Diuision I.

NOBLE Ladie, I finde your N. P. Diuine vtterly ignorant and vn­acquainted with the Authors workes by him frequently cited.

For example, pag. 9. he tear­meth Cornelius Iansenius more then once a Iesuite: whereas the first leafe of his booke (if he had euer seene it) witnesseth him to haue beene a Bishop of Flaun­ders, and no Iesuite. Like herein to an other of his owne coate (for I guesse him to be a Minister, who to my selfe and other worthy persons confidently auerred Cardinal Bellarm. [Page 36] to haue beene an English man borne at Harr [...] on the Hi [...]; where there hath beene indeede an auncient familie of the Bellamies, not Bellarmines, as he foolishly conceiued.

Secondly, pag. 5. he citeth an authoritie out of Pope Ge­lasius written by a farre different Author of that name Bi­shop of Caesarea in Palestine mentioned together with his workes by Photius Bibliotheca sua Codice 102.

Thirdly, in his 2. page, on the false report of an other namelesse Author like to himselfe, ignorant and vnsincere in his assertions, he maketh Bishop Fisher to affirme the reali presence of Christs body in the Sacrament not to be gathera­ble out of any one word in Scripture, contrarie to Bishop Fishers, yea Luthers owne doctrine in innumerable places.

Fourthly, hauing traced him throughout his whole Trea­tise, I finde him to be a meere collector out of other Authors: and for his best Arguments be hath stolne Bellarmines obie­ctions against our doctrine, craftily dissembling his full and solide solutions of them in those very places: which is the v­suall trade of such Protestant petie writers. His proofes are tedious, superficiall, and stuffed with impertinent allegations, maimedly and corruptly produced: with a very bad hand (which I suppose is his owne) he inserteth many notes wholy idle and impertinent to his purpose; as I haue in reading his papers particularly obserued: which is to me an euident signe, that he hoped his papers should neuer come to the view of o­ther then Ladies and vnlearned pers [...] vnable [...] exam [...] them.

It is the vsuall manner of those that defend a bad T. G. cause, to leaue the matter, and fall foule on the aduerse party, and (like the crauen Cocke, that hauing [...]. Xenoph. in sym­pos. Et inde [...]. Aristoph. in [...]quitib. eaten garlicke, by his strong and stinking breath endeauoureth to driue him away from him, whom he is not able well to bicker with) by railing, re [...]iling and aboundance of bad language to seeke to beate off their aduersary, or by lying and out-facing to cry downe those that they deale with, when by euidence of truth and strength of Argu­ment they are vnable to conuince them; hoping by such [Page 37] meanes to delude the simpler sort at least, that cannot so well discerne their shifts.

This as I haue heretofore by experience found to be the common practise of Popish companions; so this Defen­dant loath to degenerate from the kinde he commeth of, at the first dash beginneth with, charging the Diuine he dealeth with to be one vtterly ignorant, vnacquainted with the Authors workes that he citeth, a petty-writer, a meere collector, a false filcher, a foule corrupter, a superficiall dispu­ter, and what not?

This is his charge: Let vs heare how he prooueth it.

1. He tearmeth Iansenius, whom he citeth, more then once a Iesuite, when he is not. It is true indeede: I con­fesse, I doe twise so tearme him, and I tooke him to haue beene so: wherein if I were mistaken, the matter is not great. I hope the authoritie of a famous Bishop, and a great writer of speciall note among them, our of a worke of his written Magna eru­ditione, ac iu­dicio maturo Scriptum. Tho. Gozeus S. Theol. Profess. Lo­uan. & lib. Visitat. with much learning and mature iudgement, as the Louaine professor acknowledgeth; and approoued Communi doctorum vi­rorū iudicio. Io. Molan. Cen [...]or Apo­stolicus & Regius. by the common iudgement of the learned among them, as the King of Spaines (to whom also it is dedicated) and the Popes Censurer of bookes testifieth, may well be dee­med of as much weight as the word or worke, (if not of any, yet) of many a Iesuite at least.

As for the idle tale hee telleth of the Bellarmines and Bellamies, which a Minister forsooth should take the one for the other, and therupon affirme Card. Bellarmine to haue beene borne at Harrow on the Hill; it may well be thought to haue beene brought in for no other end (be­ing so little to the purpose) but to let vs vnderstand that hee is a man of some worth; for so much hee intimateth when he saith, it was averred to himselfe and other worthy persons. Hee doubteth (belike) that his worke would scarce make his worth knowne, if hee should not other­wise acquaint vs with it. The thing it selfe is like enough to be but a meere fiction; and might easily be requited with the tale of the Frier, that Marnix Beehiue. tooke Messias for the [Page 38] Masse, and so would prooue out of the Gospell that Christ said Masse; or of the Priest Hundred merry Tales that tooke vnigeniti writ­ten short, for viginti, and so read to his people, Gods twenty sonnes; or of him Poggii facet. that bad the Epiphanie day, but could not tell whether it weere an hee or a she-Saint; or of him H. Steph. apolog. for Herod. l. 1. c. 39. that bad Solin Cancro for an Holy-day, be­cause he found it written in red letters; and with many moe the like, probable enough, if the learning of their lacke-Latin Priests be well weighed.

But, had I ever seene the first leafe of his booke, I might haue knowne him to be a Bishop of Flanders and no Iesuite. As if as oft as one either readeth or alleadgeth any Au­thor, hee must needes turne alwayes to the title-page, to see what his style is: or as if Iansenius might not as well be Bishop of Gaunt, as Bellarmine a Cardinall, and (if I mistake not) Arch-bishop of Capua, and yet for all that a Iesuite. His proofe therefore of my being vnacquainted with this Author, (whom, I suppose, hee will finde mee better acquainted with then he would) is very silly and slight: and the exception such, as sheweth that hee wan­ted matter of moment to except against.

But I hope when this Bishop of Flanders booke com­meth to be reprinted againe, they will take that course with him, (if they haue not leaft their old guise) that they haue done formerly with many others; to wipe out of him whatsoeuer in this kinde or any other, either maketh directly against them, or discouereth the weakenesse of such grounds as they labour to build their grosse errors vpon. Of which their false and fradulent dealing, it shal not be amisse to insert one Example by the way; the ra­ther, because it concerneth the point here debated. Whereas therefore in the time of Carolus Calvus King of France and Emperour, aboue 800. yeeres since, there was Non paru [...] schis [...]ate di­uidūtur, quide mysterio cor­poris sangui­nisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur. Bertram praefat. ad Carol. Im­per. much disputation and dissension in the Church about the doctrine of the Sacrament, one Bertram a man Vir in diuinis Scripturis valdè peritus, & in literis disciplinarum secula­rium egregiè doctus; nec minus vi [...]â quàm do­ctrinâ in sig­nis. Trithem. in Catalog. of great [Page 39] note in those times both for life and learning, willed by the Emperour to declare his iudgement therein, wrote a lear­ned discourse thereof, wherein hee confimeth by the te­stimonies of Augustine, Ambrose, and others of the Anci­ents, the very same that we now hold: and among other things affirmeth that Appar [...]t quod multâ inter se diffe­rentiâ separa­tur; quantum est inter pig­nus, & eam rem pro qua pignus tradi­tur; inter ima­ginem, & rem cuiu [...] est ima­go; inter spe­ciem, & veri­tatem. Bertrā. de corp. & sang. Dom. quaest. 2. there is as great difference between Christs bodie that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and that which is dayly receiued with the month in the Sacrament, as there is betweene the pledge, and that for which the pledge is giuen, betweene the image, and that whereof it is an image, and betweene the type and the truth. Now the Popish pur­gers authorised to maine and mangle Authors, as well old as new, cum privilegio, without controll, lighting a­mong others on this booke of Bertrams, vse these wordes of it, and of their owne confessed courses in this kinde. Index Ex­purgat. Belgic. in tit. B. Albeit (say they) we make no great reckoning of this booke, and therefore should not greatly care if it were vtterly lost, and were no where to be had; (I cannot blame them if they wish it, and many other the like, burnt and abolished) yet seeing that the booke hath beene oft printed, and reprinted, hath beene read of very many, is knowne commonly by the name of a booke forbidden, and the Heretiques by diuerse Catalogues of Bookes prohibited, are sure there is such an one, &c. And besides, since that in other old catholique writers we beare with very many errors, wee extenuate, wee excuse them, Excogitato commento persaepe nega­mus, & com­modum eis sensum affin­gimus. with some devised shift or other we very often times deny them, and by faining giue them some commodio as sense, (such they meane as may serue their owne turnes) when in disputations with our Adversaries they are obiected vnto vs. (Marke, I pray you, the common dealing of these men in disputation, not charged on them by vs, but con­fessed by themselues; and then iudge you what fidelity or sincerity in cyting of Authors, is to bee expected at their hands.) We see not, why Bertram should not finde the like fauour with vs: The rather, Ne haere­tici ogganni­ant, nos anti­quitatem pro ipsis sacientē ex [...]ere & prohibe [...]. L [...]st the Heretiques should be snarling at vs, and telling vs that we burne vp and prohibite antiquitie, when it maketh for them against vs. [Page 40] Which, you see, in this Author they would faine, if ei­ther they could, or durst do it. So at length they resol [...] to doe Bertram the fauour to mangle and misuse his whole booke, and hauing put in, and put out what they list themselues, to let him to passe, taught to speake for them now, that spake all against them before. I may well say heere, as Arnobius an ancient Father, sometime said; Intercipere scripta, & publicam vel­le submergere lectionē, non est Deos de­fendere, sed veritatis testi­ficationem ti­mere. Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 3. To intercept writings, and seeke to suppresse things publi­shed, what is it but to be afraid of hauing the truth told and testified?

2. From the first idle Exception I passe to a second, as false, as the former frivolous. Hee citeth, saith hee, an authority out of Pope Gelasius, written by a farre different Author of that name, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Had not meere malice and a minde bent to cavill, either blin­ded this wrangler, or made him wilfully to winke, hee might easily haue seene (that which he could not also be ignorant of) in my very quotation, that the style and [...]i­tle I giue him, is no other then is commonly giuen him by Popish writers, as among others by Gelasii E­piscopi Ro­mani, &c. Biblioth. Pa­trū à Margar. la Bigne 2. edit. Paris. 1589. tom. 4. Et ib. in mar­gine, Gelasius 1. Afer. anno Dom. 564. Margarinus la Bigne, and those with him (besides many Sic enim in edit. Basil. 1528 & Ti­gur. 15 [...]1. others) that gathered together the workes of the ancient Fathers, in the fourth T [...]me of their great Library sundry times printed, which [...] note there also in the Margine where I cite him. So that it is a meere false and friu [...]us cauill to taxe me for cyring Gelasius by [...] title that hee knew well to be giuen him, (yea and that truly too, as anone shall euidently be [...]ed) by those of their owne side that haue at sundry times set him out by no other name but of G [...]lasius Pope or Bishop of Rome.

But how doth this trister prooue that he was not Bi­shop of Rome? Forsooth, because Photius maketh men­tion of one Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that wrote against the Heretikes called Anomoei. The place wringeth them, and therefore they would faine shift off the Author, from being Bishop of Rome at least. And B [...]llarmine, Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. Quā ­quā de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. haesitantius i­dem, vel Gen­nadii vel Ge­lasii Caesari­ensis. he telleth vs that it was one Gelasi [...] a Bi­shop [Page 41] of Caesarea, of whom Iereme maketh mention. But Baronius confuteth Bellarmine; (here is Cardinal against Cardinall:) and Baron. [...] ­nal. tom. 6. anno 496. O­pus illud Ge­lasio Palesti­no nullo mo­do potest as­scribi. saith, it cannot be that Gelasius: their times are too farre asunder: both hee was dead and his next successor, before that businesse was on foot, that he dealeth in. Thus they sticke not to make men write bookes after they are dead, and laid vp in their graues. But who is hee then, saith Baronius? for Bishop of Rome hee must not be. Hee is Baron. ibid. Sed & Greg. de Valent. de Transsub. l. [...]. c. 7. & C [...]. loc. com. l▪ [...]. c. 8. that Gelasius (saith hee) that Photius maketh mention of: and this Defendant saith the same. Gennadius and diuers other, telleth vs that Ge­lasius of the City of Rome Bishop, wrote against the Eutychi­ans and Nestorians. And that is the very title of the book [...] that I cite. Now Photius telleth vs of another Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, that wrote against the Anomaeans. Therefore saith Baronius, and from him this Defendant, the one must needs bee the other. As if two Bishops of the same name could not write bookes against Heretiques, but they must needs be by and by the same. But obserue s Ge [...]nad. in Catalog. Et cum eodem consentiunt Anastasius, Platina, P [...]i­lip. Bergom. Trithem. & alii. I pray you, how hansomely these things hang together. The Athanas▪ [...] ­mine contra Anomaeos d [...] ­alog. 2. quos Maximo tti­bui restatur▪ Schottus ad. Photium. Chrys. contr. Ancmaeos. hom. 2. Aug. de haeres. c. 54 dissimilem per omnia p [...]i asserentes filium. Socrat. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 45. & Sozom, hist l. 4. c. 29. [...]. Anomaeans were Arrians and Aetians, so called, be­cause they held the Sonne to bee vnlike the Father. The ^u Eutychians heretiques, that held that Christs humanity was turned into, or swallowed vp of his deitie. And now marke how these men reason; Gelasius of Caesarea (saith Photius) writ against those that oppugned Christs diuini­tie: and this Gelasius writeth against those that tooke a­way his humanity: this and the other therefore must needs be all one. Rather I reason on this manner: Gen­nadius reporteth that G [...]lasius Bishop of Rome writ against Eutyches and Nestorius: so doth this whom I cite; and all Editions of him, so stile him: this Gel [...]sius therefore was Bishop of Rome. And how doth this now proue, that v Theod. haeres. fabul. l. 4. Enagr. hist. l. 2. c. 16. Thedor. Rhaet. de hae [...]l. Isidor. Orig. l. 8. c. 5. Humanem naturam à diuina absorptam. [Page 42] I cite Authors, whose workes I am altogether vnacquainted with, when the worke I cite in their owne printed Editi­ons hath no other title, then that I giue it?

