blood of Christ, or the like. For the true meaning of which testimonies, we are to observe, that the Verb Repraesento, is ambiguous, for it signifieth to make a thing present, either truly, and really, or else only in sign, and figure. Now we say, that these Fathers did use this word in the firster signification, to wit, that Christ did truly, and really exhibit his Body, in that, which was bread afore. Which point we prove because these Fathers have else where written most clearly, and evidently in behalf of the Real Presence, and therefore if these their Authorities were otherwise to be understood, then should they either retract their former doctrine (whereof there is no sign) or else should mainly cross, & contradict themselves; wherewith to charge them were most absurd.  
That the Verb Repraesento, is sometimes taken to exhibit, or make a thing present truly, and really, I will content myself with the testimony even of Tertullian himself. For he lib. contra Praxeam, calleth Christ the Son, the Representation of the Father, and yet the Father is truly in the Son. In like sort, when God the Father said in Mount Thabor: Hic est filius meus etc. Tertullian l. 4. in Marcionem saith : Itaque iam repraesentans eum: Hic est filius meus; meaning, that, God the Father, who sometimes had promised his Son, did represent him truly, when he spoke those former words in the Mount.  
A second Point, which we are to observe in the state of this Question, is; That the Eucharist even after Consecration is by the Scripture sometimes called Bread, for so we find it termed by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. Panis quem frangimus etc. The Bread which we break, is it not the participation of the Body of Christ?] Now, this appellation may be for a double reason. First, in that it is an accustomed Dialect of Scripture to call a thing by that name, which afore it was, or of which it is made (as heretofore I have showed.) Thus we read Gen. 3. that Eve is called the Bone of Adam, because she was made thereof. And Exod. 7. the Serpents of Moses are termed Wands, because the Wands were turned into Serpents. For this very reason we find, that the Eucharist is sometimes called Bread by the Fathers (which places our Adversaries are not ashamed to object against us.) Examples hereof we have in Origen l. 8. contra Celsum, where he calls the Eucharist Panes oblatos, Bread which are offered up in Sacrifice; where instantly after he shows, that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, thereby distinguishing it from other bread. In like sort, the Eucharist is called by Irenaeus l. 4. contra Haeres c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meat, or bread sanctified, or made the Eucharist. In this sense also the Eucharist is called bread by Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph. Chrysostome also homil. 24. in prior. ad Cor calleth the Bread, the Body of Christ, meaning bread consecrated, & not common Bread. Finally, S. Augustine c. 19 l. de fide ad Petrum, calls the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Bread, & Wine.  
The second reason, why the Eucharist may be called Bread by the Scripture, is, in regard of the similitude, which it hath with bread; I mean, in nourishing the soul, as the bread nourisheth the body; And in this sense it is so called in john 6. Panis: quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita: The bread, which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. And by reason also of the said resemblance, we find the Eucharist termed Bread by the Fathers; for Dionysius Eccles. hierarch. c. 3. part. 3. calls the Sacrament Divine, and Heavenly Bread; for the same reason Tertullian l. 3. contra Martion. terms the Eucharist Bread, to wit, the bread of Life; for there the Trope is, that the Body of Christ is called Bread, because it nourisheth like bread; and not, that the bread is there called the Body. Between which two Propositions there is great difference, since the first (which is commonly used by the Fathers) to wit, the Body of Christ is Bread, presupposeth a true being there of Christ's Body, but yet (in regard of nourishing our souls) with some resemblance of bread; whereas the other Proposition (to wit the bread is the Body of Christ) neither hurteth, nor advantageth our cause, since thereto is only required, that bread be in the Eucharist, as far forth, as belong to signification; that is, that the external forms thereof be there, for by reason of the Accidences only, the bread, and wine do signify; thus may Bread be said to be some where in respect of it Accidences only, and not of it Substance: though the body of Christ hath not any such relation of being, I mean, only in regard of it Accidences, & not of it Substance. And here we may see, how our Sectaries descent from the Fathers; since they alluding to the nourishment thereof, do figuratively call the body of Christ, Bread; whereas the other, with reference only to a naked representation, do figuratively call the Bread, the Body of Christ.  
And thus much of these two Reasons, why the Scriptures, and the Fathers do sometimes call the Eucharist, Bread, or Wine. Whereunto I might adjoin a third cause, in that the Scripture (and consequently the Fathers) doth often call things, as they externally appear to the Eye; So the Scripture (as above I showed) calls Angels, which appeared in human shape, Men; the Brazen Serpent, a Serpent etc. Wherefore the Eucharist may be termed Bread, and Wine either by the Scripture, or the Fathers, in that to the Eye, it seemeth only as Bread and Wine.  
To this point I think good to range this one Note touching the writings of the Fathers, which is, that some of the Fathers (though most seldom) do say that the substances of the external Symbols do remain after Consecration; Where they are to be understood, that they speak of the essence, and nature of the Accidences, and not of the substances of Bread, and Wine: An example whereof we find in Theodoret Dialog. 2. who there teacheth, that the Mystical signs after consecration do remain in their former substances, figure, and form. Now this is meant of the nature of the accidences, and not of the Substance of bread, and wine; This is proved divers ways: first, because the two Greek words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (both which Theodoret being a greek Father here useth) contain every kind of essence, and nature, aswell of accidences as of substances. Secondly, because Theodoret doth expound himself in the words following, saying that we see, and touch the said colour, and form, which words have necessarily reference only to the outward Accidences. Thirdly, in that we Catholics do urge this very place in proof of the Real Presence, for here Theodoret plainly saith, that the Body of Christ is to be understood, to be believed, and adored in the Eucharist; and therefore to be understood, believed, adored (saith he) because the bread of the Eucharist (to wit, the bread consecrated) is truly that, which is understood, believed, and adored.  
The same exposition doth a Testimony alleged out of Gelasius admit lib. de duabus naturis; which testimony we also produce, in that, it teacheth, that the bread is changed into a divine substance by the working of the Holy Ghost. Thus we see, that the Sacramentaries are not ashamed (so needful, and begging of proofs is Heresy) out of the least appearance of advantage, or naked sound of words; to retort the very same sayings of the Fathers against us, in which, we for the fortifying of our Catholic doctrine do vehemently insist; Belike they think, that the Fathers were irresolute in their faith, or that their writings do stand according to the Prospective of each Man's humour, so as the Sense may that way look, as every Eye (beholding the words) would have it.  
Hear now I will end this consideration of the Eucharist being called bread, with a short animadversion of our adversaries petulant frowardness discovered herein, who lighting upon some few straying passages, where the Eucharist is called Bread, presently (as if they had found another Sparta, to enrich with their discourse) they cry out in great prodigality of words, that it is nothing but material bread; and yet when in every leaf, or page of the Father's works upon this matter, they find it termed, the Body, and Blood of Christ, all such places (or else we wrong them) must needs be interpreted figuratively: Thus insisting much in those phrases, which are but rare in the Fathers, and passing over with a censuring neglect, such form of speeches, as most frequently occur in their books.  
A third Point, which we hold in this high Mystery, is, touching the effect thereof, of which, much hath been already delivered, only here it will be necessary to recapitulate some of the former matter. Hear we teach that though the end thereof be principally to feed our Souls, yet doth it give a spiritual nourishment to our bodies; since our Bodies thereby are nourished to immortality, taking even from the touch of Christ's Flesh a certain disposition to a glorious resurrection, and immortal life, sorting to that of john c. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem etc. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, and I will raise him up at the last day. Now though the Fathers in their Writings do conspire with the Scripture, and us herein; yet will our Adversaries pervert such their Testmonies, who finding, that they say, that the Eucharist doth nourish our bodies sometimes without any further explication of the manner, do thereupon enforce, that since Christ's Body doth not nourish our bodies, therefore only bread, and wine, and not his Body, is in the Sacrament; so materially, and grossly do our Adversaries mistake the Father's judgements herein. Examples of this we have in many of the Fathers, as Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haeres. Nyssenus Orat. catechet. c. 36 & 37. besides divers others heretofore alleged; So as these very places ascribing (according to their true exposition) a greater virtue to the Eucharist, than our Adversaries will acknowledge, may fully instruct us (as before is showed at large) that the Fathers believed the very Body, & Blood of Christ to be in the Eucharist.  
A fourth Point also toucheth the efficacy of the Eucharist; for we teach, that the fruit, and benefit thereof consisteth not in delighting our Bodies (as corporal meats do) but in nourishing, and strengthening of our Souls: and therefore in respect of the effect, and fruit thereof, to eat the flesh of Christ, is to believe in him, & to remain in him by Charity. This we deduce out of the words of our Saviour himself, who speaking of this Mystery john 6. thus saith : Spiritus est, qui vivificat etc. It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. And again, subjoineth to the former words : Verba quae ego etc. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit, and life.] The meaning of which latter sentence (being coincident with the former) instructeth us, that a carnal understanding of the Eucharist, as if it should be eaten as other meats are (for so the Capharnaites framed to themselves) availeth nothing; but that we ought to conceive, that things divine, and spiritual are here delivered to us, which we are not to entertain in a human sense, but by faith, and apprehension inspired by God; yet so by faith, as that we believe Christ's sacred Body, and Blood to be here truly, and really taken.  
Hence now it is, that the Father's resting upon the former words of Christ, and therefore chief aiming at the available receiving of the Eucharist, do write sometimes, that we are to eat the Body of Christ by Faith, and not with teeth, not excluding thereby a corporal receiving of Christ (as the Sacramentaries do suggest) but teaching, that the benefit, and operation of the Eucharist is chiefly to nourish, and fortify our Souls with spiritual, and Theological virtues. In this sense is S. Cyprian to be understood in several passages of his Sermon de Coena Domini, who there thus concludeth: Quod esca est carni, hoc animae est fides. In the same construction also is Athanasius (tract. upon the words, Quicumque dixerit verbum in filium hominis) to be taken, who there calleth the flesh of Christ Alimoniam spiritualem, a spiritual nourishment, in that it is given for meat of the Spirit, and not of the Body. The same Interpretation is to be made of S. Augustine tract. 25. in joan. Quid paras dentem, & ventrem? crede, & manducasti. And tract. 26. Credere in eum, hoc est, manducare panem viwm; though the one (if not both) of these places by the judgements of some, not without great probability, is to be understood, not of the Eucharist, but of the spiritual eating of Christ, through faith, and belief of his Incarnation.  
Now out of this former ground resultes an observation not to be neglected, to wit, that seeing the effect of the Eucharist is, that the soul may remain in Christ by faith and charity, and that such, as do not truly believe in Christ, do not with the intended fruit thereof eat the Sacrament; therefore the Fathers (leveling only at the benefit, which the Receivers reap thereby) do write sometimes, that the Misbelievers, and Men of bad life, do not eat in the Sacrament the body, and blood of Christ; which sayings our Adversaries do most calumniously wrest, inferring from thence, that the Father's doctrine was, that such misbelievers, and other wicked persons do not take at all the Body, & Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, and that therefore his Body, and Blood is not in the Eucharist; which is most far from their meaning; who in such places (as I have said) have reference only to the profitable eating of Christ's Body, whereof the wicked are not partakers. In this sense is to be understood Origen. in 15. Matth. S. Hierome in comment. in c. 66. Isaiae. & in c. 22. jeremiae; and finally S. Augustin. tract. 59 where he saith, that the rest of the Apostles did eat Panem Dominum, but judas only Panem Domini, because he received no fruit by his eating: See him also in sermone de Verbis Apostoli, where he writeth, that the wicked do not take the body of our Lord, who (as chief insisting in a fruitful eating thereof) there saith: I llud manducare, refici est: I llud bibere, quid est nisi credere?  
And thus much concerning the true state of this question of the Eucharist, which being here sincerely set down, may serve to salve divers such places of the Fathers, as seem to fortify, and strengthen the Sacramentarian Heresy. Some other few Passages there are, of which our Adversaries take hold, which receive their Answers out of the circumstances of such places, so as an observant Reader (carefully there noting the scope of the Father, as also the words precedent, & subsequent) may easily find out; and therefore, as not being reduced to any one general head of explication, I remit them (for greater brevity) to the studious search of the judicious Reader.  
But before I finish this Chapter, I will subnect thereto some few short animadversions, which a discreet Reader may take as a Corrective, wherewith to taste the more obscure writings of the Fathers herein without danger; The which observations, in that they shall not be merely aëry, and speculative, or like Accidences without Substances, I will make choice of S. Augustine, i● whom they shall (as I may term it) inhere; exemplifying them in him (rather than in any other) because our Adversaries in this Controversy with great vendication, and show of confidence, seem to rely upon this Father.  
First then, he is to know, that the Father's omitting sometimes the literal sense of the words of the Evangelists, or Apostles (as confessed) do give some other Tropical, or Mystical interpretation of them (which course they often use in exposition of other parcels of Scripture.) After this manner S. Augustine passing over the immediate, literal, and acknowledged sense of eating Christ's Body, thus saith, in 26. in joan. Credere in eum, hoc est, manducare carnem eius.  
Another Animadversion may be, diligently to confer the more clear places of a Father touching the Eucharist, with the more doubtful of the same Father; for it is true, that their Writings do afford some dark sayings touching this Mystery; but it as is true, that they do minister us most pregnant, and unanswerable proofs for our Catholic doctrine herein; Thus do we find, that divers passages alleged out of S. Augustine, as particularly, in Psal. 33. contion. 1. upon the words, Et ferebatur manibus suis: and l. 3. de Trinit. c. 10. disputing upon the forms, wherein the Angels appeared, and, in Psal. 98. upon the words, Adorate scabellum pedum eius; do more strongly prove, and fortify this our Catholic doctrine, than any other Countertexts objected out of him, do weaken it. Seeing then, that Augustine unretracted, doth not impugn Augustine, is followeth even in reason, that the more obscure passages are to be illustrated by the more perspicuous, and evident, and not the contrary; since Darkness cannot give Light to light: nor Uncertainty become a Rule of Certainty.  
A third Caution is, to remember that some of the ancient Fathers are so full, and resolute in this point, as that even by the acknowledgement of all, they are not capable of any solutions, but confessed (and therefore rejected) to confirm the Real Presence. Now, seeing that such Fathers so writing are not contradicted by any other Fathers; it is therefore from hence necessarily inferred, that those other Fathers, that writ more obscurely thereof, did nevertheless conspire, and agree with the former in doctrine herein: which contradiction of any Novelisme in Religion, we find to have been in all ages; as appeareth (to omit the examples of Tertullian, Origen, & Cyprian) by the many registered Heresies by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, & Augustine. If then S. Augustine had written herein contrary to the plain testimonies of his age, or the immediate times after him, is it probable, that none of them would have taxed him, as swerving in this point from the unity of Faith? Or if the Fathers of his days, & other precedent times, had in such their perspicuous sayings of the Eucharist broached a new Heresy in the Church, can we suppose, that S. Augustine (who purposely, & elaborately wrote of other men's heresies) would have been silent in so important a matter?  
A fourth Caution, which partly conspireth with the former, is: That we are to observe, what Fathers in any age, have lived in any straight enter course of friendship together, either by writing, or otherwise. For we are to presume, that the Faith of one of such (if the contrary appear not by writing of either side) was agreeable to the faith of the other. Seeing then, that S. Augustine was tied most firmly in friendship with S. Ambrose (whose Testimonies touching the Eucharist, are acknowledged for us, even by the Sacramentaries) how can it be probably presumed, that S. Augustine should dissent from him in so high a Mystery, and yet on note, or remembrance thereof left in the monuments, and writings of either of them? How can it be (I say) that they should mainly dissent in faith, since unity of faith was the band of their most friendly agreement? Or that they should be Heretics one to another, when their mutual profession of being scourges of Heretics, gave the first cementation, and strenghtening to their inviolable amity? Or finally (if we will believe credible Authors) how could they so conspiringly, and unanimously (as if but one Soul had informed two Bodies) have said in that divine Hymme of theirs, Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominum confitemur, if there had been any disparity in their worship of God, or different confession of him, as their Lord?  
The Fifth, and last Caution, which I will here deliver, is to weigh, whether the actions recorded by any Father do rather sort to the doctrine of the catholics touching the Real Presence, or to the opinion of the sacramentaries, since the Father's approbation of any such works, doth sufficiently warrant in their judgements the faith whereunto such actions are truly appropriated. Thus answerably hereto we find, that S. Augustine lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. c. 8. reporteth, that a certain 
a House infested] The words of S. Augustine in that place are these : One Hesperius having his house infested with wicked spirits, to the affliction of his beasts, and servants, desired in my absence certain of our Priests, that some would go thither etc. One went, and offered there the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ, praying what he might, that the vexation might cease, and God being thereupon merciful, it ceased.] Thus S. Augustine.  house infested with wicked spirits, was delivered of the said spirits, through the offering up of the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ (as this holy Father there saith) by certain Priests thither sent. Now here he saith not, that the particular prayers of the Priests freed the house of them, neither can we think, that, that Learned Doctor believed the sacrificing of a little bread, and wine to work such stupendious effects; but he plainly affirmeth, that this great Miracle was performed by the offering up of Christ's Body, and Blood; Therefore it followeth even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and demonstratively, that S. Augustine believed, that Christ's Body, and Blood was truly, and really in the celebration of the Eucharist.  
And thus much touching these Observations. And now I will end this Chapter, affirming that in regard of what hath been delivered in this second Part, we may be the more bold to reprove the precipitate, and wilful blindness of the Sacramentaries, who (by reason of some few scattered dark passages found in the Fathers) are not ashamed to vociferate, and cry mainly out with Dioscorus the Heretic in the Council of Chalcedon: We defend the opinions of the Fathers; We have their Testimonies, not by snatches, or at the second hand, but uttered in their own Books; We are cast out with the holy Fathers: whereas indeed, these vaunts are as far from being justified, as their belief herein is distant from our Catholic belief.   

THAT BY THE CONFESSIONS OF THE Most learned Protestants, the Fathers do teach the Real Presence. CHAP. X.  
WE 
a We read.] 1. Samuel 5. & 6.  read, that as through God's permission, the Ark was for the time with holden by the Philistians; so through the sweetness of his Providence (which ever worketh good out of evil, as he once did Light 
b Light out of Darkness.] 2. Cor. 4.  out of Darkness) it was in the end safely restored to Israel. The like may we say of the writings of those primitive Fathers, which (next to the Sacred Scriptures) may be termed the Ark, or Tabernacle, wherein do lie entreasured the riches of the evangelical Law. Of this Ark our Adversaries would seem in the beginning to have impatronized themselves (I mean in their own vaunts, and in the Eye of the unlearned, not of the judicious) but not being able to make good their supposed title thereto, and frustrated of their expected gain thereby; they are at the last pleased to relinquish all such usurped interest, and freely to surrender it to the true Israelites of the Catholic Church.  
This shallbe here made evident (to omit what hath been already delivered) even by the uncoacted, and voluntary confessions of the Sacramentaries; who absolutely disclaiming in this great Controversy from the Fathers, as being chief Patrons of our Catholic Faith herein, do betrample their Writings, and Testimonies with an unaccustomed contempt, and scorn: charging both them, and the times wherein they lived with great superstition concerning the same. Thus we see, how our fastidious, and delicate Sectary, weary still of plodding on the common path, and tract of faith (though beaten with a continual practice of God's Church, and a General Warrant of the Fathers since the Apostles) delighteth himself (according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with certain Deviations, and by-ways of Innovation, & Novelty; since this (saith he) begetteth a manu-mission, & freedom of his understauding unworthily heretofore enthralled to the judgements of the Papists Church, and Fathers.  