But for the further and fuller cleering of the truth in this point, and the vindicating of this piece of Anti­quity to his right Author: Besides that Phetius flatlyaffir­meth that that Gelasius that wrote against the Anomaei, is the same with that Gelasius whom they would haue this Author to be, to wit, hee that wrote of the Nicene Coun­cell, but [...]. Pho [...]. bibliot. cod. 89. Et. ibid. de altero. illo; [...] &c. one that both for stile and learning goeth farre beyond him: Nor is the frame of this Authors discourse such as hee describeth his to haue beene in that worke, to wit, [...]. ibid cod 102 fastidiously and childishly, or youthfully at least, full of Logicke rules and tearmes, for which himselfe ma­keth an Apologie; which this neither doth, nor (writing in a farre other straine) needed to doe: As also that in this very worke, the Author intimateth himselfe to haue beene Bishop of Rome, or (as he speaketh) of [...]. ibid. the Aposto­like Sea: Nor is it needfull that with Cum sedem Apostolicam vestra dile­ctio vnani­miter teneat, constāter prae­dicet, sapien­ter defendat, &c. Melchior Canu [...] we turne sedem into fidem, as (to shift off this Author) he would there do: Besides all this, I say, Eulgentius an Afri­can Bishop who liued together in the same time with Pope Gelasius, and was his owne Countriman, doth (as Fulgentius qui codem [...]mpore vixit, &c. Gelas [...] Papae absque ulla dubita­tione adscri­hit. Henr. Spondan. epi­ [...]om. Baron. not. ad ann. 496. Hen [...]y Spondan the Popes Protonotary himselfe informeth vs) Beatae memoriae Papa Gelasius. Fulgent. ad Ferrand. respons. 2. ascribe this work to Pope Gelasius, cyting out of it cer­taine passages; as Ioan Pp. 2. non 1. in epist. contr. [...]utych. in Biblioth. Pa [...]r. [...]om. 4. edit. 2. Iohn the second, who not long after succeded this Gelasius in the same sea, also doth. That which putteth this truth so farre out of all doubt, that Spondan by such euidence vndeniable conuinced, is en­forced to Spondan. vbi sup. controll Cardinall Baronius and those other of their owne writers therein. It is cleere therefore that this Gelasius was not Bishop of C [...]sare [...], as this Defendant would haue him; but Bishop of Rome, as I alleadge him, aboue a thousand yeeres since, and both held and taught then the same doctrine of the sacrament of the E [...]ch [...]rist, that we doe at this day.

[Page 43] But let him giue me leaue here to tell him of a tricke too common with him and those of his coate; to wit, as to coine and forge Fathers, such as neuer were, not a few; so to cite oft in their discourses in matters of cōtrouersie Authors and writings, either iustly suspected, or evident­ly spurious and counterfeit. In which kinde this Defen­dant is more then once or twice faulty. To omit Cyril of Ierusalem his Catecheticall Sermons, which euen Marc. Vd. ser. Catalog. Codic. MS. a­pud Posseuin. Quem Cytil­lum esse puto. Popish writers themselues dare not confidently auow; and di­uerse passages in them bewray to be of a later date, then that Cyril whom they are fathered on. As also his citing of the very selfe same Author sometime as Aug. de verb. dom. serm. 28. Augustine, and sometime as Ambr. de sacram. lib. 5 cap. 4. Ambrose, which it may wel be was nei­ther, and may the rather bee so deemed euen for this cause, because hee beareth the name of both; which both sure he could not be: He citeth these confessed counter­feits as authenticall Authors;

1. Di [...]nysius Areopagita, branded long since in Photius his time, Vt pseude [...]i­grapha viden­tur à Ph [...]ti [...] n [...]tari. Posse­ui [...] ▪ i [...] appa­rat. as Posseuine confesseth, for a counterfeit; Caietan [...] Act. 17. doub­ted of by C [...]ietan; [...] schol▪ ad [...]ie­ron▪ de Scrip. Eccl [...] & in decla [...] a [...] Paris. cens. denied by Grocinus; Valla in Act. 17. & Erasm. praefat. ad paraphras. in 1 Cor. derided by Ualla and diuerse others.

2. The passion of S. Andrew pretended to be written by the Ministers of Ach [...]ia: which D^r. White (not ours but theirs) writing of this very Argument, confesseth to be Sed sit apo­ [...], [...]t est abs (que) con­troue [...]ia, [...] Quod diuus Andreas locutus ad Patres Memoratur, &c. Wh [...] diacos. M [...]. without controuersie an Apocryphall storie: and con­taineth manifest vntruth, if Bellarmine himselfe may bee beleeued.

3. Cyprian de cardinalibus Christi operibus; which Falsò tribuitur Cypriano. Posseuin. in apparat. Posseuine, Non esse stylus arguit. Erasm. not. in [...]. Erasmus, Cypriani. non est, Po. [...] de Commun. sub vtr. spec. Hesselius, and many other P [...]pish writers flatly deny to be Cypriaus, yea or any one Au [...] ▪ ris Cypriano, imò & Augustino posterioris. Beliarm. de am [...]. grat. l. 6. c. 2. [...] ▪ [...]or ignoratur. Bellar. de script. Eccles. n [...]ere Cyprians time.

4. Eusibius Emissenus his Homelies; which whose they [Page 44] are, saith Bellarmine, is not knowne; Baron. an­nal. tom. 6. Baro [...]i [...]s con [...]th to haue beene foolishly set out vnder his name; and Sixt. Senēs. bibloth. l. 4. Six [...] S [...]sis (besides many others) affirmeth to haue bee [...]e patched together by some Latine Author out of other mens writings, whereas E [...]sebi [...]s was a Greeke.

I adde onely what Bellarmine saith of the most of these Auth [...]rs together. Di [...]nysius his booke (saith hee) Eusebius his Homilies, and Cyprians Sermons of Christs Cardinall workes, Apud non­nullos dubiae su [...], sc [...]iptu­rae, vel etiam supposi [...]. Bellar. de sa­erā. confi [...]. l. 2. c. 7. are with some counted doubtfull, yea or counterfait writings: [...] nor is it certainē whether they bee theirs, whose names they beare. Yea of some of them hee o Licet non sit certum an sint illi quorū no [...]ina prae­ferunt. Ibid. saith else-where, that Reuera [...], s [...], Emiss [...] non po [...]u [...]e ess [...] [...] Bellrr. in re­cogni [...] & d [...] Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. it is certaine Reuera no [...] est Cyp [...]. I­dem de con­firm. l. 2. [...]. 7. & de E [...]ha [...]. l. [...]. c. 13 [...] they are not. And yet are these of the principall Authors that this Defen­dant to vphold his tortering fabrique produceth; albeit the things alledged out of them doe not greatly stand him in steed, as shall appeare when wee come at them. But such counterfeit feips doe they commonly tender vs, and will needs enforce vs to accept them for curr [...]nt [...]; when they know that their owne Criticks haue marked and bored them for such, neither will they passe in pay­ment among themselues.

§ 3. His third Exception is that hee citeth a namelesse Author, ignorant and vnsincere, like himselfe; who m [...]keth Bishop Fisher affirme the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any word in Scrip­ture. True it is, I say, that I finde Bishop Fisher all [...]ad­ged to affirme, that there is no one word in the Gospell, from which the true presence of Christs flesh and blood in their M [...]sse may be proued. Which because I had not the [...] my selfe, nor knew where to haue it, I thus only alledge. And now, to put the matter wholy out of suspence; that ig­norant and vnsincere Author like my selfe, as [...] [...]rmeth him, who shall no longer be namelesse, is that right Re [...]e­rend Prelate, now Lord Bishop of Winchester, In Respon [...]. [...]d Apolog. Card. Bellar. [...]. Praefat. monitor. Se­ [...]nis Princip. Iacobi Reg. cap. 1. in his ela­borate worke against Bellarmines Apologi [...]; who (I doubt not) both had the booke by him there cited, and cited the wordes no otherwise then they are in the booke. No [...] (I [Page 45] thinke) is this Popish Doctor so extreamely brazen-faced (though they haue many of them in their browes too much of that mettall) that he dare challenge that M [...]rour of learning for an ignorant Author. I should esteeme it but to great a grace to be counted ignorant as he is.

§ 4. Fourthly, hauing traced him through his whole Treatise [...]e findeth him to be a meere collector out of other Authors, & to haue stol [...]e out of Bellar. his [...]bi [...]ctions, cōc [...]a­ling his answeres: and in a word all so poore & so weake, that it may seeme written onely for Ladies and ideotes, vnable to examine. I say no more here in way of defence for my selfe but this onely; that this should haue beene rather discouered by him in particular, then thus charged in generall, vnlesse he could in the prosecution of it haue better discharged himselfe then he hath done hitherto. The truth is; he himselfe is so much beholden to Bellar­mine, that he is faine euer and anone to referre his Rea­der to seeke in him what he should say (if he thought it at least worth the saying) himselfe. As if it were a good proofe of what he auerreth, or a sufficient resutation of what he findeth obiected, to say, that Bellarmine hath largely prooued the one, or Bellarmine hath sufficiently an­swered the other. Which if he haue done either, he hath done more by much then he oft attempteth once to doe. And surely his manner of dealing, beside the slightnesse and slendernesse of his Answeres, with a wet finger (as we say) passing by the manifold allegations produced as well out of the Auncients, as out of their owne Authors, doth giue a shrewd suspition, that he thought this his writing would neuer be examined by any either learned or vnlearned, vnlesse they were such as wanted euen common sense, sufficient to discouer the absurditie of di­uers passages therein.

To giue your Ladiship a taste of some of them before hand.

• [Page 46] 1. He saith, that
  Diuis. 4. § 1.
  a Testament, as all learned know, may well signifie a Legacis.
• 2. He maketh
  Ibid.
  our Sauiour to say, This my Blood is the Testament in my blood.
• 3. He saith, that
  Ibid.
  Christs blood is offered in the Eucha­rist, vnbloodily, or not as blood.
• 4. He expoundeth a place of Theod [...]ret thus; * The
  x Ibid. §. 4.
  Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Accidents, retaine still the same Substance, that is, the same Accidents,
• 5. He saith that
  Diuis. 6. §. 3.
  Christs Body is in the Eucharist, but without bodily existence, that is, his body is there, but not as a body.
• 6. That
  Ibid.
  it is there, and yet it followeth not that it is ea­ten, though that that is there be eaten.
• 7. He maintaineth
  Ibid.
  a corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament, and yet that he is not there corporally eaten.
• 8. He affirmeth that
  Ibid. ad Arg. 2.
  all are not saued that beleeue in Christ, and so fe [...]de spiritually on Christ.
• 9. He saith that
  Diuis. 8. §. 1.
  the Sonne of God is contained in the bread that is ea [...]en in the E [...]ch [...]rist; whereas they dery any br [...] at [...] to be there.
• 10. He maintaineth that
  Ibid. §. 3.
  a thing may truly be said to be turned [...] that that commeth onely in the place of it.
• 11. He affirmeth that
  Diuis. 9. §. 1.
  one and the selfe same thing may [...].
• 12 That
  Diuis. 11. §. 4.
  Christs bodie in the Sacrament hath no exte­ [...] bignesse a [...] [...].
• 13. He affirmeth
  Diuis. 14. §. 1.
  Christs very bodie to be present in the Sacrament but in a spirituall manner, or as a Spirit; and therefore can no more there be broken, then Angels wounded i [...]b [...]di [...]s [...]ffirmed, or then his De [...] on the Crosse; and that nothing but acc [...]nts are broken in the Euch [...]rist.
• 14. That
  Ibid. §. 3.
  Christs hiding himselfe in the Sacr [...]ent is [...] ex [...]ion of him.
• 15. He saith, that
  Diuis. 14. §. 3.
  Christ is not touched in the Sacra­ment, and yet we touch him: that he in [...]th [...] there, and yet he cannot be touched of vs.
• [Page 47] 16. He saith, that
  Ibid. §. 1.
  Christs body is not abused, though mice and Rats eate it.
• 17. That
  Ibid. §. 4.
  their Masse is the very selfe same with Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse, and yet it is vnbloodie.
• 18. He maketh
  Ibid. §. 8.
  Christ himselfe a memoriall of him­selfe.

• 1. That
  Diuis. 4. §. 2.
  I affirme Sacraments to be nothing but bare Signes and Types: and that,
  Diuis. 14. §. 8.
  we make the Sacrament but a bare Memoriall of Christ.
• 2.
  Diuis. 35. §. 1.
  That I affirme them to bee nothing but bare bread and wine.
• 3. That
  Ibid. §. 2.
  I affirme Caietane, Bellarmine and Gratian to say the same.
• 4. That
  Diuis. 6. §. 2.
  Iustine Martyr describeth the Celebration of the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist iust as they now celebrate it.
• 5. That
  Diuis. 13. §. 1.
  the Fathers affirme that I [...]das receiued Christs naturall body.
• 6. That
  Diuis. 14. §. 5.
  all Christians in the World celebrate as, they doe.
• 7. That
  Ibid. §. 7.
  Augustine and all the auncient Fathers vnder­stand Christs words Iohn 6. literally, and not figuratiue­ly.
• 8. That
  Ibid. §. 8.
  all the Fathers expound those words property, This is my bodie.
• 9. That
  Ibid.
  Christ did not say of the Eucharist Cup, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine.
• 10. That
  Ibi. §. 11.
  the Centurists blame all the Fathers almost of Constantines time vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiati­on, and adoration of the Sacrament.
• 11. That
  Ibid. §. 12.
  the auncient Britens held the same.
• 12. That
  Diuis. 8. §. 1.
  Origen, Basil, Ierome, and Augustine make the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament equall with the sinne of those that betraied and kild Christ.

But passe we from his Preamble to the Worke it selfe.

Diuision 2.