But to proceed. I will produce (as I said) in this point the Sacramentaries own words (so shall the Enemy wound the Enemy, and Truth receive a strengthening from her impugners) wherein they most fully acknowledge in behalf of us Catholics, that the Fathers did jointly teach our now professed faith of the Eucharist. Which kind of proof both by their own 
c Their own Assertions.] For Doctor Whitaker de Eccles. controvers. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 14. saith: Firmum fit necesse Argumentum illud quod sumitur ex Aduer sariorum confession etc.  Assertions, as also even in reason itself is available: since as a Testimony of a friend, against a friend, so of an Adversary for an Adversary is most convincing.  
Now that the Fathers in this weighty Controversy are on our side, shall appear four several ways by the plain confession of our Adversaries; in the unfolding whereof by certain steps, & degrees, I will (in part) retain my former prescribed Method. First then this shall appear, in that the Fathers taught the reservation of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Adoration of the same. Thirdly, that it was a true, and perfect Sacrifice offered to God for the expiation of our sins; all which three points do potentially, and necessarily include our Catholic doctrine. Fourthly and Lastly, that even in direct, and plain words they taught the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. All which shall be proved even from the Sacramentaries own pens.  
And First, touching Reservation, which most consequently implies the Real Presence, since if the Eucharist be nothing else but Bread, and Wine, to what end is it to be reserved? especially considering the Doctrine of our Sacramentaries, who 
d Who teach.] So writeth M. Willet in Synopsi Papismi. p. 460. besides, it is the common doctrine of all the Protestants. M. Willet words are: It is no Sacrament except it be received.  teach, that this Sacrament consisteth only in action; to wit, during the time of celebrating, distributing, and eating it: which being expired, they say, that the Bread, and Wine than ceaseth to be any longer the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now the Fathers in this point of Reservation are charged by divers. And first Kemnitius (that insolent judge of his own judges) acknowledgeth this point, saying: 
e Saying: Witnesses.] Examen. part. 2. pa. 102.  Witnesses of this custom of private Reservation of the Eucharist, are Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil etc. He also in the same place saith; That certain of the Fathers greatly commended the Reservation of the Sacrament. And finally there concludeth saying; that it was, Antiqua consuetudo, latè patens, & diu propagata.  
Caluin 
f Caluin saith.] Instit. 4, c. 17. §. 39  saith: That the Reservation of the Sacrament is veteris Ecclesiae exemplum: An Example of the ancient Church.  
The Centurists 
g The Centurists.] Cent. 4. col. 427.  do reprehend the Ancient Fathers for the Doctrine of Reservation, and withal they 
h They show.] Cent. 4. col. 878.  show, that it was the Viaticum of such as were sick; which point evidently argueth the doctrine of Reservation.  
That it was a Viaticum for the sick, is further confessed by Monsieur 
* Monfieur Casaubon.] Who in his Epistle to Cardinal Peron, writeth, that Patres Concilij Niceni, & ●ota Antiquitas etc. The Fathers of the Nycene Council, & all Antiquity did minister the Eucharist to the sick, and in that respect did call it their Viaticum.  Casaubon. Cartwright in his second Reply 
i Second Reply.] part. 1. p. 77.  thus censureth S. justin for this point: justin's saying of Deacons carrying the bread of the Holy Supper of the Lord, is contrary to the Institution.  
Doctor Fulke 
k D. Fulke confesseth.] Against Heskins, Sanders etc. pag. 77.  confesseth no less freely in these words: That the Sacrament was reserved in the elder days of the Church, is not so great a Controversy as whether it ought to be reserved. To conclude, this point is so clear, as that Cyril ad Calosyrium condemneth the Anthropomorphites, as Heretics, for denying the Reservation of the Eucharist. And therefore he is deeply reprehended for so doing by Peter 
l By Peter Martyr.] lib. adversus Gardinerum de Eucharist. col. 838. printed at Basil.  Martyr, who saith thereof thus: Ea consuetudo, etsi saperet nonnihil superstitionis etc. Though that custom of Reservation may seem somewhat to taste of superstition, yet did Cyril, and others subscribe thereto.] And Martyr there further thereof: Statim enim ab Apostolorum temporibus etc. Presently after the times of the Apostles, men did degenerate from that ancient simplicity of the Divine worship.] So evident a thing (we see) it is, that the Fathers even by the confessions of our Adversaries did teach the reservation of the Eucharist. Which thing being granted, and consisting chief in practice (which might well descend from Age, to Age) whether is it not more probable, that the Fathers above censured some of them living but fifty, or threescore years after the Apostles, should be better informed of the Apostles use herein, than these upstarts, who appear above fifteen hundred years after the Apostles.  
Concerning the second point, which is Adoration of the Sacrament, the Fathers even in our adversaries judgements rest chargeable therein. Which doctrine (as I have showed above) implicitly involves in itself the doctrine of the Real Presence; for seeing we cannot imagine, that they would ascribe any Adoration to Bread, and Wine (still believing it to be but bread, and wine) we must assure ourselves, that they exhibited this adoration to the Eucharist, as believing, that under those external forms did lie the true Body of Christ accompanied with his Divinity.  
Now, touching our adversaries censuring the Father's, as faulty herein; we find, that whereas Nazianzen 
m Nazianzen telleth.] Orat. 11. de Sorore Gorgonia.  telleth of his sister Gorgonia (a testimony heretofore by us alleged) how she (afore being dangerously sick) prostrating herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped thereon, departing (not without Miracle) presently receiving health. Which place Doctor 
n D. Fulke.] Respons. ad Stapleton. de success. Eccles. pag. 230.  Fulke not acknowledging, nor denying, concludeth thus: Fucharistia in altari etc. The Eucharist upon the Altar was not worshipped of her, although it was had in great reverence, and perhaps not without superstition.] Thus D. Fulke. Which denying-granting Answer of his, well discovereth, what he thought of Gorgonia's action herein. This action of Gorgonia is also reprehended by Peter Martyr (as I showed afore) lib. contra Gardiner.  
In like sort we find, that S. Ambrose is controlled for the adoration of the Eucharist by the Centurists, who speaking of Ambroses' prayers in orat. praeparat. ad Missam, say: 
o Continent adorationem.] Cent. 4. col. 430.  Continent adorationem Panis in Sacramento. They contain the Adoration of Bread in the Sacrament.  
Chemnitius 
p Kemnitius also.] Exam. part. 2. pag. ●2.  also setteth down several sentences of Nazianzen, Ambrose, & Augustine, pronouncing thereupon, that in his judgement they contain the Adoration of the Sacrament. john Fox 
q Fox writeth.] Act. Mon. pag. 896.  writeth touching the Antiquity of this point of Adoration, that if Honorius (who lived anno 1220.) did not bring it in, we cannot find it to come in by another. Now that Honorius did not begin it, appeareth out of all the former Testimonies alleged therein.  
To conclude this point, S. Basil speaking of unwritten Traditions, saith: Verba invocationis, dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae, & pocusum Benedictionis, quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit?] Which place having reference to the particular words of Adoration, is acknowledged, & reprehended by D. Fulke 
r By M. Fulke.] In his Rejoinder to Bristol. p. 685. : so true it is, that the Fathers by the confessions of the Sacramentaries taught the doctrine of the adoration of the Eucharist.  
Touching the third Branch, that is, that the Eucharist was in the judgement of the Fathers (whose Testimonies to that end are already afore alleged) a true, and perfect Sacrifice, even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries; we find that the Carthage Council, whereat S. Augustine was present, and subscribed, teacheth the Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore is controlled therein by the 
s The Centurists.] Cent. 4. pag. 16. there speaking of the 79. Canon of the fourth Council.  Centurists who thus write: Hic Canon etc. This Canon, if it be not forged, showeth, that even in that time, Prayers, & Oblations for the dead were made.] Where by the word Oblations, they mean the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
S. Ambrose in like manner is charged by the Centurists 
t Centurists.] Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  in these word's Ambrose locutionibus utitur etc. ut Missam facere, offer Sacrificium. Ambrose used those kind of speeches etc. as for example, to say Mass, or offer up Sacrifice.  
Gregory Nyssen is also reprehended by Crastovius 
u Crastovius.] Lib. de opificio Missae. Sect. 164.  a Protestant, for maintaining the doctrine of the Sacrifice in these words: An ignoramus opinionem Nysseni etc. Are we ignorant, that the opinion of Nyssen is of itself absurd, who said, that when Christ gave his body to his disciples to eat, that then his body was latently, ineffably, and invisibly sacrificed up?] This Father is also for the same point reprehended by D. 
x Doctor Whitaker.] contra Duraeum. l. 4. pag. 320.  Whitaker.  
S. Cyril of jerusalem is charged by Hospinianus 
y Hospinianus.] I● Sacrament. pag. 167.  in this sort: Quod ad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet etc. As concerning Cyril of jerusalem, he indeed affirmed, according to the custom of his time, that the Sacrifice of the Altar was a great help of the souls.  
S. Cyprian is deeply reproved for his doctrine herein by the Centurists 
z The Centurists.] Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83.  in these words : Sacerdotem inquit etc. Cyprian saith that the Priest doth enjoy the place of Christ, and offereth sacrifice to God the Father.] In like sort, D. Fulke 
a D. Fulke saith.] Against Heskins, Sanders etc. pag. 100  saith of him : It is granted, that Cyprian thought the Bread, and Wine, brought forth by Melchisedech, to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ]  
Tertullian receives this Censure from the Centurists: 
b The Centurists.] Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 5.  Tertullianus approbavit etc. Tertullian did approve oblations (or Sacrifices) for the dead etc.]  
Irenaeus also hath his doom from the said Centurists: 
c The said Centurists.] cent. 2. c. 4. col. 63.  De Oblatione porrò Irenaeus satis etc. Furthermore Irenaeus is thought to speak over incommodiously of Oblation, when he saith, that Christ did teach a new Oblation of the New Testament, the which the Church receiving from the Apostles, doth offer up to God throughout the whole world.]  