HIs first end [...] for three leaues together is to pr [...] that there is nothing in the Gospel, whereby it N. P. may appeare that those words of our Sauiour, This is my Body, may not be vnderstood figuratiuely as well as o­ther speeches of the like kinde in Scripture; as when, Gen. 41. 26. Seuen kine are said to be seuen yeeres; Apoc. 17. 1 [...]. ten Hornes ten Kings; 1. Cor. 10. 4. The Rocke was Christ, &c. So he; not tel­ling withall his Reader (as he ought to haue done, like an inge­nuous solide Author) the many differences noted by Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 11. Bellar­mine and other Catholike Authors soluing this very Ob­iection, betweene Christs literall words, This is my Bodie, and other figuratiue speeches; these being simply and without any other explication vniformally recounted by three Euan­gelists, as also by Saint Paul, in their historicall narrations: whereas where the Lambe is called the Passeouer, the Rocke is said to be Christ, &c. Something is still added in the text, to explicate the literall and true meaning of them. The Lambe (for example) is called in the same place the sacrifice of the Passeouer: Christ is said to be a spiritu­all Rocke, &c. And the very scope of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words of them are literally to be taken: [...]s the seauen kine, ten hornes, &c.

Besides in all such figuratiue speeches, Semper predicatur de disparato disparatum: One thing is said to be another, which cannot be [...]dually or specifically the [...]ame, but whol­ly different in nature from it. A man, (for example) as Christ was, cannot [...] [...]narily be a Vine, a Lyon, a Rocke, &c. But in Christs words, This is my bodie, no such absurdor impossible thing is affirmed; but onely that the substance which he had in his hands, was his bodie made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it; Christs words being operatiue (saith S. Ambros. de myster. cap. 9. S. Ambrose) and omnipotently able to make that to be which is signified by them in in these words. Perhaps thou wilt say; I see another [Page 49] thing: How prooue you to me, that I take the bodie of Christ? And this remaineth yet for vs to prooue, that it is not what nature framed, but what benediction hath consecrated: and that the force of benediction is grea­ter then the force of nature: because euen nature it selfe is changed by benediction. Moses holding a wand in his hand, did cast it from him, and it became a serpent. Now if mans benediction were of such force, as that it could change nature; what say we of that same diuine Conse­cration, where the words of our Lord and Sauiour doe worke? For this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speech of Christ. And if the speech of Elias was of such pow [...] as to draw fire from heauen; shall not Christs words be of fo [...]ce to change the formes of the e­lements? Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world: Because he spake the word, they were made; he commaunded, and they were created. The word of Christ then, which of nothing could make that which was not, cannot it not as well change those things which are into that which before they were not? Since it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures vnto things then to change natures, &c. Lib. 4. de Sacram. It is indeede Bread before the words of the Sacraments: But after that consecration is once added vnto it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ, &c.

S. August. Serm. 28. de verb. Dom. I haue told you, (saith S. Augustine) that before Christs words that which is offered on the Altar is cal­led bread: but when Christs words are vttered, it is cal­led no more bread, but his bodie. And explicating the Title of the 33. Psalme, wherein these words are written, Et ferebatur in manibus suis; And-he was carried in his owne hands: Who (saith he, conc. 1.) is able to con­ceiue how this can happen in man? For who is carried in his owne hands? A man may be carried in the hands of an other: But in his owne hands he cannot be carri­ed. How this may be literally vnderstood in Dauid, we finde not. But in Christ we doe. For Christ was carried [Page 50] in his owne hands, when giuing his bodie he said, This is my Body. For then did he carry that body in his owne hands, &c.

When as Christ himselfe (saith S. Cyril) affirmeth and saith of the bread, This is my Bodie, who may pre­sume to make any doubt thereof? And when the same Christ confirmeth and saith, This is my Blood, who can doubt, and say it is not his blood? Againe, Cyril. Ca­tech. 4. my­stagog. Let vs not consider it as meere bread, or bare wine. For it is the bodie and blood of Christ. For although the sense tea­cheth thee that it is bread and wine, yet let thy faith confirme thee, that thou iudge not the thing it selfe by thy taste. And a little after; This knowing for most certaine, that the bread which we see is not bread, al­though thy taste thinketh it to be bread, but that it is the bodie of Christ: and the wine which we behold, al­though to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine, yet that it is not wine indeede, but the blood of our Saui­our, &c.

S. Chrysost. homil. 60. ad popul. An­tioch. Let vs beleeue God (saith S. Chrysostome) in euery thing; not gain-saying him, though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation. I beseech thee therefore, that his speech may ouercome our sense and reason. Which point we are to obserue in all things: but especially in holy mysteries; not onely beholding those things which lie before vs; but also laying hold of his words; for his words cannot deceiue vs: but our sense may easily be deceiued. And elsewhere lib. 3. de Sacerd. O miracle! saith he: O the bountie of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father, euen in the same in­stant of time is handled with the hands of all, and deliue­reth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and im­brace him. Againe, Elias did leaue his garment to his disciple. But the Sonne of God ascending to heauen did leaue his flesh. But Elias by leauing it was deuested thereof: Whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs, yet ascending to heauen there also he hath it.

[Page 51] AFter that he hath thus spent some part of his railing T. G. Rhetorick in traducing & vilifying this Protestantical Diuine his Aduersary, asignorant, vnacquainted with the Authors he citeth, a petty writer, a meere collector, a filcher, a falsifier, &c. and disgraced his Discourse as consisting of proofes tedious, and superficiall, and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced; and (that nothing may escape him without some nip) written with a very bad hand, which he taketh to be his owne; and the partie there­fore one (it may be) not so fit to write for Ladies as him­selfe, being both a man of worth (as before he intimated himselfe to be) and writing a faire hand too, though not very Scholerlike, as the worke it selfe sheweth: Hee commeth now to deale with the matter and substance of the Discourse.

Where the first Proposition, that he vndertaketh to oppugne, as I propound it, is this:

These words in the Gospel, This is my Body, may well be taken figuratiuely.

(Which how it may be, I shew by some instances: to wit; these other in Scripture; Gen. 41. 26. The seuen kine, are seauen yeeres: Apoc. 17. 12 The ten hornes, are ten Kings: 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rocke was Christ: or as those other in ordinary speech; This is Caesar: That is Cicero, &c.

Nor is there any thing in the Gospel that may enforce the contrarie.

Now this worthy man that taxeth me for a meere Col­lector, and a filcher out of Bellarmine, hath nothing here to answere, but what he fetcheth from Bellarmine, whom he saith I filch all from.

But let vs see how well he vrgeth and maketh good Bellarmines answeres.

1. The words are simply, and without any other explica­tion, simply and vniformally (for so in his scholerlike man­ner he speaketh) recounted by three Euangelists and Saint Paul. And therefore they cannot be taken figuratiuely. For that must follow, or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose. We shall not neede to goe farre to discouer the [Page 52] weakenesse of this consequence. The Math. 26. 27, 28. Mark. 14. 23, 24. Luke 22. 20. three Euangelists, and 1. Cor. 11. 25. S. Paul speaking of the other part of this Sacra­ment, doe all simply and without another explication vnifor­mally (to retaine his owne precise tearmes) say, This Cup is, &c. therefore the Cup cannot be taken figuratiuely there: which if it be not, they must inuent a new Trans­substantiation of some other matter or mettall then the p Luk. 2 [...]. 20. 1. Cor 11. 21. fruite of the Vine, either into the New Testament, or into Christs blood. q Math. 26. 27, 8. Mark. 14. 24.

§ 2. When the Lambe is called the Passeouer; and the Rocke said to be Christ, something is added in the Text to explaine the literall true meaning of them. The Lambe for example in the same place is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer. Christ is said to be a spirituall Rocke, &c.

1. It is not true that he saith; that in the same place where the Lambe is called the Passeouer, the same Lambe is called the Sacrifice of the Passeouer: There is no more said, Exod. 12. 11. but this; Ye shall eate it in hast; it is the Lords Passeouer: there being nothing by way of explication there added. But after indeede verse 27. not the Lambe precisely, but the whole Seruice is said to be the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer. When your Children shal aske you, What seruice is this that you obserue? Then shall you say, It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer.

Neither is Christ said to be a spirituall Rocke. 1. Cor. 10. 4. But the reall Rocke is called a spirituall Rocke: as the Manna, and the water that issued from it are called 1. Cor. 10. 3, 4. spi­rituall meate and drinke: And that Rocke for matter cor­porall, for vse spirituall, is said, as Augustine well obser­ueth, Non dicit, Petra signifi­cabat Chri­stum; sed, Pe­tra erat Chri­stus. Aug. in Leu. q. 57. & Beda; & Hai­mo in 1. Cor. 11. Petra i [...]m erat in creatura, & per actionis modum nuncupata est nomine. Christi, quem significabat: sicut & Isaac Christus erat, cum ad se immolandum ligna portabat. Idem Aug. de Trinit. lib. 2. cap. 6. not to signifie, but to be Christ: Nothing being added more to intimate a figuratiue sense there, then heere in the wordes, This is my Body, which two spee­ches both Aug. in Ioan. tract. 45. Augustine and Caietan. in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 57. art. 1. Caietan compare the one with the other.

[Page 53] 2. It is senselesse thus to reason; In some places where figuratiue speeches are vsed, something is added to explicate them: therefore wheresoeuer nothing is added to expli­cate the figure, the words are not, or cannot be figuratiuely taken.

3. In many of the instances giuen, no such explication is added; as these, Apoc. 17. 12 The ten Hornes are ten Kings; Gen. 41. 26. The a Mat. 28 9. seven Kine are seuen yeeres: This is Caesar: This Cice­ro, &c.

4. In the very Context there is added that which shew­eth the sense to bee figuratiue. For that which is called Christs blood by the Euangelist in the one verse, is expres­ly said to be the fruit of the vine in the next verse. And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle, is imme­diately after, more then once or twice expounded to bee 1 Cor. [...]1. 24, 26, 27, 28. bread.

§ 3. The very scope (saith he, or Bellarmine by him) of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken; as, the seuen kine, ten hornes, &c.

And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of, or in them, are to be taken? to wit, figuratiuely and symbolically, not proper­ly or essentially. For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables? both therefore tearmed Mysteries, as [...]. Chry [...]st. in 1 Cor. hom 7. Idem fere Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 1. & contr. Max. l. 3. c. 22, Chrysostome noteth; because one thing is seene in the one, as heard in the other, and some other thing vnderstood. Or what is more v [...]uall then (as Aug. in Le­uit q. 57. & epist. 23. & ep. 102. & ad Simplic. l. 2. q. 3. & in Ioā. tract. 63. Augustine and Autor de Cardin. Chri­sti oper. serm. de Coen. Her­uaeus sub An­selmi nomine in 1 Cor. 10. Thom. de dif­fer. verb. di­uin. & human. &c. others well obserue) that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things, which they are signes and sacra­ments of? What Sacrament also is there, wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed? Circumcision is called Gen. 17. 13. the Covenant: the pasohall Lambe, Exod. 1 [...]. 11. the Passeouer: the Rocke, 1 Cor. 10. 4. Christ: Bap [...]sme, Ti. [...]. 5. the Laver of Regeneration. And in like manner, saith Sicut secundum quendam modum sacra­mentum corpotis Christ [...] corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi [...]st; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. ep. 23. Augustine, is the bread Christ [...] [Page 54] body; the name of the thing signified (saith Theodoret. dialog. 1. Theodoret) be­ing giuen to the signe. So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine; In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vn­stoode figuratiuely: But these places, the seven kine, and the ten hornes, are visions and parables: And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely. Why may not we as wel reason on this wise? The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this, that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them, it is to bee vnderstood not properly, but figuratiuely. But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed, This is my bodie, and This is my blood: These wordes therefore, wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament, are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely. And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due propor­tion somewhat more to conclude then was before requi­red; to wit, not onely, that there is nothing that may en­force vs to expound them literally, but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely.

§ 4. In all such figuratiue speeches (saith he further out of Bellarmine) Semper praedicatur de disparato dispara­tum; One thing is said to be another, when it cannot be indi­ [...]idually or specifically the same, but wholly different in nature from it. A man for example, as Christ was, cannot but simili­tudinarily be a Rock, a Vine, or a Lion. But in Christs words, This is my body, no such absurd or impossible thing is affir­med; but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it.

1. In this speech of our Sauiour, This is my body, as well as in that speech of the Prophet, Ezec. 5. 5. This is Ierusalem, or in that speech of the Apostle, 1. Co. 10. 4 The Rocke was Christ, is one thing, to wit, bread (as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context, the words of the Apostle, and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers) said to bee an other thing, to wit, the flesh of Christ, which is wholly different in nature from it. Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue [Page 55] thē contrary, vnlesse you grant him the point in question, which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion, to wit, that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it?

2. A man may as well be a rocke; as a rocke may bee a man, or bread may be flesh. And why was it not as pos­sible for the rocke to be turned into Christ, and so to be­come Christ, as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ, and so to be the flesh of Christ? that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other. If they will say, It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ, before Christ was incarnate, I might answer them, as they vse to do vs; that God is able to do all things. And questionlesse it is Yea some of them in effect confesse the one to be as well possi­ble as the o­ther: Ante incar­nationem Christi potuit. Eucharistia fuisse ita vera sicut nunc. Et tum fuisset sub speciebu [...] verum & idē corpus Chri­sti illud quod sumptum est de virgine sicut modò. &c. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 47. as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh, that as yet was not; as that a little thinne wafer cake, or the compasse of it at least, should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth, while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven. A creature may as well be, and yet not be at once, as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth, and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen. Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible, that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table, should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table, and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall per­sons, to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire, and to become so many whole and en­tire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes, as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them, and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate, remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched? If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima (as he speaketh) as monstrous absurdities as euer were any, I know not what are.