To conclude, S. Ignatius, the Apostles undoubted Scholar, is traduced by the 
d By the Centurists.] cent. 2. c. 4. col. 63.  Centurists, as favouring this doctrine: thus they writ of him. Quaedam ambigua, & incommode dicta etc. Certain things occur in this Father's writings, which are ambiguous, and incommodiously spoken, as in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses : where Ignatius saith, that it is not lawful without a Bishop neither to offer, nor to immolate a Sacrifice.] In this sort the Centurists in another 
e Another place.] Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 167.  place say of Ignatius, that his words touching this Doctrine are periculosa, & quasi errorum semina.  
Thus we see, how every particular Father is particularly charged herewith: yet Caluin even with one 
f With one sentence.] Instit. l. 4. c. 18.  Sentence condemns divers of them at once, who thus writeth: Veteres quoque illos video etc. And I see, that those Ancient Fathers did wrest otherwise the memory hereof (meaning of the Lords Supper) then was agreeing to the Institution of our Lord; for their Supper maketh show of an iterated, or at least renewed Sacrifice etc. for they have imitated more nearly the jewish manner of Sacrificing, then either Christ ordained, or the Gospel could well suffer.] And in another 
g Another place.] lib. de vera Eccles. reformat.  place, Caluin thus proceedeth: solemn est nebulonibus ●stis etc. It is an accustomed manner with these Knaves (so railingly he terms the Catholics) to scrape together, what faults soever they find in reading the Fathers. Therefore when they object, that the place of Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus of the Sacrifice of the Mass; and the Oblation of Melchisedech in like sort is so interpreted by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Arnobius: I answer in few words, that the same Writers do also in other places understand by bread, the body of Christ, but so ridiculously, as both Reason, & Truth force us to dissent from them.] Thus Caluin.  
Neither do we find Kemmtius 
h Kemnitius.] pag. 798.  to be much less sparing in censuring the Father's concerning this point; for he thus pronounceth of them : Neque Veterum qualescumque sententiae etc. Neither in this Controversy the sentences of the ancient Fathers, but the Canonical Scripture is to be the Rule, and Square of faith.] And again, reprehending the Fathers for calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, he saith: that the so naming of it, is, de Naevis quorumdam Veterum.  
And thus much concerning our adversaries charging the Fathers of every age, even from the Apostles to S. Augustine (even insimulating S. Augustine himself within the same supposed Error) with the doctrine of the Sacrifice. And therefore no marvel, if Sebastianus 
i Sebastianus Francus.] lib. de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Eccles.  Francus, an eminent Protestant, did peremptorily pronounce, that, Statimpost Apostolos etc. Presently after the Apostles all things are turned upside down, the Supper of the Lord is transformed into a Sacrifice.] And yet Hospinian not content herewith proceedeth further saying: 
k jam tum primo.] in Histor. Sacram. l. 1. c. 6.  ●●m tum primo illo saeculo, & viventibus adhuc Apostolis etc. The Devil in the very first age, and when the Apostles wer● yet living, gave subtilely more to this Sacrament, then to Baptism, and by little, and little withdrew Men from the first form thereof.] And thus far of the Protestants acknowledgement of the Father's minds, touching this point of the Sacrifice.  
Now to come to the last Point, which is to show out of the Protestant's Writings, that the Fathers did in plain, and direct words, without the help of any inferences, (though never so immediate, and necessary) teach the doctrine of the Real Presence. First then (to omit Gregory the Great, as not being within the first five hundred years, condemned by Doctor Humphrey herein) we find S. Chrysostome reprehended by the 
m The Centurists.] Cent. 5. col. 517.  Centurists, because Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare.  
In like sort Eusebius Emyss●nus is charged by the Centurists, in that 
n Parùm commodè.] Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985.  Parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit: He spoke unprofitably of Transubstantiation.  
Neither doth S. Ambrose 
o Ambrose escape.] Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  escape the like rebuke of the Centurists, since he is affirmed by them in the books of the Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, to confirm the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which Father for the very same is taxed by 
p By Oecolampadius.] Lib. epist. Oecolampad. & Zuinglij l. 3.  Oecolampadius.  
S. Cyril in like manner is heinously traduced by Peter Martyr for his doctrine of the Real Presence, for thus Martyr saith: 
q I will not so easily.] Peter Martyr l. Epistol. epist. ad Bezam, annexed to his Common places.  I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmed such a Communion, as thereby even the substance of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is joined to the blessing, for so he calleth the holy bread etc.]  
Martyr also 
r In another place.] In his second Alphabetical Table (annexed to his Common places) of the Additions under the letter H. at the word Heresy.  in another place thus saith : The Heresy of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ.] As also in a third 
s In a third place.] Epist. ad Caluinum.  place, he further reproveth the doctrine of Cyril, and of divers other Fathers in this point.  
S. Cyprian also is charged in the book ascribed to Vrsinus, entitled, Commonefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Coena: who there 
t There writeth.] pag. 211. & 218.  writeth thus : In Cyprian are many things, which seem to affirm Transubstantiation.] And hence it is, that the Sermon of Cyprian de Coena Domini, wherein he writeth so fully in defence of Transubstantiation is said by our Adversaries to be but counterfeit; And yet notwithstanding D. Fulke against the Rhemish 
u The Rhemish Testament.] in. 1. Cor. c. 11.  Testament acknowledgeth the author thereof to be in the time not much inferior to Cyprian, and there produceth Authority out of the same Book. Lastly Ignatius is acknowledged by 
x By Kemnitius.] Exam. part. 1. pag. 94.  Kemnitius to have confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, in that eminent place of his, Eucharistias, & Oblationes non admittunt etc. already herefore alleged.  
Now seeing the voluntary Confessions of our Adversaries concerning the Father's judgements in this point, are so clear, I cannot but approve the ingenuous, plain, and impoliticke dealing of some other Protestants, who in regard of the truth hereof freely confess the further Antiquity of this Doctrine. And according hereto we find, that Antony de 
y Antony de Adamo.] In his Anatomy of the Mass pag. 236.  Adamo (a markable Protestant) saith : I have not hitherto been able to know, when this Opinion of the Real, and Bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first begin.] And in like sort Adamus 
z Adamus Francisci.] In margarita Theolog. pag. 256.  Francisci (another Protestant) confesseth no less thereof, saying: Commentum Papistarum etc. The Papists Invention, touching Transubstantiation crept early into the Church.]  
Thus have I here set down the Father's judgements in this high Mystery, confessed by the most Learned (though to their own Prejudice) of our Adversaries by the four former ways; to wit, by acknowledging, that the Fathers did teach the Reservation, the Adoration, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist (each of these necessarily involving our Catholic Faith) and last, the Conclusion itself, in plain, direct, and literal words. Wherefore if any of the Sacramentaries shall seem to have just reason, to use hereat the complaint of that Apostata 
a Anti-Constantyne.] Thus Theodoret recordeth julian to say l. 3. c. 8.  Anti-Constantine, I mean, Lucian: We are wounded with our own quills: out of our books they take armour, which in fight they use against us.] Let such remember, that Truth hath a Sovereignty, and Influence over a Man's Pen; forcing her Enemies at unawares even in impugning her, to defend her (for so our sectaries do mightily strengthen this our Catholic Faith, when in refuting of it, they acknowledge the Fathers to be our chiefest Patrons) and extorting at their hands the like benefit, which Premeth●us Thessalus (recorded by Plutarch) had received from his capital Adversary, who in fight intending to kill him, lanced only with his sword a most dangerous mole, or wen, and so thereby without any further hurt restored him to his more perfect health.  
But as here I have delivered the Protestants Assertion, to wit, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did with a full consent maintain the Real Presence; so I take it not impertinent here to set down briefly another Position, to wit; That the Primitue Church did never jointly err in Faith, and Religion. Which Proposition is most true both in reason itself, and by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries. In Reason, for seeing that Christ founded his Church with such solicitude, as he did, and being founded, did water it (for it increase, and continuance) with the shedding of his own most precious Blood, and the Blood of infinite Martyrs during those Primitive times; can it stand with his divine, and benign Providence, presently after his Ascension, or at the most upon the death of his Apostles, to abandon his former care had thereof? Or shall we imagine him so unkind, and unmerciful (who through a merciful kindness was content corporally to die, to prevent our eternal death) as instantly then to repudiate his most dear, and chaste Spouse, by suffering an utter disparition, and vanishing away of the true Faith? By the acknowledgement of the Protestants the former Assertion is also most true, as shall evidently appear out of their own words, from the Reference 
b From the Reference appropriated] Answerably hereto we find, that jewel in his defence of the Apology thus saith: The Primitive Church, which was under the Apostles, and Martyrs, hath evermore been accounted the purest of all others without exception. Kemnitius saith in his Exam. Conc. Trident. part. 1. pag. 74. We doubt not, but that the Primitive Church received from the Apostles, and Apostolical Men, not only the Text of Scripture, but also the right, and native sense thereof. And in the same part he also saith: We are greatly confirmed in the true, and sound sense of Scripture, by the testimony of the Ancient Church. Doctor Saravia in defence. tract. de diversis Ministrorum gradibus pag. 8. writeth: Spiritus Sanctus (qui in Ecclesia praesidet) verus est Scripturarum Interpres: ab eo igitur est petenda vera interpretatio, & cum i● sibi non possit esse contrarius, qui primitivae Ecclesiae praesedit, & per Episcopos eam guberuavit, ipsos iam abijcere consentaneum veritati non est. In like sort the Confession of Bohemia, in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. acknowledgeth, that, The Ancient Church is the true, and best Mistress of Posterity, and going before leadeth us the way. Finally Doctor Bancroft speaking of Caluin, and Beza, thus writeth in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline: For M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I do think of them, as their writings do deserve, but yet I think better of the ancient Fathers, I must confess. All which praises, and commendations given by so many of our Adversaries to the Primitive Church, and the Fathers of those Ages, are unworthily, wrongfully, and untruly applied, if so the Church of that Time, or the Fathers thereof should have generally erred in matter of faith.  appropriated to this place. Now these two Propositions (to end this Chapter withal) I will combine, and incorporate together in this one Argument, whereby our Adversaries may more clearly discern the inevitable, and dangerous resultancy, issuing from such their confessed (yet true) Assertions. Thus then:  
Whatsoever the Primitive Church did jointly teach in matter of Faith, the same is by the confession of the Protestants most true.  
But the Primitive Church did jointly teach, by the confession of the Protestants, the Doctrine of the Real Presence.  
Therefore, the Doctrine of the Real Presence, is, by the confession of the Protestants, most true.  
The Proposition is acknowledged by our Sectaries in the Marginal Reference. The Assumption is abundantly confessed by them throughout this whole Chapter (for it cannot be denied, but that doctrine, which was taught by all the chiefest, & learned Fathers of the Primitive Church, was the generally taught, and received Doctrine, and Faith of those Ages, and times) therefore the Conclusion is most truly, and necessarily inferred. And thus my nice Protestant Reader, if so his stomach can endure the the taste of an Argument, hath here a Compound (to wit, that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, is by the confession of the Protestants, most true) made of the mixture or the two former Simples. 
(l) By D. Humphrey.] In jesuitismi part. 2. ra●. 5.    

OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS Drawn from Luther, the Lutherans, and other Protestants, teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist. CHAP. XI.  
HAVING in the former Chapter proved even from the Testimonies of our Adversaries (so receiving from them thereby a benefit, but not a courtesy) that the ancient Fathers (though most remote from us in circumstance of Place, and Time) were nevertheless conspiring with us in faith, & belief of the Eucharist, and therefore altogether opposite to the professed doctrine of the Sacramentaries, Thus the Father's God is not as our adversaries God, even our 
* Even our Enemies.] Deuteron. 32.  Enemies being judges: It will not in this place seem (I hope) inconvenient, if I present to the Readers judgement two observations; the deliberate considerations whereof (though but Moral inducements) are able to obtund, and blunt the most forcible reasons urged to the contrary.  
The first of these shallbe taken from Luther, whose malice towards the Pope (for indeed he breathed nothing but Malice, Pride, and Lust) was so implacable, as that he endeavoured by all means possible to annoy, and endamage the Sea of Rome; and thereupon (as the World knoweth) he did burst out from the Catholic Church, by denying the most points denied at this day by the Protestants. Hence now I would demand, how chanced, that he changed not his opinion in the Article of the Real Presence, aswell as in the rest, since the detriment coming to the Pope by this means, must have been very markable, and far extending, for it would have brought in an Innovation of the external, & daily worship of God throughout all Christendom? Truly we can assign no other reason, but that the evidency of the Evangelists, and the Apostles Texts (for 
a Himself confesseth.] to wit, in his epistle ad Argentinos.  himself of this point confesseth no less) was so unavoidable, as that he could pretend no colour of dissenting from the Church of Rome herein. And so being here convinced with the perspicuity of Christ's own words, was constrained to acknowledge him to be in the Eucharist, no otherwise then the Devils overcome with Christ's Miracles, even forcedly noised him to be the 
b The Son of the Living God.] Matth. 8. Mar. 1.  Son of the Living God. Thus we see, that out of an impartiality of judgement (which in other matters was darkened with passion) he here was compelled to maintain the same Doctrine, which was maintained by his designed Enemy; In defence whereof we may easily discover his fervour, by his acerbity of writing against the Zwinglians in these words: We 
c We censure.] Epistol. contra Articul. Lovan. thes. ●7. tom. 2.  censure in earnest the Zwinglians, and all the sacramentaries for Heretics, and alienated from the Church of God.] And again: Cursed 
d Cursed be.] Tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 381.  be the Charity, and Concord of the Sacramentaries for ever, and ever to all eternity.]  
To the judgement of Luther I will subordinate the judgement of his own brood (the Lutherans) ever since his time, who (though according with the Caluinists, and Zwinglians in many of the other points controverted between them, and the Catholics) with greater earnestness have ever maintained the doctrine of the Real Presence: Witness hereof are their long continued 
e Continued Booke-warres.] There hath been several hundreds of Books written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists, or Zwinglians, and by these against the former, and the Subject of very many of those books is only touching the doctrine of the Sacrament. See of this point Coccius his Thesaurus tom. 2. Hospinianus his Historia Sacrament. part. 2. and the yearly Catalogue of Books returned from Frankford.  Booke-warres, their Proscriptions, their Banishments, and other temporal dishonours, wherewith they afflict one the other, and all undertaken originally, and primatively for justifying of Christ's corporal, and real being in the Sacrament. Now the Motive of the Lutherans Agreement with the Catholics herein, cannot be derived from any friendly association between us, and them; for we see, that not only in most other Articles, but also in divers circumstances, and accessory Inferences upon this very doctrine, they descent from us (as in the manner of the Presence, the Adoration, the Sacrifice etc.) and therefore we may assure ourselves, that it is the evidency of God's word, attended on with an answerable practice of the Primitive Church, and a joint consent of the Fathers, which did force their judgements herein, and hath made them such resolute, and constant Propugners of the Real Presence.  
The second Observation (to pass over the former acknowledged doctrine of the Real Presence, taught by the most eminent Divines of England, as appeareth in my Epistle to his Majesty, & the other to the Reader, whose Position therein seems more Catholic, then that of those hereafter alleged) whereupon I will here rest, shall be drawn from such our Adversaries, who, though they embrace not the truth of Christ's Real Being in the Sacrament to the bodily Mouth, yet they altogether disavow, and reject the common doctrine of the Sacramentaries, and so (as if the verity hereof did partake of a Moral virtue, to be bounded on each side with extremes) they come crowding in with a middle kind of faith, teaching with the Catholics, that Christ is really, and truly in the Eucharist; and with the Sacramentaries, that his Body is taken only with the mouth of faith.  
The doctrine of these Participles in faith (so to term such Men) though erroneous, I allege to this end, to demonstrate hereby, that the luculency, and clearness of the Proofs for this our Catholic Belief, though it hath not (through their own defaults) that working influence upon such judgements, as to draw them entirely, and wholly to the Truth, yet is it able to hinder, that they entertain not that gross (yet spiritual) mistaking of the Sacramentaries; even as the Sun, whose heat sometimes is such, as though it cannot dispel, and consume the vapours near to it, yet is it of force to prevent, that they thicken not into any dark clouds of storms, and tempests.  
divers Protestants of great eminency (as 
f Hooker.] l. 5. of Ecclesiastical Policy sect. 67.  Hooker, D. 
g D. Whytaker.] Contra Duraeum. pag. 168.  Whitaker, and 
h And others.] as Bucer in Script. Auglic. pag. 548. The Confession of Belgia in the English Harmony, pag. 431. and by divers others.  others) have maintained this kind of Christ's being in the Sacrament, & for their so doing, have been sharply rebuked by other Protestants, as inclining herein (to use their own words) overmuch to 
i Overmuch to Popery.] So is this their Opinion reprehended by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English. epist. 25. who is for the same reciprocally controlled by Bucer in his Script. Auglic. p. 548. The same Opinion of Christ's existency in the Sacrament is reprehended by our English Puritants in their Christian Letter to M. R. Hooker, by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena; and finally (to omit divers others) by Ludovicus Alemannus in positionibus apud Lugdunenses editis Anno 1566. who thus there writeth hereof: Neque etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, ut vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo.  Popery, the particulars of which I have displayed in the marginal Notes. Yea even Caluin himself, (as seeming to allow the former Protestant's assertion) yet chief out of Policy, the more to countenance his wheaten Communion, thus bursteth forth into admiration of God's power, manifested in the Eucharist, saying: Nihil 
k Ninhil restat.] l. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 7.  restat, nisi ut in eius Mysterij admirationem prorumpam, cui nec Mens planè cogitando, nec lingua explicando par esse potest.] So desirous is a Babylonian to speak hereof in the Dialect of an Israelite. Now the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Resultancy of all heretofore delivered in this Chapter, is, to discover that both the Lutherans, and infinite others of the most learned, and grave Protestants, do concur herein, that the words of Christ, & his great Apostle S. Paul (besides other human authorities) are so clear, & evident, for his true, and corporal Presence in the Sacrament, as that no wit whatsoever can probably wrest them (and therefore Impudence itself might well seem to blush at such forced Detorsions) to the vphoulding only of a bare, naked, & Typical Presence. And that, if either of these two sorts were demanded, whose particular faith among the Christians of this Age, they would admit next to their own, they both would prefer our Catholic Faith before the Sacramentarian Innovation; for they both participate herein much more with the Catholics, then with the Sacramentaries. Out of which we may justly infer, that the Faith of the Church of Rome only is true, and undoubted, and all the rest erroneous, according to that most probable Position: Cui ceterae parts, vel sectae secundas unanimiter deferunt, cùm singulae principat●● 〈◊〉 vendic●●●, melior reliquis videtur.] For we must presume, that the first Censure, terminating in their own Faith, proceedeth out of Prejudice, and Self-love; the other out of a clear, and impartial judgement.  