[Page 56] 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say, This, or that thing is impossible: yet tell vs them­selues of many impossibilities; and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries, in the confuting one of another. It is impossible (saith this wor­thy writer) for a man, as Christ was, otherwise then simili­tudinarily, to be a rock, or a vine. Thom. A­qui. contr. Gent. l. 1. c. 48 It is impossible (saith Aqui­nas) that a man should be an Asse. Est impossi­bile quod pa­nis sit corpus Christi. Gloss. ad Grat. de conscr. d. 2. c. Panis est It is impossible (saith the Glosse) that bread should be Christs bodie. Impossibilis est planè haec sententia, nisi tropic è accipiatur. Bellar. de Eu­char. l. 1. c. 1. It is altogether impossible (saith Bellarmine) that this sentence, This bread is my body, should be true properly. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 80. It is impossible (saith Biel) that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled, being impassible. Thon. Aq. sum. part 3. q. 81. art. 3. It is impossible (saith Aquinas) that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible. Idem ibid. q. [...]7. a. 1. It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be alte­red in shape or hew. Ibid. q. 76. a. 8. It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place, but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely. Ibid. art. 6. It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecrati­on: or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there. Ibid. q. 75. art. 2. It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament. Ibid. q. 76. a. 6. It is impossible that the same thing should both rest and mooue at once. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 16. It is impossible that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuers severall places at once. It is impossible that Christs should personally assume the bread in the Sacrament. Thom. sum. p. 3. q. 75. a. 3. It is impossible that Christs body should bee in the Sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it. All these and many other impossibilities they tell vs of, that cannot endure to heare vs speake of any. Now if they will tell vs why these things are impossible, we shall as soone tell them againe in their owne wordes, why such a Tran­substantiation and reall presence, as they dreame of, is im­possible. z Ibid. a. 2.

4. How doth this follow: There is no impossible thing affirmed in Christs words: Therefore they must needs bee taken properly, or they cannot bee taken figuratiuely? Hee [Page 59] might by the same reason prooue that the Apostles words where he saith of himselfe, 1 Cor. 15. 3 [...] I die dayly; or where he saith, Gal. 2. 19. I am crucified together with Christ; or where he saith of the Galathians that Gal. 3. 1. Christ was crucified among them; or the Psalmists as some fantasticall Vide Drus. quaest. l. 2. q. 39 & Paul. Rieium de a­nima coeli. Rabbines haue held, where hee saith of the Heavens, that Psal. 19. 1. they relate Gods glory, &c. or our Sauiours, where hee saith, that Luk. 16. 24. the tongue of the Rich mans soule was in torment; must of necessity be all vnderstood literally and properly, because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them.

§. 5. He telleth vs in Conclusion; that the meaning of our Sauiour Christs wordes is this; The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous con­uersion of bread into it. But where is ought in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conuersion? yea if this were the sense of them, it should be made Christs body ere those wordes were spoken of it: Whereas hee and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conuer­sion is wrought by those wordes, This is my body, and In vltimo instanti, in quo pro [...]ertur vox vltima, ponitur effe­ctus verborū in esse. Bellar. de Euchar. l 1. c. 11. is not effected till those wordes be all out; which they giue the Priest a speciall charge thereof Vno spiritu. tractim dicat. Cu [...]tel. Miss. in Mis­sali. to vtter speedily with one breath. And here let this profound doughty Do­ctor giue an ignorant petty writer leaue to demand of him, what is ment by the word This, in those wordes, This is my body; (for I suppose hee will not be so absurd as the Glosser is, to say that Ad haec di­co, quod per hanc dictionē, Hoc, nihil de­monst [...]a [...]ur. Glos. ad Gr [...]t. de conscr. d. 2. c. Timorem & alii nonnulli apud Durand. ration. diuin. l 4. part. 2. in 6. part. Canon. Hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all:) or what that substance was (as hee speaketh) that Christ held in his hands when hee spake the word, Hoc, or this. If it were Christs body made before of bread, then the vttering of those wordes did not then, nor doth now worke any conuersion of the bread into Christs body: for nothing can bee turned into it selfe, or into that that al­ready it is: or Si substantia panis fuisset adhuc, quando Christus offerebat Apostolis cibum illum coelestem, pronomen, Hoc, demonstra [...]e [...] panem, & de pane dixis [...]et, quod esset corpus suum, &c. quod 'est impossibile. Christ. de Cap. Font. de necess. correct. schol. Theol. ad Sixt. 5. Pp. l. 1. c. 2. if it were bread still, (as for ought ap [Page 56] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 56] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 60] peareth in the text, still it was) then must this needs bee the summe and sense of Christs wordes, This bread is my body: and so by his owne rule, when disparatum de dispa­rato dicitur, one thing is said to be another different in nature from it, it must needs be taken figuratiuely.

§ 6. Well wotting that there was no such thing ei­ther in the Text, or gatherable (to vse his owne tearmes) out of it: hee would faine finde out some Author, that would say that for him, that the text it selfe will not; and alleagdeth therefore some few Testimonies. Concerning which I might well say, as hee saith, if I would doe as hee doth, that they haue beene answered long since by the L. Morney, the B. Morton, D. Fulke, and others, and hee doth not deale sincerely in concealing their An­swers; and so turne my Reader over to them, as his man­ner is, when he hath nothing to answer. But I answer to them severally.

1. Ambrose is alleadged out of his bookes de Myste­rijs, &c. and de Sacramentis: which bookes, howsoeuer Vide Rob. Coqui Cen­surā Patrum. edit. 2. for diuers passages of them, and phrases vsed in them, they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no; and Posseuine himselfe implieth that some haue denied it, when hee saith, that Cum reli­quis paene omnibus Pos­seuin. apparat. all almost hold them to be his: and part of them (as we shall see anone) goeth commonly vnder another name: yet not to stand thereupon, but admit them for his. Nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such Transubstantiation as the Romanists hold; yea some subsequent wordes, if they had beene annexed, would euidently speake against it.

For first, Ambrose there expressely teacheth, that the creatures of bread and wine still abide euen after Consecra­tion, which vtterly ouerthroweth the Popish Transubstan­tiation. If (saith he) there were so much force in the word of the Lord, (in the worke of Creation) that those things began by it to be that before were not; how much more ope­ratiue is it to cause Vt sint quae erant, & in a­liud commu­tentur. Ambr. de sacram. l. 4. c. 4. citatus e­tiam à Lum­bard. sentent. l. 4. d. 20. D. & Tho. Aqui. sum. p. 3. q. 7 8. a. 4. that things should be still what they were before, and be changed into another things. So that by this [Page 61] Ambroses confession the elements remaine still what they were, and yet are changed indeed, which wee deny not, into that which they were not; as waxe is turned into a seale, being annexed to a deed; though it remaine still for substance what erst it was.

2. That which Ambrose saith in the latter place, that De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This bread is bread before the wordes sacramentall; but when consecration commeth to it, it is of bread made Christs flesh; that hee speaketh in these wordes De myster. c. 9. in the former place, which this mangler of him omitteth; Ante bene­dictionem alia species nomi­natur; post consecrationē corpus Chri­sti significa­tur. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes is another kinde named, but af­ter Consecrationis Christs body signified. And againe De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. in the latter place: Wine and water is put into the Cup, but by Consecration it becommeth blood. Thou wilt say, Speciem sanguinis non video; sed ha­bet similitu­dinem I see no kind or shew of blood. But it hath (saith hee) a similitude of it. For as thou hast taken a similitude of death in (Bap­tisme, hee meaneth as lib. 3. cap. 7. so) Similinudi­nem pretiosi sanguinis bibis. thou drinkest a si­militude of Christs precious blood, &c. And thereupon he concludeth, Didicisti er­gò, quia quod accipis, cor­pus est Chri­sti. Thou hast learned now, that that which thou receiuest is Christs body. So that it is in regard of signifi­cation and similitude that the one is said to be Christs flesh, and the other his blood, as this Ambrose explicateth himselfe.

3. Expounding what manner of change hee meaneth, when he saith, They are changed into that which erst they were not. De sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Tu ipse ante fuisti; sed era [...] vetus cre­atura: Poste­aquam conse­cratus es, no­ua creatura esse cepisti. Thou thy selfe (saith he) wast before; but thou wast an old creature: after thou wast consecrated, thou be­gannest to be a new creature; which newnesse yet (as Ter­tullian well obserueth) importeth Tam vetu­statem homi­nis quam no­uitatem ad moralem non substantialem differentiam pertinere defend [...]mus. Tertul. de resurr. carn. no corporall, but a spirituall change in the party so consecrated, not in sub­stance, but in quality differing from what he was before.

4. In the next De sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Chapter, relating the wordes of their Church Liturgie then in vse, hee calleth that holy oblation, Quod est figura corporis & sanguinis. D. n. l. c. y Ibid. c. 5. a figure of Christs body and blood: which they entreate [Page 62] God to accept of, Sicut susci­pere dignatus es munera A­bel, & sacrifi­ciū Abrahae. as hee did Abels gifts, and Abrahams sacrifice, &c. which cannot bee vnderstood of the very reall sacrifice of Christ himselfe, vnlesse they will make the Priest an intercessor to God the Father in the behalfe of Christ Iesus. Of which also more hereafter.

2. Out of Augustine are cited two Testimonies. In the former whereof he sheweth, how iudicious he is in the choice of his allegations, (that for which he taxeth the Diuine he dealeth with) and how well seene in and acquainted with the Authors he alleadgeth. There are diuers Sermons set out vnder Augustines name, (for this is no new thing with them to forge daily as well new workes, as new writers) which they cite many of them, sometime vnder the name of Augustine, sometime vnder the name of this or that other Father: for they can finde Fathers for their bastards as they list them­selues. Of these many by Bellar. de scrip. Eccles. Bellarmine, Baron an­nal. tom. 4. Baronius, Eras. in cen­sur Erasmus, Louaniens. in censur. ap­pend tom. 10. the Diuines of Louaine, and diuers o­thers are confessed to bee meere counterfeits. One whereof is the Sermon de Verb. Dom. 28. which this worthy Writer here citeth; and indeede is nothing else but a whole Chapter verbatim taken out of the fift booke of that worke de Sacramentis, which he cited last before as Ambroses. So that he doth herein as Captaines, that wanting of their full number borrow one of an other, and so produce the same party by one name to day as one mans souldier, and by an other name the next day, as an other mans souldier, a gun-man (it may be) to day, and a pike-man to morrow. For this Author was but euen now Ambrose; and now he is sodainely become Augu­stine; as if some such spel had beene said ouer him, as they suppose to be said ouer their Hoast. And thus (as their common guise is) they make their coined crea­tures, like plaiers on a stage, sometime to act one part, and sometime another. And this may well giue iust cause to suspect the authoritie of the Author, when sometime he is Ambrose, and sometime Augustine, and it may well [Page 63] be neither. For he is hardly euer beleeued that is taken once in two tales. And this Erasmus his annotation would haue giuen him some hint of, had he beene so well acquainted with the Authors he citeth as he would seeme to be. Be­sides that this Ambrose, or Augustine, or what euer he be, when he is cited to giue in euidence, saith nothing but this, that that which before Christs words is called bread, is after them called no more bread, but Christs bodie. Which vnlesse it be meant, that it is not called onely bread, but Christs body also, Deut. 5. 3. Ier. 3. 22, 23. Hos. 6. 6. Non enim Dominus re­spuit sacrifi­cia; sed non vult illa, si ab [...]que mise­rico [...]dia sint. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. which manner of speaking is not vnusuall) he will not deny himselfe to be most manifest­ly vnture: for he acknowledgeth a little after that euen after consecration the Apostle diuers times so tearmeth it. And if it be so vnderstood, what maketh it either against vs, who acknowledge (with the Auncients,) that it is commonly called, as all other signes ordinarily, by the name of the thing it signifieth; or for them, who should prooue, not that it is commonly called Christs body, but that it is really and essentially it. It is no more then as if one had said; Waxe before it is set to a deede and imprin­ted, is called waxe: but after that, it is not called waxe, but a Seale. Meane while it may hence appeare, that either this Writer (what euer he be) is scarce well acquainted with the writings of those Fathers that he citeth, or else he is wretchedly bent to abuse and delude those that he dealeth with.

The latter Authoritie is taken out of Augustines first Sermon on Psal. 33. wherein he saith, that Christ was carried in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body. And here againe this great Doctor sheweth either his lit­tle acquaintance with Augustine, or his fraudulent dea­ling with those whom he desireth to delude. For Augu­stine repeating againe in the very next Sermon what hee had deliuered in the former, putteth in those words, which shew what his meaning was: When he commended (saith he) vnto them his body and blood, he tooke into his [Page 64] hands, what the faithfull know: (that was nothing, they themselues will graunt, but Math. 26. 26. bread, when he tooke it.) And Ipse se por­tabat quod [...]m modo. Aug. ibid. conc. 2. he carried himselfe after a manner, when he said, This is my body. And if you will know what that, after a man­ner, meaneth, Augustine himselfe will best tell you, where he saith elsewhere; Sacramen­ta plae [...]unque etiam ipsarum rerum nomi­na accipiunt, &c. Ergò se­cundū quen­dam modum sacramentum corporis Christi; cor­pus Christi est. Aug. epist. 23. The Sacrament of Christs body is af­ter a manner Christs body: because Sacraments for the most part be are the names of those things whereof they are Sacra­ments. After a manner then it is the body of Christ. And yet is it bread still. For so Augustine againe Aug. de ver. Dom. Serm. 3 [...]. elsewhere; Panem quē Dominus ge­stauit in ma­nibus. It was Bread that Christ carried in his hands at his last Supper: Ipsam coe­nam fide quo­tidiè mandu­camus: credi­mus in Chri­stum quem fide accipi­mus. Modicū accipimus, & in corde sagi­namur. Which Supper we to this day eate daily by Faith; and in it by faith receiue Christ, in whom we beleeue; and taking a little modicum, are spiritually fatted.

His third Author is S. Cyril, that should be Bishop of Ierusalem a little after the time of Constantine the Great: An Author not without good cause shrewdly suspected. Vnder his name our Popish Father-forgers haue set out diuers things: Among others an Epistle of his that should be written to S. Augustine of S. Ieromes decease, and of the miracles that he wrought. Which Epistle is so grosse and ridiculous, writing of the death of one that many a long yeere out-liued him that should write it, that albeit many of them are not ashamed to Lensorus de purgator. Eckius hom. 2. Dominic. 3. Aduent. Peres. de tradit. & alii. cite it as Cyrils for the maintenance of sundry Popish points, yet o­thers of them are enforced Bellarm. censur. apud Posseui [...]. to confesse the worke coun­torfeit, and sticke not to brand the Baron annal. tom. 5. ann. 420. & in Martyrolog. Rom. Sept. 30. Author of it for an hereticall impostor, and a loud lier. And of late they haue set out vnder the name of the same Cyrill Posseuin. in appar. tom. 2. in August. two bookes of Catechising; which besides sundry passages in them that argue a late writer, as Catech. 4. & 10. & 13. where he speaketh of the Inuenti­on of the Crosse as L [...]um crucis testatur a­pud nos apparens, vsque ad hodiernum diem, & apud illos, qui secundum fidem ex ilio capie [...]tes, hinc uniuersum orbem ferè iam replerunt. Catech. 10. a matter long before his time, and [Page 65] saith that the whole world was then filled with the pieces of it, whereas Baron. an­nal. tom. 3. an. 326. the true Cyril was liuing at the very time when the Crosse is reported to haue beene found by Helen; the same Catech [...]sings are Ios. Simler. in Biblioth. & Gretz. con­tra. Petr. Mo­lin. reported to bee found in some written copies vnder the name one Iohn Bishop of Ierusa­lem, of which name there was Magde­burgen [...]. Cen­tur. 8. cap. 10. one about the 2. Nicene Councel, some hundreds of yeeres after that Cyrils de­cease. So that they may as well cite that second Coun­cel of Nice for the adoration of Images, as this counterfeit Cyril for their Transubstantiation, vnlesse they can bring sounder proofe for him, and better informe vs what he is, and whence he came. The authoritie of this Catechi­ser is no better then the authoritie of that Epistler for ought can bee shewed; which yet Vernier. in magn. & vni­uers. concil. in this very Ar­gument is also produced, and Vide Ecki­um vbi sup. is enforced vpon vs as an indubitate and authenticall Author. Such bastard pearles, Bristow diamonds, and glasse bugles are these poore ped­lars, like pety chapmen faine to stuffe their packets with, for want of better and choiser wares. And yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this Cyril, or whosoeuer he is else, by himselfe, we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit. For in Catech. mystag. 4. the same Catechising that is here alleadged, [...]. Doe not regard (saith he) these things, as bare [...]read and wine. And in Catech. mystag. 3. the Catechising next before; [...] Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare oint­ment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the inuocati­on of the holy Ghost, is [...]. no longer bare bread, but Christs bo­die: so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is [...]. no more bare or common ointment, but a gift of Christ and the holy Ghost, by the presence of his Deitie. And looke what he saith con­cerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the Eucharist, the same doth Autor de initiat. myst. c. [...]. the Ambrose before cited say of the Sacrament of Baptisme. Quid vidi­sti? Aqu [...]s. Sed non solas, &c. What seest thou? saith he. Water: but not water alone, &c. First, the Apostle tea­cheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene. Beleeue the presence of the Deitie. For how could it worke there, if it were not present. And a­gaine [Page 66] afterward; Non solis corporis tui credas oculis: magis videtur quod non vi­detur. Beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone: that is better seene that is not seene. And say not we as much? that it is not bare bread, nor bare wine that is offered vs in the Eucharist, (whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth, as when we come to it shall be shew­ed) which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme; but spirituall signes and seales, and effectuall instruments of grace, which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue, and our faith to assure vs of.

4. Chrysostome is alleadged; but little to the purpose. The former allegation is here cited out of Sermon 60. ad Popul. Antioch. which Sermon this Answerer, had hee beene so well acquainted with the Author hee citeth, as would beseeme such a Doctor as he professeth himselfe to be, he should haue found to be an Homily neuer made by Chrysostome, but by some other composed of part of two Sermons of his, on the Glosse of S. Matthew pieced toge­ther, to wit, the 83. and the 51. according to the Latin, or the 82. and 50. according to the Greeke. The place produced is out of the 83. on Matthew: for that is the proper place of it. In which Sermon Chrysostome spea­keth no more of the Eucharist, then he doth of the Sacra­ment of Baptisme, in the very next words. Chrysost. in Math. Lat. Serm. 83. Greg. Serm. 8 [...]. It is no sensible thing (saith hee) that Christ hath left vs, but in things in­deed sensible matters all intelligible. [...]. In like manner it is in Baptisme. By a sensible thing, to wit, water is the gift giuen, but the thing that is there wrought, to wit, regeneration and renovation, is a thing intelligible. If thou wert not corporall, he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spi­rituall: but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body, there­foreby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible. And in Chrysost. in Math. Lat. Serm. 51. Grae. Serm. 50. the other Sermon out of which that Homily is pie­ced: Beleeue thou that the same supper wherein Christ him­selfe sate downe, is now celebrated. For there is no difference betweene this and that. For [...] &c. it is not a man that doth the one, and Christ the other. But it is Christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other. When therefore thou seest the [Page 67] Priest reaching somewhat to thee: [...]. do not imagine that it is the Priest that doth it, but that it is Christs hand that is stret­ched out to thee. For as when thou art baptised, [...], &c. hee doth not baptize thee; but it is God that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power; and neither Angel nor Archangel, nor any other dare approach and touch: So is it now also. Now what is here spoken but of Mysteries or Sacraments in gene­rall, applied after in particular, as well to Baptisme as to the Eucharist? and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other: and if not in both, in neither, since the very same things are spoken of either: to wit, that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth, as what the spi­rituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth, and vpon ground of Gods word beleeueth: and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs, and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other.

The 2. place of Chrysostome is out of his 3. booke de Sacerdotio. Wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation. Chrysost. saith indeed that Christ that sitteth aboue with his Father in heauen, is [...]. at that time (to wit, when the Eucharist is celebrated) held in the hands of each one, and offreth himself to those, that will claspe him about and embrace him. But not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him, that Christ himselfe and not Man both there and in Baptisme administreth; nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him, both before of the same Eucharist, that [...]. the people are all died purple­red in it with Christs blood; and afterward of Baptisme, that in it [...]. wee are buried together with Christ: Which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely: he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited, what his mea­ning was in them, and how all this is done, when hee saith; [...]. And this they doe all then with the eyes of faith.

The third place is not, as he seemeth to cite it, out of the same booke, but out of his 2. Sermon ad populum An­tiochenum. He found them ioyned together in Bellarmine, [Page 68] out of whom he hath all, and therefore tooke them (it seemeth) to bee both out of one booke. Chrysostome there saith that Christ hath left vs his flesh, and yet hath it still in Heauen. But how that may be verified, he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before, when he saith, that Erat post­hae duplex E­lias ille: Et erat sursum Elias, & deor­sum Elias. there was a twofold Elias, (whom he compareth Christ withall,) when Elias was translated, an Elias aboue, and an Elias beneath; he meaneth Elisaeus, on whom 2. King. 2. 5 re­sted the spirit of Elias, whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall Elias; as Iohn the Baptist is called Mal. 4. 5. Elias, be­cause he came Luk. 1. 15. in the power and the spirit of Elias, and so was also Elias, as Math. 11. 14 our Sauiour auerreth (and Aug. in Ioan. tract. 4. Augustine well obserueth) though Ioh. 1. 21. not essentially Elias, yet Math. 17. 12, 13. Elias symbolically. And so here in like manner. Christs essentiall flesh is in heauen, whither they must also, saith Chryso­stome, Chrysost. in 1. Cor. homil. 24. ascend, and flie vp like Eagles, that will haue it: his symbolicall Flesh is here vpon earth, as the Symbolicall Elias was, in the Sacrament of his body; which (saith Au­gustine) Secundum quendam modum sacra­mentum cor­poris Christi corpus Chri­sti est. Aug. ep. 23. in some sort is his body, being a Signe and Sacra­ment of it.

And thus you see what substantiall proofes this great Blusterer hath brought to prooue their Transubstantiati­on: and how well he hath acquit himselfe for a man well read in the auncient Fathers, as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be.

Diuision 3.

THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers: and N. P. so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words, and the miraculous cōuersion of the bread & wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ; telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the con­trarie; nor conceiue it so impossible, as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend, for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen, and in numberlesse places of the earth together i [...]si­bly [Page 69] existing. Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Lib 2. de Euchar. Bellarmine truly and particularly colle­cted: where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Prote­stanticall Diuines vnto them; soluing all Obiections gathe­red out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine. Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced, and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words, This is my Body; because disputing against Luther; supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words, argu­mento ad hominem, by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds, hee driueth Luther either to confesse Tran­substantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words, This is my Bodie; or for to admit barely (against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples) a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them. For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood, and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament, the Pronoune, Hoc, This, would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it, and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present, and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie: Whereas if bread remaine not, but be truly conuerted into Christs bo­die, no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words. Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to af­firme that there is nothing in the holy Text, that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacra­ment, or (which is all one) that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words, &c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward.

IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from T. G. the Argument he should haue answered, he addeth that that which they teach cōcerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine [Page 70] into the very body and blood of Christ, is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers: and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he, nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good, he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine, out of whom he picked all that before he had said, and telleth him that he hath both prooued it, and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Di­uines. Bellarmine (it seemeth) is his Aiax, behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe, or else he dare a­bide no brunt of encounter againe.

Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requi­tall, because he is so much beholden to him, he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister, by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach, a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine con­cerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words, and to af­firme, &c. It is true; I say that Bellarmine granteth, and so Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 10. he doth, (I haue set downe his owne words; they are not, nor can be denied) that these words, This is my bo­die, may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold, or such a figuratiue change, as the Caluinists hold: and that is all I say of him. The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie, (as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour) did start from him vnawares. Nor is the questi­on now de re, but de propositione, as Bellarmine there spea­keth: the question is not of the maine matter in con­trouersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body; which Bellarmine affirmeth; but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue, which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth. And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this, that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him, without alteration of any one syllable; and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it, when [Page 71] he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in pre­cise tearmes. But he hopeth (it seemeth) that with facing hee may carry away any thing.

I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine, and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith. Scotus in sent. l 4. dist. 11. quaest. 3. Scotus and Cameracens. ibid. Cameracensis, two great Schoolemen, grant that the do­ctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists; howsoeuer they hold it, because the Church of Rome, that cannot erre, hath so ex­pounded it. And Bellarmine himselfe Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. granteth that Non est om­nino improba­bile. this is not improbable: For Etiamsi Scriptura, quā nos adduxi­mus, videatur tam clar [...], vt possit cogere hominem non prote [...]uum, ta­men an ita si [...] meritò dubi­tar [...] potest, cū homines do­ctissin [...]i, ac acutissimi, &c. contrar. sentiant. though the Scripture (saith he) that we bring, may seeme so cleere, that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it, yet it may well bee doub­ted, whether it be so or no; since most learned men, and most acute, such especially as Scotus was, are of a contrary minde. And now we haue besides Scotus and others, three Cardi­dinals, Card. Bellarmine, Card. Caietan, and Card. Came­racensis, all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transub­stantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture. I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant; It is all one (saith he) to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally pre­sent in the Sacrament, and to say that there is nothing to en­force vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words. Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter: and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan (which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe) he must by his owne confession yeeld the former.

Diuision 4.

PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking, how the Cha­lice N. P. may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood. I answer him, because our Sauiours blood by the effu­sion whereof his last W [...]ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs, is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the al­tar [Page 72] for vs. For the word Testament (as all learned men know) is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil, but also the authenticall instrument or deed, where­in that his dying Will is contained, and his legacy conueighed vnto vs, which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate de [...]t soules.

Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood; as Alex­anders picture representeth his absent person; as Circumci­sion is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Ma­ster Caluines doctrine, or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him; who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread & wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood, but such signes as haue the sig­nified substances of our Sauiours body and blood con­ioyned with them. For In cap. 11. ad Cor. 1. Christ (saith hee) is no decei­uer to delude vs with bare figures, &c. According to which doctrine of Caluine it will be easie for my Adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections: that for exam­ple, which he maketh out of Tertullian, page 3. saying, The bread which Christ tooke and distributed to his Disci­ples he made his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. For as Caluines former words import, so also Tertullian meaneth, the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of Christs absent body and blood (as the Mi­nister would haue them) but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them; as smoake is the signe of fire; warme blood of life; the fiery tongues ouer the Apostles, in that day of Pentecost, and the Doue ouer our Sauiour in his Baptisme, were signes of the holy Ghost present, &c. Which manner of being signes of Christs body and blood doth not ex­clude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our Sauiours body and blood in them. So is Saint Augustine to be vnderstood, where he saith, Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when hee de­liuered [Page 73] the signe of his body. And when out of Gratian my Aduersary citeth those wordes, The heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, &c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible, palpable, mortal, and pierced on the Crosse, &c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirme the sub­stance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the Sacrament; they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecra­tion, but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature, signifying and containing our Sauiours body and blood vnder them. And if hee had cited the place of Theodoret fully out, he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and frau­dulent purposes of citing him. His wordes are these: Nei­ther do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature; for they remaine (note how hee spea­keth of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine re­maining) in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before: but they are by our vn­derstanding conceiued to be as they are made; and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them. So iudicious and learned is mine Aduersarie here and in other places, in the choise of his Arguments and Authorities al­leadged against vs. But howsoeuer he faileth in that, he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly ci­ting such testimonies. I haue iust cause to suspect his like dea­ling in citing Gratians Glosse on S. Augustines wordes in the precedent page, and Caietans words cited by him page 2. But I haue not these Authors now by me to examine the pla­ces in themselues. And they are of so small esteeme with vs, especially Caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding Scripture with more subtilty many times then truth, as I cannot but wonder to see the Minister so to mag­nifie him, as if hee were the Oracle of our Church, and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs.