And here now I will close up this Chapter with a discovery of one notorious sleight of the Sacramentaries, which shall serve, as a Chorus to this second Tract. It is this; That now at the length they are content to divulge, that the Article of the Real Presence, is but a Point adiaphorous, or indifferent, and therefore may be maintained on all sides without endangering the Foundation of Christian Religion. But what? Do they thus teach in favour towards us, thereby to lessen our supposed error herein? No verily. This show of kindness we admit not, for 
l Timeo Danaos.] Virg. Aneid. 4.  Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes. The true Reason then hereof is this: They seeing, that God's sacred word (at least in the literal, and genuine sense thereof) the uninterrupted Practise of the Church, the convincing testimonies of the Fathers, and finally their own Brethren (though comparting with them in other Articles of their own Religion) do all jointly corroborate, and strengthen the Catholic doctrne in this High Mystery. And on the other side, unwilling to recall (for Pride cannot brook a just yielding, or submission to an Adversary) what they have heretofore so pertinaciously defended, they have therefore thought it good Policy, to suggest to the world, and Indifferency of this Point, that by so doing they may intimate to all, that though they err therein (as having so many great Evidences against them) yet their Error (not touching any Cardinal, & supreme article of Faith) is the less dangerous, and therefore the more sufferable, and pardonable.  
Now answerably to this my Asseveration, we find even Doctor 
n D. Keynolds.] in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference.  Reynolds, no vulgar Idol in our English Temple (to assign 
o To assign divers others.] Answerably hereto, we find jacobus Acontius l. 3. stratagem. Sat. pag. 135. thus writing. It is evident concerning aswell those, who hold the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Bread, as those others, which deny it, that although of necessity the one part do err, yet both are in way of Salvation, if in other things they be obedient to God.] So also the indifferent judgement of john Frith, Acts. and Mon. 503. who there saith hereof : The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament, bindeth no man of necessity to Salvation, or Damnation, whether he believe it, or no.  divers others to the Marginal Reference) to affirm, that the Real Presence, is but as it were, the grudging of a former Ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith. Thus we see how our adversaries comportment in this Controversy is full of fraud, moreful of Malice. Their incorrigible humour of contradicting the Catholic Church (for their Sacramental Position is grounded merely upon Opposition) displays their Malice; their false extenuating (for their own advantage) the greatness of this Mystery, their Fraud.   

THAT THERE ARE MANY CONGRVENTIALL Reasons, showing the Conveniency, why Christ might be induced to leave his Body, and Blood in the Eucharist. As also showing the Conveniency of Transubstantiation. CHAP. XII.  
IT is an accustomed, & approved Method both of Philosophers, and Divines, after they have fortified their Assertions (the subject of their Discourse) with the most forcible Testimonies, which are to be alleged in that behalf, then to attend the said Proofs with certain congruential Inducements, persuading the conveniency, and fitness of such their doctrine.  
Thus the Philosopher (for instance sake) after he hath much discoursed of the number, the vastness, and the beauty of the Heavens (Gods Hieroglyphic Characters, wherein are written his Power, and Glory) and descending to demonstrate the roundness of those Bodies, as also the answerable roundness of the Earth, from the unchangeable Motions, Phainomena, and Appearances of the Heavens; he showeth the suitableness of this form of them both, and how it sorteth to the benefit of all Creatures, and the Irregularities, and exorbitant Effects, rising from any other supposed form given to them.  
In like sort, the Divine convincing against the Arian, that Christ is both God, and Man, from the holy Scriptures, and the authority of the Church, doth warrant his doctrine with certain persuasive motives, drawn from the consideration of God's justice, and the Atrocity of Sin; including, that it was convenient, that since Sin did first divide God from Man, he, who by redeeming the world, should reunite them, should be both God, and man.. And thus the firster kind forceth our judgement; the other, as sorting with Reason, and Prudence, and in some sense presuming the former, serves only (as sweet meats to our stomachs) pleasingly to close up our judgement. The same order will I here observe: For having (I trust) already sufficiently proved the Truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist from all the former Authorities, drawn from the Word both of God, and Man, I will set down certain Congruences, and prudential Reasons, wherewith our Saviour might well seem to have been induced to leave his Sacred Body to his Church, that by the authority, and disposal thereof, it might be truly, and really exhibited to all Christians whatsoever.  
And here by reason of the great number of them, I will chief insist in some few (for I am desirous to contract this Treatise within as small a Compass, as conveniently I can) in regard whereof I will not much more enlarge myself upon those Effects, and Operations of this most heavenly food, which heretofore I have touched by way of alleging the Father's Authorities; which show, that the Eucharist is a Pledge of our Salvation; that by it we are not only by Faith, but even corporally united with Christ; That in regard of this union, the Eucharist is a Seal to us of our Resurrection; finally that through it we are made Partakers of the divine Nature; All which admirable Effects and virtues, may probably be imagined (among other Motives) to have been most prevailing with our Lord for the first institution of this holy Mystery; for Man cannot conceive, how Christ could invent more forcible means to produce such spiritual operations, then by instituting this Sacrament. In respect also of the same desired expedition, I will not long rest in displaying, and amplifying the dignity, and worth of such Inducements, as I intent here to urge, but will pass them over with a cursory Pen, briefly intimating them to the studious Reader.  
Well then, one Inducement of the Institution of this Sacrament may be, that seeing Mortal sin (which is the Harbinger of eternal damnation) cannot be avoided altogether, but by the Grace of God; what better means could his divine Majesty invent for the watering our Souls with his Grace, than the ordaining of this Sacrament? for since we are hereby truly, and really united with Christ (the Fountain of Grace) how can we be altogether estranged, and divided from such Influences, as proceed from Christ? yea we are to believe, that this joining of Christ with us, doth not only enable us to prevent future Sins, but also affordeth means to salve, and medicine other spiritual diseases. Which Effect is worthy to proceed from such a Conjunction, since we read, that the 
a The woman in the Gospel.] Mark c. 5.  woman in the Gospel by touching only the hem of Christ's garment, was cured of her corporal sickness.  
In like sort, Christ intending to enrich Man's soul with all necessary, and spiritual knowledge for the avoiding of Sin, and guiding him in the way of a virtuous life, could not by more convenient means perform this his design, then by our receiving him within us, who is knowledge itself. For let us consider his Humanity, we find him to be fraught with such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and fullness of wisdom, as that, De plenitudine 
b De plenitudine eius.] john cap. 2.  eius omnes accepimus. Let us ascend higher with respect to him, as to the Second Person in the most Blessed Trinity, and we may glass in him all sufficiency without any blemish of Imperfection, for we are taught, that he is Lumen de 
c Lumen de Lumine.] Symbolum Athanasijs.  Lumine. Finally, let us contemplate him in the supreme Majesty of Deity, and our weak sight is even dazzled with the rays of his brightness, since he is that Sun from whence all reasonable Creatures do derive their Intellectual beams. Therefore it must needs follow, that, that Christian, who with due preparation receiveth him in this high Mystery, is much enlightened with spiritual, and heavenly Knowledge; and this not only during that most happy (though short) presence of him within us, but also for no small season thereafter; even as we see the Sun doth leave unto us for a reasonable time, a secondary light after his departure from our Horizon.  
A second Motive hereof may be for our increase of Faith. For in regard of the many obscurities encompassing the Catholic doctrine herein on all sides, it followeth, that the Faith of him, who giveth an immovable assent hereto, is mightily advanced: for the difficulties in any dogmatical Point, and a faith of the said Point, may well resemble a pair of Balance, whereof how much the lower one part descendeth, so much the higher the other riseth; for so we find, that the greater the difficulties are which depress our understanding against the belief of any Mystery, the higher aspireth our faith in believing the same. Wherefore in such cases our understanding (especially if we be unlearned) must afore digest all such subtleties with an unexamined entertainment, free from all inquisitive rumination of them; no otherwise then in the Old Law the Paschall Lamb (an express figure of the holy Eucharist) was commanded to be eaten by 
d By swallowing the parts.] Exod. c. 12.  swallowing the parts thereof down, without any chewing of the same.  
Our Hope in like sort is raised hereby to a higher strain; for since the Object of Christian Hope is the joys of Heaven, what greater assurance can we have of a future accomplishing of our said Hope, then in the mean time (as meat given to strengthen us in our spiritual journey) to feed upon him, who is the Lord, and King of Heaven? Or how can we doubt, that we shall not in due time (if our own demerits do not merit the contrary) enjoy those rivers of the water of life, when whilst we are here upon earth, we drink the Blood of our Saviour, which is the Source, and Wellspring it self? Not without cause therefore did our most gracious Author hereof affirm, that, 
e Qui manducat meam carnem.] john 6.  Qui manducat me am carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Yea one Father is so strong in this point, that he is not afraid to pronounce, that, 
f Dum in hac vita.] Chrysostome homil. 24. in prior. ad Corinth.  Dum in hac vita sumus, ut terra nobis Caelum sit, facit hoc Mysterium, so as that by the operation, and Presence of the Blessed Eucharist, we enjoy Heaven, before we be in Heaven: So true it is, that a confident, and erected Hope is a pleasing anticipation of a future good.  
Fourthly who will not acknowledge our Charity, and Love towards our Saviour to grow more intense, & to become more inflamed hereby? I mean, in contemplating the immensurable Goodness of God manifested to us herein, who would not only vouchsafe to become Man for Man, but also is content so much to abase himself, as to enter (being accompanied with his Divinity) into the body of a most sinful, & wretched Worm; which proceeding of Christ, in that it did flow from an infinite gulf of Charity towards us, how can we be so monstrously ungrateful, as not (though in a lower proportion) to meet him with some retaliation of burning zeal? for seeing even unreasonable Creatures are herein so reasonable, as that they show a liking towards them, of whom they have received any good turns; much more than with man, should Love be the usury of Love, and Affection ever reflect Affection. And therefore a Christian Soul ought in this place to strive through an height, and extremity of Love (whose Nature is to incorporate together things different) to be most inwardly, and inseparably conjoined with her Creator, even dwelling, and residing in him, and so making good in herself that saying : Anima magis est, ubi amat, quàm ubi animat. And thus far of these three Theological virtues, and how consorting, and suitable the Institution of the Blessed Eucharist is to the progress, and increase thereof; from which holy Mystery though these virtues receive their augmentation, and perfection; yet not their beginning; for we teach (according to that of the Apostle, Qui 
g Qui manducat, & bibit indignè.] 1. Cor. c. 11.  manducat, & bibit indignè, judicium sibi manducat, & bibit) that he, who is altogether deprived of them, can no more (as being spiritually dead) profitably relish, and taste this celestial Manna, than a Body (naturally dead) can digest corporal meats.  