[Page 74] IN the next place therefore, skipping ouer this Confessi­on T. G. of Caietan, that there is nothing in the Gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our Sauiour properly, This is my body: but that they may for ought that is in the Text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes, The Rock was Christ.

As also leaping quite ouer the Answer giuen to that Obiection that we are bound to beleeue our Sauiour, when hee saith, This my body: as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his, vnlesse wee beleeue Transubstantiation: whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our Sauiour may be true, though no such thing be: He pic­keth out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon, that hee may seeme to say somewhat, though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter.

And first, because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet, which hee was desi­rous to vent: He saith I make a great stirre in asking, how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood. I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pus [...]ed him with this Question; and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit, the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice, that hee thin­keth wil easily helpe out. For I mooue no such Question, much lesse make such adoe about asking it, but say onely, We must beleeue our Sauiour as well, when he saith, This Cup is the new Testament, or This Cup is my blood; as wee must beleeue him when he saith, This is my body: and that either may bee true, though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament, or Christs blood in the one, or of the Bread into his body in the other. And his part had beene (if he ment to keepe to the point) to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other.

But let vs heare how learnedly (though it bee beside the matter) he explicateth our Sauiours wordes, This [Page 75] Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Thus forsooth; My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed, and the eternall inheritance purcha­sed and applied vnto vs: and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood. Did any man in his right wits (thinke wee) euer expound Scripture on this manner? Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by him­selfe to iustifie his Exposition. For all learned men (saith hee) know that the word Testament is apt to import, not the dying mans Will onely, but the deed wherein it is contained, and the legacy conueighed by it; which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood, to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules, &c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this, hee could not lightly haue beene more ab­surd. For,

1. By this exposition of his, our Sauiour should say, This Cup, that is, this blood contained in the Chalice, is the New Testament in my blood. And so Not vnlike Hugo Card. on Luke [...]. Hic est calix in sanguine m [...]o, i. sanguis meus in ca­lice. Christs blood shall be not in the Chalice onely, but in his blood; would any reasonable man say, My body is in my body; or, My blood is in my blood? But they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our Sauiour, so it may make for their owne turne.

2. There is the blood of Christ really contained in the Chalice, and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered. It is vn­bloodily offered, and yet it is really blood; yea there is no­thing there but blood. True it is the ancient Fathers oft tearme the Eucharist [...]. Euseb. demonstr. l. [...]. c. 6. Chrysost. nomine in Psal. 95. & alii. an vnbloody sacrifice; which shew­eth their speeches, where they say, that Chrysost. vt supr. the Altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood, were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall: and well might they so call it, not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the Chalice, as these men seeme to imagine. But how there can bee an vnbloody offering, where there is much more blood then flesh; and Christ offered vnbloodily, where men drinke nothing but meere blood; yea if Chrysostomes spee­ches [Page 76] were to be taken properly, where all the Communi­cants are dyed red with blood, let any reasonable man iudge.

3. All learned men (he saith) of which number I hope he counteth himselfe one) know that a Testament is apt to import, not a will onely, or a deed, but a legacie too. Vsus lo­quendi Magister: Use is the Lord and Master of language. Loquendū cum multis: sentiendum cum paucis. We should thinke (they say) as the best, speake as the most; and Vtendum planè sermo­ne, vt nūmo, cuius publica forma est. Quintil. insti­tut. [...]. 1. c. 10. vse, as such coine, so such speech, as is commonly currant. We ignorant and vnlearned Protestanticall Ministers are vnacquainted with this learning. But I would request him, if hee can here, as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite, as for our better instruction, to pro­duce any one learned man besides himselfe and For from Bellarmine also (it seemeth) he hath this: who to those two significati­ons of a Testa­ment de Eu­char. l. 1. c. 11. which all ac­knowledge: addeth this third, pro bo­nis à testatore legatis. de Eu­char. l. 4. c. 19. his asso­ciates, that euer so said, or euer so spake, that euer called a legacy by the name of a Testament. Such learned men (I see) as hee is, may say what they list; we vnlearned must speake by rule, when we speake, least such lear­ned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise, for ig­norant.

4. Marke (I beseech you) this learned mans Logicke, how soundly and substantially he argueth. This word Te­stament may well signifie either a Will or a Legacie: ergo Christs blood wherewith his last Will was confirmed, may well be tearmed the New Testament. What connexion there is betweene these two Propositions, the one produ­ced by him to prooue the other, let any one, that is not vtterly senslesse, consider.

5. Let it be obserued, how these men that cannot en­dure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our Saviour, though one neuer so frequent, in signes and Sacraments especially, which both they grant these things to be; yet themselues in the explicating of them are en­forced to flie to figures, yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures, as were neuer heard of be­fore, either in holy writ, or in prophane writer. For let him if he can, shew a legacie so tearmed in either.

[Page 77] Lastly, Christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules, and the Ex Psal. 23. 5. Hieron. ad Hedyb. q. 2. Ruffin. in Psal. 22. Ambr. in Psal. 1 [...]8. serm. 21. & alii. Ancients sometime so speake. But that which is in the Chalice, if it be taken (which the Priest sometime may chance to doe) ouer­largely, will (as Aquin sum. part. 3 quaest. 77. art. 6. Aquinas well obserueth) inebriate the bodie and not the soule: which I neuer yet heard that Albeit the whore of Ba­bylon be said to be drunke with blood. Apoc. 17. 6. blood did, or could doe. And therefore wee haue cause to thinke, if we see the Priest drunke with it, yea we haue reason to beleeue, because we know he well may, that it is not Christs blood, but Mat. 26. 19. the fruit of the Gen. 49. 11. [...]. Sirac. 50. 16. 1 Mac 6. 34. [...]. Eustath. ad Iliad. [...]. Clem. [...]ex. paed. l. 1. c. 6. Vinum san­guinem terrae dixit Andro­cydes apud Plin. hist. nat. l. 14. c. 5. [...]. H [...]liod. apud Fulgent. my­thol. l. [...]. c. [...]. [...]um vuarū sanguis, cru­entus liquor, purpura pota­bilis, violeum nectar. Cassod. v [...]r. l. 12. vine, the blood of the grape, that is in the Chalice, and produceth such ef­fects.

§ 2. In the next place, like a man in a maze going backward and forward, as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe, Afterward (saith hee, relating, but misrela­ting, as his vsuall manner is, some things spoken before) confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood, as Alexanders picture representeth his ab­sent person, as Circumcision is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c.

True it is, I say these wordes of our Sauiour, This is my body, may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely, as those speeches are where the Rocke is called Christ, and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander (it is the comparison that Aug. ad simplic. lib. [...]. quaest. 3. Augustine vseth) we say, This is Caesar, and That is Alexander. And in Answer to the Obiection before recited; I say, that the Cup, that is, the wine in the Cup, is said to be the New Testament, as Circumcision the Couenant, because Hic calix est no­uum Testamentum, i calix quem vobis trado nouum Test. significat, vt Fulgent. vel nouum Test, confirmat. Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. a signe and seale of it. But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types, &c. I no where say: It is his vntruth, not mine assertion. I say expressely more then so, that they are not signes one­ly, but seales, and signes and seales so effectuall, (as after I [Page 78] shew) that by them the things signified by them, and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually, yet spiritu­ally, conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them. Hee dealeth herein but as Bellarmine (whom hee imitateth) doth with Caluine, one while charging him to make the Sacramemt Nihil nisi symbolum re­uocans ad memoriam Christi Passi­onem. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. [...]. nothing but a symbole and memoriall of Christs passion, and so no better (saith hee) nay nor so good as a Crucifixe, and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely, but Sigillum obsignans & confirmans promissionem verbo factam. Ibid. l. 1. c. 1. a seale also confirming and sealing vp Gods promises made in the Word.

But like a dull Scholler (he saith) herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine. Mat. 2 [...]. 8. Master in these matters wee ac­knowledge none but Christ; whose Word alone is ab­solutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am, I vnderstand him well enough, where in that booke he cal­leth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell; Eorum con­secratio ab in­cantationis specie nihil differt. their Consecration a kinde of Incantation; Transub­stantiatio cō ­mentum Dia­boli. the Masse an Histrionicall action; and the Priest acting it a meere Ape. The signes indeed, saith hee, in the Eucharist are not Nuda signa. f Non tamen quasi pane in­clusum, aut signo visibili [...]ocanter af­fixum. &c. na­ked signes, but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned d Mera fimiae ae mulatio, & actio histrio­nica. with them, (that which is true of Baptisme, as well as of the Lords Supper.) Yet not inclosed in them, nor carnally but spiritually partaked. Nor doth God delude vs with bare figures, though there bee no such reall change of the ele­ments in the Eucharist, more then hee doth vs now in Baptisme, or did the Israelites of old, when hee fed them with 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. spirituall food and water in the Wildernesse.

§ 2. And heere againe, I cannot say cunningly, but knauishly rather, hauing falsly related my wordes, and passing ouer mine Answer to this very Obiection, where­in they challenge vs to make the Sacrament nothing but bare bread; which by the instance of the other Sacrament of Baptisme, besides other proofes, I shew euidently to be otherwise, (as if hee thought that like an hare by i [...]m­ping and wheeling to and fro, hee should keepe himselfe safe from being traced and taken, when either he repor­ted [Page 79] grosse vntruths, or dissembled those things that it stood him vpon to giue answere vnto, if he would either make good their cause, or ouerthrow ours.) He runneth backe to an allegation of Tertullian, and then forward againe to Theodoret, &c. and (if his words may beare weight with vs) he would make vs beleeue that this Do­ctrine of my Master Caluine, if like a dull Scholler I had sooner vnderstood him, would salue many of my Obiecti­ons, as namely, that of Tertullian; This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body; and the like speech of Augustine; and what I cite out of Gratian to the like purpose, &c.

Surely this man was of that opinion that [...]. Polyq. hist. lib. 4. Polybius saith some are, who thinke other men cannot see them, if they winke themselues. The Question is whether our Sauiours words, This is my Bodie, may not be, or are not to be fi­guratiuely vnderstood; not whether the bread and wine be bare Signes or no, which none say, but this shamelesse wretch contrary to mine expresse words affirmeth me to affirme. This being the Question I produce Tertullian, who precisely so expoundeth them, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body. I produce Augustine, who not onely doth the like; but rendreth a reason also why he so doth, to wit, because Signes and Sacraments are called That which Rib [...]ra the Ie­suite also ob­serueth in Apoc. 14. [...]. Pervulgatum est in Scrip­tura, vt figura nomen ha­beat rei figu­ratae. vsuaelly by the names of those things that they signifie and re­present. I produce the Glosse on Gratian, that saith; It is called Christs body improperly, not in the truth of the thing itselfe, but in a significant mysterie: and that when it is said that it is called Christs bodie, the meaning of the words are, that it signifieth Christs bodie. All which produced to prooue that our Sauiours words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely, (which how pregnantly they doe prooue, he cannot but see, that will not wilfully win [...]ke) he can giue no answer vnto; but saith onely they may be so [...]d with that which Caluine saith that they are not bare signes; which neither is denied, nor is any part of the Argument here in hand.

§ 4. Thus hauing leapt a page backe, he now ium­peth [Page 80] againe as fa [...]re forward; where he lighteth againe vpon Pope Gelasius (for so is his worke stiled in all editi­ons of him, and so by Fulgentius he is prooued to be; how­soeuer they would faine shift him of, because he is so ex­pressely against their Transubstantiation, as he is also a­gainst their mangling of the Sacrament, and giuing the bread without the Cup, which Gelas. Papa apud Grat. de consecrat. dist. 2. c. Compe­ri [...]us. Sine grandi sacrile­gio non po­test prouenire he condemneth as grosse Sacriledge) and with him vpon Theodoret, that speaketh in effect the same with him.

Theodoret and Gelasius both auerre that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onely, but the same Nature and Substance. Can any thing be more plaine? or any testimony more pregnant? Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not * And this al­so after Mor­man apud Rid [...]eium de Coe [...]. Dom. hath Bellarmine de Euchar. l. 2. c. 27. And it is as good that that he saith else-where that the Acci­dents are as Substances in the Sacrament. de Euchar. l. [...]. c. 2. aneuasion for it, such as it is. For (saith he) Theodoret and Gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance, but the Accidents (that is, the shape and outward [...]o [...]me, &c.) onely remaine vnaltered. They say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too. And this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vs that they meane contrary; that they retaine the same shape, but not the same substance. It is Maledicta glossa, quae corrumpit textum. a cursed glosse (they say) that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the glosse that this Sophi­s [...]er giueth Gelasius and Theodoret, not corrupting onely, but directly crossing that that they say, & denying them to say that that in precise tearmes they do. The Substance, say they: Not the Substance, saith he. The Substance, say they: that is, The Accidents, saith he. Not vnlike that Glosse on Gratian, that expoundeth, We ordaine, Statuimus. i. abrogamus. Gloss. ad Grat. dist. 4. c. Statu [...]mus. Et Gloss. ad Cod. lib. 3. de Iudicus leg. Quoties. Quo magis i. quo minus. Et Alciat. parerg. l. 7. c. 13. Imperare, [...]. parere, teste Duareno disput. l. 1. c. 34. that is, We [...]brogate, or disannull. If this be not a most sorry and senselesse shift, I know not what is.

But yet will you see another as grosse as the former? By Sacramentall Signes (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substances of Bread and Wine; but the Accidents one­ly; for either those then, or else nothing at all.

[Page 81] 1. Here is a new distinction betweene the Elements of Bread and Wine, and the Sacramentall signes in the Eucha­rist. And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true, nei­ther Bread, nor Wine, are euer, or euer were Signes of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, though the Aun­cients commonly so tearme them. For before Consecrati­on they are not; and in Consecration they cease to be, as they say: and after Consecration they cannot be, because they haue now no being: and so consequently they ne­uer are.

2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most abfurd assertion: The Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Acci­dents, retaine still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that wee had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeede: and it is no great maruell, if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them.

3. Will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is? Theodoret and Gelasius (saith Bellarmine, whom hee learned some of this from) Idem pror­sus docent. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. teach the very selfe same thing. Now looke what Theodoret calleth the mysticall Signes, that Gelasius tearmeth expressely Bread and Wine. By the mysticall Signes therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant, not the Accidents (as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith) of either.

§ 4. Yea but if Theodoret had beene fully cited, all had vtterly beene ouerthrowne, and the Ministers hereticall and fraudulent purpose of citing him had beene defeated.

If lying and out-facing would serue the turne, this man would be sure euer to giue his Aduersarie the ouer­throw. Heare you but Theodoret at large; and then iudge, if this man haue not either Quomodò Canus Auto­rem Legendae (vt [...] appel­lant) Aureae, ait hominem fuisse ferr [...]i oris & plumbei cordis. Loc. com. l. 11. c. 6. Reg. [...]. Sed & frontis aereae, vel aheneae, rectissimè addidisset. a brazen brow, or a leaden braine, or both.

The worke of Theodoret is a Dialogue, wherein hee bringeth in disputing an Orthodoxe Diuine against an He­reticke, [Page 82] that held that Post resur­rectionem a­misit humani­tas naturam suam; & acce­pit caro mu­tationem in naturam diui­nitatis. after Christs resurrection his He­manitie lost it owne nature, and his flesh was turned into his Deitie; in the same manner as these Transubstantiators now say that the Bread in the Euchorist looseth it owne na­ture, and is really changed into Christs naturall body. In debating of this Question they light vpon the Eucharist, and fall to dispute how the Bread is there said to bee Christs body, and what change is wrought on it. The He­reticke would haue it changed to fit his turne, as our Pa­pists now hold. The Orthodoxe Diuine saith it is no more turned into Christs body, then Christs body is now turned in heauen into his Deitie. But you shall haue them both verbatim in their owne words.

Theodoret. Dialog. 2. qui & [...]. You may if you will in steed of Or­thodoxe and Heretike put Protestant and Papist. Tell me; the mysticall Signes which are offred God by Gods Priests, what say you are they Signes of?

Of the Lords Body and Blood.

Of a body that is truly? or of one that is not truly?

Of one that is truly.

Very well. For of the Image there must needs be some Originall. For Painters imitate nature; and draw Images of such things as are seene.

True.

[...], &c. If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body, then the Lords body is a true body still, not changed into the Nature of the Deity, but filled with Diuine glorie.

You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie, for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature. Answer you therefore my Question.

I will.

What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation?

I may not tell openly, because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated.

Answere then aenigmatically.

The foode that is made of certaine graine.

The other Signe, how call you it?

By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke.

But after sanctification how doe you call them?

The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.

And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood?

I doe beleeue so.

As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer; but after it are chan­ged and become another: So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance.

You are taken now in a net of your owne wea­uing. [...]. For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctificati­on depart from their owne Nature. For they remaine still in their former Substance, and figure and forme; and may be seene and touched as before: But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made; and they are beleeued and adored (or Quomodo Tertull. adv. Hermog. Adoro pleni­tudmē Scrip­turarum. Et Aug. Ep. 164: Baptismum Christi vbi­que venera­mur. reuerenced) as being those things that they are beleeued to be. Compare then the Image with the Originall, and you shall see the Similitude. For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth. For [...]. that Body hath indeede its former forme, and figure, and circumscription, and to speake in a word, bodily Substance. But since the Resurrection it is be­come immortall, and such as no corruption or destruction can befall; and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand; and is worshipped of euery creature, as being called the Lords natu­rall Bodie.

Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his for­mer Name. For it is not any more called as it was before, but it is called a Body. In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body.

Me thinkes you are very ignorant. For it is not onely called a Body, but it is called, Ioh. 6. 35. Bread of Life. So the Lord himselfe called it. And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body, and a quickning Body, and the [Page 84] Lords Body: and teach that it is not the common Body of any man, but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ, who is God and Man. For Heb. 13. 8. Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same, and for euer.

Will you heare more yet of Theodoret? In his first Dialogue; out of which I cite also one or two Sentences, which this scambling Answerer hath not list (it seemeth) to take notice of; he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together.

Theodoret Dialog. 1. qui & [...]. Do you not know that the Lord called him­selfe a Vine?

I know that he said, Ioh. 15. 1. I am the true Vine.

And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine?

Wine.

When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare, what saith the Euangelist did then issue ont?

Ioh. 19. 34. Water and Blood.

The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape. For if Christ be called a Vine, and the frnite of the Vine; and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body; he is fitly Gen. 49. 11. Hinc Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 4. Ita & [...]unc sangui­nem suum in vino conse­crauit, qui tunc vinum in sangine fi­gurauit. said by him to wash his coate in wine, and his raiment in the blood of the Grape. For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood; so doth he call the blood of the true Vine, the blood of the Grape.

That which was propounded hath both mysti­cally and cleerely beene shewen.

Though the things said be sufficient; yet I will adde another proofe.

You shall doe me a pleasure, because the more profit in so doing.

Doe you not know that God called his body Bread?

I know it.

And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate.

I know that too. For, Ioh. 12. 24. vnlesse the wheate corne, saith he, fall into the ground, &c.

Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments [...]. he called Bread his Body; and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup, Blood.

He did so call them.

Yea but [...]. that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body; and in like manner his Blood.

It is acknowledged.

Our Sauiour indeede, [...]. hee changed the Names, and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it: and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name, that is the Name of his Body. And so hauing named himselfe a Uine, he called that that was a signe Blood.

It is true that you say: But why did he thus change the Names?

Because his will was, that those that are par­takers of those diuine Mysteries, should not attend the nature of the things that they see; but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought. For hee that y Ioh. 6. 32, 33, 35. called that that by Nature is his Body, wheate and bread, and againe, named himselfe a Vine; [...]. he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not changing Nature, but to Nature adding Grace.

And at length, the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth: [...]. It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood, the name whereof it beareth. For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe, said not, This is my Deitie; But, Matth. 26. 26, 28. This is my Bodie; and againe, This is my Blood: and else where, Ioh. 6. 51. The bread that I will giue, is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world.

You haue heard Theodoret at large. It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for, to wit, that the bread & wine in the Sacrament re­maine [Page 86] for substance still the same; and that the Bread is cal­led Christs body figuratiuely; as his body is else-where cal­led Bread; and the wine his blood figuratiuely, as himselfe is tearmed a Vine: Or to consider rather, if you please (be­cause that any one at the first sight may see) how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with Theodo­rets owne words.

By Sacramentall Signes (saith he) Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine.

1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests. And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onely? Indeed they tell vs that Gen. 14. 18. Quo loco ta­men vulg. ver­sio, non, Ob­tulit, sed, Pro­tulit. Et Card. Caietan. in Gen. Nihil scribitur hîc de sacrificio seu de oblati­one, sed de prolatione, qua [...] Iose­phus dicit factam ad re­ficiendum vi­ctores. Melchisedech offred bread and wine; and that their Priests are Vide Bellar. de missa. l. [...]. c. 24. & 25. & Rhemens. in Heb. 7. 12, 17. Priests after the order of Melchi­sedech, and so Rhemens. ibid. offer such offerings as he did. And the aun­cient Fathers, alluding to that story by them allegorised, say, Offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech. Aug. de ciuit. Dei l. 17. c. 17. i. panes & vinum: vt Theodoret. in Psal. 109. Vide & Clem. Strom. l. 4. Tertull. adv. Iudaeos. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 34. &c. that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaa­rist. But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it, no such thing can be offred, because no such thing is there present.

2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made, and by the other the fruite of the Vine. And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance, or that consisteth of Accidentia tamen mera nutrire corpora humana; & Species tantumdem facere quantum alias substantias, asserunt Patres Inquisitores in Indic. Belg. expurg. lit. B. Nec id mirum esse debet: cum Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. non accidentium sed substantiae rationem velit habere, vti sunt in Sacramento. meere accidents? He deserueth to be fed, till he starue, with such food, that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is. Yea in precise tearmes he saith, that Christ called Bread (not the accidents of bread) his Body, as he called his Body else-where bread.

[Page 87] 3. The very maine drift and scope euidently manife­steth his meaning; which is to shew that the Lords Bo­dy, though it be not a common body, but hath glorious en­dowments, yet remaineth a true body still; as the Sacramen­tall bread though it be not common bread, yet retaineth still it former nature and substance, and is true bread still.

4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance; and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken; hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse, that [...]. Corpus ergò substantia vo­candū: Acci­dentia, non substantias, nominate cō ­uenit, quae corpori & ac­cidunt & re­cedunt. The­odoret, dia­log. 2. by Sub­stance he vnderstandeth a body; and by Accidents (which hee opposeth to Substance) such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them. And they may as well say, that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents, when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance; as they may say hee so meaneth, when of the bread, which hee compareth therewith, hee saith the very same. But what take I so much paines Super vacu­is laborat im­pendiis qui solem certat facibus adiu­uare. Anaclet, apud Grat. c. 6. q. 1. In re­bus vero a­pertis argu­mentari tam sit stultum, quam in cla­rissimum Solem mortale Iumen inferre. Quintil. institut. l. 5. c. 12. to set vp a light when the Sun shines? (the proofe is so plaine, and his meaning so perspicuous, that it may seem Ipsius solis radio putes scriptum; ita claret. Tertul. de resurr. car. written, as Tertullian spea­keth, with a beame of the Sunne) saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts, who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader, that his Aduer­sarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudi­cious hee is in the choice of his authorities; as if this allega­tion made wholly for them and against vs, were it read all out, or were nothing pertinent (at least) to the pur­pose.

§ 5. In conclusion, for Gratians Glosse, acknowledg­ing the truth by vs maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood; and Cardinall Caietan confessing; that they may well beare that sense: hauing nothing (and that is maruell, for he dare say any thing) to except against; either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him, as if they were not commonly [Page 88] in Pauls Church-yard to be had, if hee had listed to looke after them. A bad excuse (as we say) is better then none at all with him.

Onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them; Caietan especially: In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him, as if he were the Oracle of their Church, &c.

For the former, none can be ignorant, what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses haue: and in the place cited the rather, because hee buildeth vpon Augustines owne wordes. For the latter, I cite him onely by the name of Cardinall Caietan (nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals) one of our Aduersaries: that is all my magnifying of him. But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne. Yet of what repute and e­steeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning, as well Philosophy as Diuinity; to omit the titles commonly gi­uen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them, stiling him Professor Theologiae eminentissi­mus. the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity; his Commentaries on Thomas (whence this testimony is taken) Luculentis­ma & planè diuina. most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries; his smaller Treatises Aurea opus­cula. golden workes; I may referre you to the workes themselues, so many, so learned, so elaborate; and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca, and set out with some of them. It is apparent, and it is enough, that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously, that the wordes of our Sauiour, This is my body, may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text, were it not that their Church, Nam Papa virtualiter est tota Ecclesia. Herv. de po­test Papae. Vide Bellar. de Concil. & Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Sed & Georg. Dounam Derens. Ep. de Papa Antichrist. l. 4. c. 6. that is, the Pope, will haue them otherwise expounded.

Diuision 5.

HE concludeth his first Discourse thus, page 5. Thus they; and thus we: and yet neither doe they, nor N. P. [Page 89] wee therefore make the Sacrament of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine. Which Corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy, heauenly and diuinely (as the Fathers speake) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth, remembring withall our Sauiours passion, Neuer Caietan, neuer Bellarmine, neuer Gratian, neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine of our Church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my Aduersarie in his wordes, They, and Wee, falsely pretendeth. Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Diuine of their Church speake at least, whatsoeuer they thinke, so poorely and grossely of this Sacrament; but they endeauour with Epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof, making it seeme mysteri­ous at least, if not miraculous. Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholler of Saint Paul himselfe, I will heere presume to aske thee. If the Sacrament of the Altar bee but bare bread and wine, why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it, in this manner? S. Dennis Hierch. Ec­cles. cap. 3. part. 3. O most diuine and holy Sacrament, vouchsafe to open those signifying signes, and appeare perspicuously vnto vs; and replenish the spiritu­all eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light, &c. Why likewise, thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christs Church Saint Itaeneus, liuing so neere the Apostles times, as to know great Polycarpus S. Iohns disciple, and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly veri­ties, doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread, but the Eucharist cōsisting of two things, heauenly and earthly; that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible, ha­uing the hope of resurrection? If no more then bare bread and wine be in this Communion, as my Aduersarie affirmeth, why did yee, noble Confessors of the first Nicene Councell will vs, Patres in votis primi Nicen. Con [...]. in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed, but to eleuate our minde by faith, [Page 90] and behold on this table the Lambe of God taking away the sinnes of the world by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed; and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection? &c. O holy Ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular san­ctitie, as Saint Ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the Church after the holy Scriptures, why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries, &c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immacu­late body of the Lord, and the Lambe himselfe entirely? adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this Minister teacheth; The my­steries of Christ are an immortall fire: search them not curiously, least in the search thou become burned, &c. telling vs that this Sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech, which Christ our Sauiour the onely begotten Sonne of God hath instituted for vs. Finally why doe o­ther ancient [...]nd chiefe Fathers of the Greeke and Latine Church call the consecrated bread and wine on the Altar dreadfull mysteries, the food of life and immortality, hidden Manna, and infinitely excelling it, a heauenly banquet, the bread of Angels humbly present while it is offered, and deuoutly adoring it, &c. If there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our Sauiours passion; as my Aduersarie affirmeth of his Prote­stanticall Sacrament.

THe next Diuisi [...] hee maketh entrance into with a T. G. grosse and shamelesse deprauation; and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression.