Another Reason of ordaining the Eucharist, may be to bind all Christians together not only by Charity, but even in a certain real, and substantial manner. Now this union is performed, in that all Christians do communicate of one, and the same spiritual food; according to those words of the Apostle (which though immediately they be appropriated to the former union of mind by Charity, yet may they well be extended to this more strait, and intrinsical union) unus 
h unus Panis.] 1. Cor. 10.  Panis, unum corpus multi sumus, qui de uno Pane participamus. Thus doth this Real union of Christians through Christ beget an union of them in Charity; and this of Charity (for who loveth truly his Neighbour, loveth Christ) engendereth again a Secondary union of them in Christ: so powerful, and operative is here this Circulation of union.  
Sixthly, how could our Saviour more feelingly express a perseverance of his Love towards Man, then by leaving at his departure his sacred Body with his Spouse, wherewith the devout Soul might at all convenient times be fed, and nourished? The immensenes of which Love our understanding cannot comprehend, and therefore we may here well use that forcible word 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Matth. 14. Mark 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ (the which the Evangelists upon other occasions often apply to him) that is, that he was touched even in his bowels of Love, and kindness, when he first resolved, and thought upon (for Love is most inventive) to institute this dreadful Mystery. For if we consider the thing here given, or the giver himself (both being here coincident, and both being God, and Man) or the end whereunto it was bestowed, to wit, the spiritual nourishing of our Souls, or the small deserving of Man receiving it, who daily crucifieth him with his sins, it will assure us, that such wonderful Munificence issued from a Sea of most vehement Love, and Affection.  
Furthermore his zeal to us herein appeareth in that he is content by his entering into us (a strange affection which bringeth forth such strange effects) that we do enter into him, and thus we are (without any disordered confusion of things) in that meat, the which is in us, himself witnessing no less in those words: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me 
k In me manet.] john 6.  manet, & Ego in eo.] Therefore to conclude this point, it remaineth (since flames ever beget flames) that seeing the burning Love of Christ did first procure this Conjunction with us in the Eucharist, the said Conjunction ought reciprocally to engender in us a grateful Love towards Christ for so great a benefit, Ego 
l Ego dilecto meo.] Cantic. 6.  Dilecto meo, & Dilectus meus mihi, still acknowledging it full worth, and still remaining desirous by often participation of so high a Mystery, without any fastidious, or cloyed conceit thereof to renew all spiritual operations flowing from the same: Qui 
m Qui edunt me.] Eccles. 24.  edunt me, adhuc esurient: & qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient.  
There are many other Inducements (according to the judgements of the Learned Fathers, and Doctors) which might invite our Saviour to leave his Body, and Blood in the Eucharist; for they teach, that it is a perpetual Sacrifice ever to continue in the Church: That it is a condign, and worthy Sacrifice for Christ to offer up to his Father: That it is a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving for the Saints in Heaven: That it is not only for the Living, but for the Dead also a Propitiatory Sacrifice: That it is a Commemoration of Christ's Passion: That it is a confirmation of his Testament: That it is an Abstract, or Abridgement of divers of God's chiefest Miracles: That in a sort it Deifieth the Soul: That thereby we have God present under a sensible object to hear our Prayers, which point mightily increaseth our devotion, and reverence: Finally, that it is a Viaticum for the souls ready to departed out of this world. All which several Reasons (besides divers others) if we should insist in unfolding the value, and worth of them (of which this place is not capable) might well seem to be most important, and urging occasions of the institution of this Sacrament; since such spiritual ends, intendments, operations, & effects (supposing that Christ would establish in his Church some settled course tending to the same) could not by any other more convenient, and proportionable means be accomplished, then by the ordaining of this most dreadful Mystery; so agreeable is our Catholic doctrine herein to all Prudence, Reason, and Moral Persuasion. And thus we see, how the Institution of this Sacrament, and the many seeming inducements thereof do in a different respect reciprocally presuppose the one the other.  
And hence therefore more evidently appeareth the froward obstinacy of our Adversaries, who either not knowing, or not weighing these, and other such Arguments of credibility, alleged in defence of the Real Presence, are not ashamed to urge (grounding themselves upon our Method herein by way of a Contrariety) the unprofitableness thereof, as also certain Inconveniences, and Indignities to Christ, proceeding in their opinion from this our Catholic Doctrine; affirming them to be such, as that they minister strong probabilities, that Christ would never leave his Body, and Blood to be given truly, and really in the celebration of the Eucharist. But this their Lightness, and want of  judgement, consisting in dishonouring Christ under the texture of honouring him (so did the jews convitiate him in words of Reverence) shallbe discovered 
n 
Hereafter in the Marginal Reference.] The chief Reasons, which our Adversaries do allege, both from the unprofitableness of the Catholic doctrine, as also from the indignity, which seems to be offered to Christ's Body, are these following. And first touching the seeming indignity, and dishonour redounding to the sacred body of Christ by the doctrine of the Real Presence: They object, that from our doctrine it followeth, that the Body of Christ might fall, might be burnt, might become rotten, and mouldy (for so we see the external symbols sometimes to appear) might be eaten by mice, should pass into the belly, and so to the common passage etc.  
To all this we Answer; First, that these supposed Indignities do not touch the Body of Christ, but only affect the species, and forms of the Eucharist, which are joined with the Body. As for example, when the consecrated host falleth from the Altar upon the Earth, yet cannot the Body of Christ be truly said to fall; for that is said properly and truly to fall, which doth exist, and is moved corporally (which cannot be properly said of Christ's Body in the Eucharist.) And therefore when a Man falleth on the ground, we use not to say, that his Soul falleth, though accidentally it changeth it place therewith. Answerably therefore, we teach, that the Body of Christ existing after a spiritual manner, and indivisibly in the Eucharist, changeth it place, but properly falleth not, when the Host falleth.  
Secondly, we answer, that seeing our Christian faith, teacheth us, that Christ was included for a long time in the womb of a woman; that he was swaddled, and lapped in clothes; that then he might fall upon the earth; and might also have been eaten with beasts, or burned (if so by miracle, he were not preserved from such mischances) if then he was truly, and in his own person subject to all these difficulties without any dishonour; what dishonour is it to him, if he did undergo (in another form) the former supposed indecencies urged by our Adversaries?  
Thirdly, The former Indignities do no more truly, and properly touch the Body of Christ, than the Divinity (because it is present in all places) can be said to be burnt, it being in the fire, or to be rotten, it being in bodies that are rotten etc.  
Lastly, this kind of our Adversaries arguing is borrowed from the old Heretics, denying other points of Christian Religion. Thus we find, that the Arians impugned the Divinity of Christ (as appeareth from Hilarius l. 12. de Trinitate) from reasons drawn concerning the honour, and dignity of the Father. In like sort, the Marcionistes, denying the Incarnation did object (as we read in Tertullian lib. de carne Christi) that it was an Indignity to God, to be enclosed in the womb of a woman, to lie in a Manger etc. Finally, the jews chiefly rest in objecting against us Christians, that we believe in a Man (as justinus witnesseth in Dialogo cum Tryphone) which was crucified among thieves By all which examples we are instructed, how little available those Arguments are, which our Adversaries do draw from the Indignities (supposing that they were true) which seem to proceed from our Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.  
Now touching the unprofitableness of the Catholic doctrine in this point, our Adversaries do object, that the real being of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is needless, in that seeing the end, and fruit of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soul, and this nourishment consisting in Faith, and Charity, may as availeably be performed by apprehending Christ by faith, as he is only in Heaven; it followeth, that no profit ariseth from the Catholic doctrine herein, which is not by other means aswell effected.  
To this I answer: First, that it is false to affirm, that the same fruit is reaped by apprehending Christ in heaven, as by receiving him really into our Bodies; Since experience doth witness, that by this receiving him in the Eucharist, our Faith, Charity, Devotion, and Reverence are more increased: Besides our Real Conjunction with Christ affordeth many benefits to the Soul, which Christ giveth not without this Conjunction; no otherwise then he cured all such, as touched the hem of his garment, whom he would not (notwithstanding that he could) if they had not touched it.  
Secondly, it is a false Illation, to conclude, It was not convenient, that Christ should be really in the Eucharist, because the fruit reaped thereby, may be obtained by other means; for that is profitable, which doth confer any good, though the same good may be obtained by other ways, for no man will deny, but that Christ could have cured the sick, and infirm, if they believed in him, though they had not touched his garments, or his hands, yet it followeth not that the touch thereof was unprofitable to them. In like sort, one drop of Christ's Blood, or any laborious work undertaken by him for our good, had been sufficient for our Redemption; yet it followeth not, that all his pains, wounds, effusion of his Blood, and death itself were unprofitably, and bootlessely performed; yea God could have redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christ, shall we therefore say, that the Incarnation of Christ was needless, inconvenient, and unprofitable?  
Finally, our adversaries object, that the doctrine of the Real Presence is hurtful, in that it followeth, that the Body of Christ is given to the wicked with profaning thereof. To which may be answered (besides that, which is above said, touching the Indignity offered to Christ by this Doctrine) that no inconvenience, or damage ariseth to Christ's body, being distributed to the wicked, but the great Charity of God is showed therein; for we see that the Sunbeams do light upon most foul places, and putrefied bodies, they being in no sort corrupted, or defiled thereby; why should then the Body of our Saviour being after a spiritual, and supernatural manner in the Eucharist, receive any detriment, hurt, or loss, by it entering into the bodies of the wicked?   hereafter in the Marginal Reference, and their supposed wrongs against Christ's sacred Body, solved: The which are not rested upon by them, for any tender regard had of our saviours dignity, and glory, but because they are resolved in all points to be mainly cross, and contrary to this our Catholic, and ancient Faith; not only touching the Presence, but also the manner thereof, which is warranted from 
o 
From reasons drawn.] Seeing that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, doth ever presuppose the Real Presence, therefore the Reasons here alleged are prevailing chief against the Lutherans, and all such Protestants, as do acknowledge a true and real being of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. Therefore supposing that Christ would truly exhibit his body to us, these congruential motives following may persuade us that he would not there have it joined with bread, but to be absolutely alone by itself.  
First, in that if the substance of bread should remain with the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Then two different Substances should have one and the same respect and relation to the same Accidences, and should be demonstreted by the same Accidences, as by certain external signs: And which is more, the first and principal relation of the Accidences should be to the Bread, and only a secondary relation to the Body of Christ; the reason hereof being, in that the substance of the bread (and not the Body of Christ) is informed with those Accidences. But this would be most inconvenient, since from hence it would follow, that the Actions performed by the Priest, or the Communicant should first agree to the bread, & secondarily only to the Body of Christ; And thus if one do ask, what is elevated, what is eaten, or what the Accidences do there signify, or one should then answer, a piece of Wheaten Bread, and the Body of Christ; which point could not stand with the dignity and reverence of Christ's Body.  
Secondly, it would appear much opposite to the dignity of Christ's Body, that one and the same meat should be nourishment both to our Souls and Bodies, and it consequently would breed in us a less reverence to the Body of Christ there present.  
Thirdly, supposing the Bread to be in the Eucharist, then could not the Eucharist be taken fasting: and hence it followeth, that none could several times communicate the same day: And yet according to S. Augustine epist. 118. c. 6. even by the Decree of the Apostles, the Body of Christ ought to be taken only of such as are fasting: As also it appeareth from S. Gregory homil. 8. in evang. that upon Christmas day the Priest did celebrate three times, during the time of the Primitive Church.  
Fourthly (and perhaps principally) it is fitting, that the bread should not be in the Eucharist with the Body of Christ, in regard of the danger growing thereby, to wit, for fear that the more ignotant & simple should adore the bread, since such do not distinguish, but absolutely adore that which lieth under the Accidences. Now that it was convenient, that the Accidences of bread and wine should remain, and not be changed, appeareth by other like Reasons of Congruency. First, because if they were absent, then there would be no sensible sign in the Eucharist, and consequently it would cease to be a Sacrament. Secondly, by reason, that in regard of the presence of the Accidences, the worth and merit of our faith is increased. Thirdly, they being absent, it would be a horror to Man's nature to eat Man's flesh Fourthly, if they were absent, than this Proposition (Hoc est Corpus meum) could not be true, since then the whole should be so changed into the whole, as that nothing should remain common to both the Termini of this Conversion.   Reasons drawn in like sort from Conveniency (for they are strange Mathematicians) since of all the several Aspects, which may be borne to the Sun of God's Church (for, in sole posuit Tabernaculum suum) they approve, and allow only a mere Diametrical Opposition: thus (gravely) esteeming themselves to be so much the nearer to the Truth, by how much they are further of from the 
p The pillar and foundation.] According to that, Columna, & Firmamentum Veritatis. Tim. c. 3.  Pillar and Foundation of Truth.    

THE CONCLUSION.  
HERE now, Good Reader (for to thee only I will turn my pen, since my humble thoughts dare not presume to direct any further speeches unto his Majesty) thou hast this mean, and impolished discourse, in regard of the Subject whereof all Pens (yea the tongues of Angels) are to be reputed most unworthy: from hence thou mayst (according to my Method) be instructed of two things. First of the Possibility of this great Mystery: Secondly of the Authorities (both human, and divine) proving, that what herein by God's Power may be performed, the same was through his Divine goodness, and pleasure in the Institution of the Eucharist, actually effected.  
And concerning the first Point, we are to conceive, that as in the firster part hereof, it is demonstrated, that God is Omnipotent; so doth our Christian Faith teach us, that he is 
a he is just.] Psalm. 11.  just. Through his Omnipotency he is able to perform what he promiseth; Through his justice he promiseth nothing, but what he will perform. Both these drawing equally together in him (for he hath 
b For he hath promised] Answerably to that of S. john 6. Pavis, quem ego daho, caro mea est pro mundi vita.  promised by the infallible Oracle of his written word, that he would give his sacred Body, and Blood to eat, and drink) may warrant us of the Truth of this high Mystery.  
In the second Part (to convince, that Christ at his last Supper performed, what afore was proved, that he was able to accomplish) thou hast set down all the chiefest Authorities drawn from God's sacred word; the answerable Prophecies of the Ancient jews herein; the beginning, and progression of the Sacramentarian Heresy particularly displayed; the wrested testimonies of Scriptures alleged to the contrary, fully and satisfyingly answered; the stupendious Miracles wrought in proof hereof recorded; and lastly (to omit other short insertions) the Father's judgements in the same, as also in the particular manner of Transubstantiation, most abundantly manifested both by their own express sayings, and by the plain acknowledgement of our Sacramentaries.  
It now remaineth, that upon the mature deliberation of the former Premises, thou consider (seeing with the 
c With the Psalmist.] Psalm. 24.  Psalmist, Thou hast not received thy soul in vain) to which side thou intendest to subject thy judgement herein. That is, whether thou wilt embrace the Sacramentaries opinion (notwithstanding it is impugned by all forcible Proofs whatsoever) or that thou wilt be content (with all humble resignation of thy own spirit to impath thyself in the way of reverend Antiquity, and to follow their judgements who in Faith, and doctrine followed the Apostles, I mean, the judgements of those Primitive Fathers, Men remarkable for Learning, since their own Labours (left as Monuments to Posterity) are sufficient witnesses thereof; Men of most eminent virtue, since God hath vouchsafed to seal their sanctity of life with the irrefragable testimonies of divers 
d Great Miracles.] Examples hereof see recorded in divers Authors, and Historiographers.  great Miracles Finally men of a pure and uncorrupted Faith, since they then lived, when the Church of Christ was for her time, but in her Infancy, but for her perfection, in her youth and full growth, and therefore even by the confession of our Sectaries, could not with a joint consent teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles.  
And thus the main drift of these precedent Passages (for this is the Issue of the matter chief intended by me, and here it resteth) resolves to this one point, to wit whether a Man desirous of his own salvation, should in this high, and most reverend Mystery (upon the true or false belief whereof depends his soul's interminable weal, or woe) run one, and the same line of faith with Augustine, Hierome, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, the Gregory's, the Cyril's, Basil, Ambrose, Hilary, Athanasius, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, and the like; or with Zuinglius, Caluin, and Beza.  
But now since we are Christians, and are to believe in Christ, not in outward sense; Let us turn our pen from all disputable Points of the matter, and acknowledging the certainty, admire Gods incomprehensible Goodness therein; for as the Heavens spend their Motions by distributing their Heat, Light, & other virtues to the earth; so the Creator of the Heavens hath vouchsafed the Influence of his Grace by bestowing himself (in this most dreadful Mystery) upon Man, the Earth's chiefest creature. Thus by receiving his sacred Body, and Blood, we contain him within ourselves, whom the Heavens cannot contain, and enclose him in our breasts, who in himself encloseth all this ALL.  
In like sort at this celestial Table we feed on him, who gives himself aswell to thousands, as to one, and yet every one receives as much thereof, as those thousands: who equally imparteth himself to good, & bad, and yet they both partake thereof with most unequal Effect. To be short, who 
e Commanding every one.] According to those words john 6. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii Hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis.  commanding every one to ear of his flesh, and drink of his blood, is much offended with divers men communicating thereof, and yet commandeth nothing wherewith he is offended; for it is the Vnpreparation, not the Participation, which displeaseth him: which Point cannot seem strange to us Christians, for we read, that the 
f The Incircumcised.] Exod. c. 12.  Uncircumcised could not eat the Phase: Which Phase, or Paschall Lamb (since 
g Typically it represented.] Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra ●teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha, quod judaei de ave celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, & sanguine Domini accipimus.  typically it represented the Eucharist) could not be eaten but with girded loins, and shoes on their feet, which figure out in our Lord's Supper our holy desires; with unleavened bread, whereby is shadowed our azimous, and pure intentions; finally with the mixture of certain bitter herbs, signifying sharp compunction for our former Impieties; so necessary it is for our soul to be clothed with her wedding garment, when she presumeth to come to so great a banquet.  
And now to draw to an end of that, which in itself is endless; since God's Power and Goodness are in the Institution of this Sacrament, parallel one to the other, & that Man's understanding cannot penetrate into the depth of either of them (for between things finite, and infinite, there is proportion only in disproportion) let us admire his Power, as being able to effect so great a work. Let us admire his Goodness, as being willing to work it far Man's benefit; and in a deep, and silent Contemplation of both (for words are defective herein) let us conclude with that Grave, and Reverend 
h Reverend Father.] Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minime scrutandae c. ●.  Father: Ignis immortalis sunt Mysteria Christi; noli temerè ea perscrutari, ne in ipsorum perscrutatione comburaris.  
(a) He is just.] Psalm. 11.  
(b) For he hath promised.] Answerably to that of S. john 6. Pavis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita.  
(c) With the Psalmist.] Psalm. 24.  
(d) Great Miracles.] Examples hereof see recorded in divers Authors, and Historiographers.  
(e) Commanding every one.] According to those words john 6. Nisi manducaveritis carnem silij Hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis.  
(f) The Incircumcised.] Exod. c. 12.  
(g) Typically it represented.] Hereof S. Augustine l. 2. contra ●teras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha, quod judaei de ●ue celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, & sanguine Domini accipimus.  
(h) Reverend Father.] Ephrem lib. de Natura Dei minimè scrutanda c. 5.   
FINIS.