Hauing cited the forenamed Testimenies of Theodoret and Gelasius in mine Answer to that Obiection brought commonly against vs, as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as Papists maintaine wee should make the Sacra­ment to be nothing but bare bread; I conclude both mine Answer and the Allegation of those two Authors in these wordes; Thus they, (to wit Gelasius and Theodoret) and [Page 91] thus we: and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood NOthing but bare bread and wine. Now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with, turneth me NOthing into A­NY thing (a man able indeed with his shamelesse & sense­lesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing) and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense; Thus they; and thus we: and yet neither doe they, nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine.

Had either I or my Transcriber, for the truth is, Yet I remē ­ber now that the Marginall notes were of mine owne writing; which peraduenture occasioned his gird at mine hand. it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had: I write a worse hand I confesse, then he is aware of, that accoun­teth that so bad an one: If either I or hee, I say, had slipt heere with the pen, as I suspected hee might haue done, till I saw the copie againe that this Answerer had; yet the whole tenour of my speech, wherein I shew that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine, then the water vsed in the Sacrament of Bap­tisme is bare water, would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning. But when the copie that was deliuered him, re­maining in the custodie of that Noble Personage for whom at first it was written, is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as I haue before ci­ted them, I cannot deuise Dic aliquē, dic, Quinti [...] ­ane, colorem. Iuven. sat, 6. what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with, and ex­cuse his corrupt carriage. It argueth not a bad, but a de­sperate cause, that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld. And I beseech your Ladiship well to consider, what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging Authors, (Fathers, Councels, &c.) which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine, when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands, and may haue recourse to when you will.

§ 2. Now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing Discourse:

[Page 92] 1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestan­ticall Communion, as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy, heauenly and diuinely (for so it pleaseth him to speak) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, &c. adding with­all, that neuer C [...]ietan, neuer Bellarmine, neuer Gratian, neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine (a lye he meaneth, of his owne forging) as my Aduersarie in these wordes, They, and wee, falsly pretendeth.

In which wordes first (for hee cannot forbeare f [...]lsify­ing for his life, no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood) he intimateth that in those words, Thus they; I should haue reference to Caietan, Bellarmine, and Gratian: whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret, whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited.

2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish, that neither I, nor any of our Diuines euer said: yea which being by way of Obiection before produced, I not onely disauow and disprooue, approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary; but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified.

3. Hee runneth out (to giue vs some taste of his row­ling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke) into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse, together with some of the Ancients, (as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment, to fight with a shadow, and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making) to te­stifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs, but none of vs (by his owne confession) euer said or doe say.

Thus hee hath nibled here and there, cauilled at by­matters, coined lies, forged and faced; but giuen no di­rect Answer to the Argument, whereunto hee should haue answered, and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour, This my body, may well beare a fi­guratiue [Page 93] sense; so expounded by the Ancient Fathers, and confessed by their owne writers; not so much as attemp­ted to prooue the contrary thereunto.

§ 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe, as impertinent, those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence a­gainst that that none of vs auoweth, and which therfore, though all, that either they doe say, or hee would haue them say, were true, did no way crosse vs, or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs; and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them, for feare of ouercharging this Discourse: yet conside­ring that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them, especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated: I haue thought good now ere wee part with them, to examinine what they say, that may seeme to make in any sort not against that heere charged on vs, which we vtterly deny, but a­gainst that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise.

The first testimony is S. Dennis his, shewed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession euen of Popish writers themselues. But whosoeuer hee were (for Illum esse de quo in Actis fit mentio, so­li, in hac luce literarum, im­periti, & cum linguae Grae­cae, tum anti­quitatis Ec­clesiasticae penitus rudes audent affir­mare. Casaub, ad Baron. an­nal. exerc. 16. ss. 43. cer­taine enough it is that he was not the party whose name hee beareth, but one of a farre later time, vnknowne vt­terly to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Ierome, though curious searchers and enquirers after the workes of those that were before them, Scripta Dionys [...]i ante tempora B. Georgij non videntur fuisse cog [...]ita mundo Bellarm. in Indic. Scrip. MS. apud Rob. Cocum in Cens. Patr. Qui & u [...]dendus de Dionysio isto. Et Anastasius Biblioth, ad Carol, Reg. apud Andr. Riuet. in specim. Critit. l. 1. c. 9. nor knowne commonly to the world before Gregories dayes, as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth) hee maketh little for them in this point, either in that that here is alleadged, or in ought else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him. His wordes in the place heere cited are these and no more: O most di­uine and holy Mysterie, symbolically discouering those [...]. enig­maticall [Page 94] ensoldments, bee declared brightly vnto vs, and re­plenish our intellectuall eye sights with [...]. single (or immixt) and vnenueloped light. These (I say) his wordes are as neere as I can expresse them: Which I so doe to giue you a taste of this Dennis his stile, writing rather like Dithyram­bos concinit. Ma [...]sil. Fi [...]in. Genus dicen­di cothurno Tragi [...]o vel Dithyrambi­cis ampullis non multum distat. Casaub. vbi sub. a Dithyrawhicall Poet (the boldest sort of them) then like a sober and sound Diuine; as [...] Col. 2. 18. De his rebus magno supercilio pronuncians, de quibus Paulus è coelo tertio reuersus non ausus est hiscere. Eras. de ver. Theol. taking vpon him to deter­mine the degrees, orders, and offices of the Angels in hea­nen, which other Iren. cōt. Va­lent. l. 2. c. 55. Cyril. nomi. catech. my­stag. 2. Aug. enchit. c. 58. De Athanasio vide Sixt. sen. biblioth l. 3. de Greg. & Bern. Eckium hom. 4. de Michael. & Riber in Heb. c. 1. the Ancients durst not doe; so dis­coursing of them and such other matters as hee entrea­teth of in an affected swelling and abstruse straine, and coi­ning a world of strange wordes and phrases no where else to bee found. And no more they are then these; which I adde, because to the end of his allegation this fellow put­teth an, &c. as if the Author had in that place vsed some longer discourse of that kinde. Nor is the sp [...]ch (as he would haue it) a prayer; but a meere prosopopoei [...], or rhe­toricall compellation, directed not to the Elements alone, but to the Eucharist, or the Lords Supper (if with the [...] Cor. 11. 20. vide Casaub. ad Baron. exer. 16. sect. 32. Apostle Caluinistae sinè scripturae autoritate, sine veterum ex­emplo, si [...]e ratione, sine iudici [...] coenam vocant. Maldonat. in Math. c. 26. they will giue vs leaue at least so to tearme it) the whole Mysterie, or mysterious rite, as [...]. the word there vsed properly importeth. Which Pachymeres the Greeke paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregorie Nazianzenes of the same nature; (and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant haue alleadged the one as the other.) Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festiuity it selfe, and then from it to Christ himselfe, the substance of it, as Nicetas also well obserueth; ^x O great and holy Passeouer (saith he) the pur­gation of the whole world. [...]. For I will speake to thee as t [...] some liuing thing. O word of God, and light, and life, and wisedome, and might. For I take delight in reckoning vp all thy titles. Haue thou this Oration as well [...]g [...]atul [...]torie as supplicatorie, and so forth. And Nicet as thereupon; Those * [...] [Page 95] wordes, O Pasch or Passeouer, Ad festum ipsum perinde ac vita praedi­tum refert. he speakes or referreth to the Feast it selfe. But those, O word of God, and so forward, by way of acclamation hee directeth to Christ the spirituall Passeouer. Nor is it vnlike to the speech that Ambr. makes * Ad Chri­stum spi [...]itale Pascha per acclamatio­nem dirigit. in generall to the Element of water, though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptisme: O qua, quae Sacramentum Christi esse mesuisti: quae omnia lauas, nec lauaris. Ambr. in Lue. l. 10. c. 22. O water that hast merited (that is, in the vsuall language of those Auncieuts, too much abused by our Aduersaries, hast beene vouchsa [...]ed the grace) to be a Sacrament of Christ: that washest all, vnwasht of any. Thou bringest in the first; thou closest vp the last Mysteries. The beginning is from thee; and the end in thee: or rather thou makest vs to bee without end. And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element, which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray vnto. Nor any more had this Den­nis g Tu incipis prima, tu cō ­ples perfecta mysteria. A te principium; in te finis. vel potius tu fa­cis vt finem nesciamus, &c when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist; the rather to be admitted and so conceiued in him, considering his Poeticall and aenigmaticall vaine and manner of discourse. I might well put them in minde of that Hymne of theirs, wherein they thus if not inuocate, at least parley with the Crosse:

Which howsoeuer they would faine salue with such a prosopopoeia Gabr. Vas­quez de Ado­rat. l. 2. c. 4. dis. 3. num. 430. & Bellar. de cult. Sanct. l. 2. c. 24. some of them; yet Thom. Aq. summ par. 3. quae. 25. art. 4. Crux adoratur adoratione latriae. Aquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they giue diuine worship to the woodden Crosse: or of the like speeches that in a forme both of praise, and praier, they vse to Salue sancta facies nostri Seruatoris, Impressa panniculo ni­uei candoris, Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris: Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum: Atque nos consortio iunge beatorum, &c. Oratio à loanne Pp. 22. instituta. Antidot. animae. the Vero­nicke or the print of Christs face in a towel; and O veneranda Zona, fac nos haeredes aeternae & beatae vitae, &c. Oratio ab Euthymio composita. to our [Page 96] Ladies girdle, and othèr the like, wherein they craue [...]o lesse of them, beside sundry other graces, then to be clensed from all sinne, and to attaine eternall happinesse: in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them brea­keth out into these words; O quam magna & mi­ra petit a ve­neranda Zo­na. Lipoman. O how many, and how maruei­lous things are requested of that holy girdle! To which I might well adioyne also, what Aquinas saith, that Crucem al­loquimur & deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum. Thom. vbi sup. they speake & pray to the Crosse as to Christ crucified himself: and what Bellarmine telleth vs that their Sic concio­natores allo­quuntur ima­ginem cruci­fixi, &c. Bellar de imagin. c. 23. Priests and Friers in the pulpit are wont to say to the woodden Crucifix, Tu nos re­demisti, &c. Thou hast redeemed vs, and reconciled vs to God the Fa­ther. Which he thus salueth, that this they say to it, not as it is a piece of wood, nor as it is an image neither, but as it supplyeth the place of him whom it representeth, that is, Dicuntur Christo, cuius imago vicem gerit. they say it to Christ, whose Deputie & vicegerent the Image there is. And yet from all this (though too too bad and grosse indeed, yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans owne grant) will no man inferre, that they hold ei­ther that girdle to be the Uirgin Mary, or either the woodden Crosse, or the stained towel, or the carued Cru­cifix to be Christ himselfe. So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeede, which yet plaine it is that it is not, yet were it not, by their owne grounds and graunts, suf­ficient to prooue that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himselfe. I adde onely what Ex Aug. de ciuit lib. 18. c. 28. Bed. in 1. Cor. 10. from Augustine venerable Bede hath, that holy Omnia sig­nificantia vi­dentur quo­dammodo ea­rum rerum quas signifi­cant sustinere personas. Signes not onely are cal­led by the names, but doe in some sort sustaine the persons also of those things that they represent. Which as being well considered it may helpe to cleere many speeches of the Ancients wherin they speak those things of the sacred Elements, which cannot be vnderstood but of the things by thē signified, so it occasioned them to take the more libertie to themselues for such Rhetoricall compellati­ons, as before haue bin spoken of. Yea, but else-where (may some say,) and that but a little after, he turneth himselfe to the Host, which is said there to be his better or aboue him, and therefore At certè purus panis non supra nos est. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 2. c. 3. not bare bread; excusing him­selfe [Page 97] to it, that he presumeth to deale with it. Indeede so it pleaseth Bellarm. Ibid. Bellarmine to cite him as if hee had said; Pontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ip­sum est litet, &c. The high Priest, that he sacrificeth the sauing Host, that is aboue him, Se excusat ad ipsum ex­clamans, &c. excuseth himselfe to him, or to it, crying out; Thou hast said, Doe this; &c. But let Dennis speake in his owne language, or but Perionii versio à Lans­selio Soc. Ies. subornata & suppleta. as their owne writers tran­slate him, and both Bellarmines mis-alleadging of him will soone be discouered, and the force of his reason drawne from thence vtterly dissolued. That which he saith is word for word thus; Dionys. Hierarch Ec­cles cap. 3. part. 3. The diuine Hierarch stan­ding at the diuine Altar, [...]. celebrateth (that is, praiseth and extolleth) Christs holy diuine workes out of his most diuine care of vs for our saluation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated. Which hauing cele­brated, and by contemplation with intellectuall eyes taken a venerable and spirituall view of them, he passeth vnto [...]. Sacrificium quod signis continetur. Lauss. the symbolicall celebration (or, holy administration) of them, and that [...]. according to diuine Tradition: Wherefore religiously and hierarchically (that is, as becommeth an Hierarch, or a Bishop) after the holy celebration (or, [...]. Diuinorum operū laudes. solemne praise) of those diuine workes, [...]. De sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat se pur­gat. Laus. he maketh an Apologie for himselfe in regard of that boly seruice (or, sacrifice, as they translate it, though It is vsed by this Author oft. speaking of Baptism. chap. 2. the word be more generall) that is to worthy for him to deale with, crying out to him, (to whom but to Christ Iesus before mentioned?) Thou hast said, Doe this in remembrance of me. And then [...]. &c. hauing requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and diuine seruice in holy manner, and that those that are to com­municate may religiously partake in it, hee performeth the most diuine seruice, &c. For vncouering [...]. the bread that was hitherto couered and vndiuided, and diuiding it into many pieces, and [...]. distributing to them all the one onely Cup, be doth symbolically, further their vnitie, [...]. thereby performing his most holy seruice. Now where is there here any men­tion [Page 98] of an Host? or affirming that Host to be aboue him or better then himselfe? or making any speech at all to it? And yet if it were Christ, to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it? what should he speake to him as sited else-where, when hee hath him corporally there present? The rather if, as they tell vs, Corpus Christi, siue Christus, ibi videt & audit, quamuis non loquitur, ne deprehenda­tur. Bona­uent. in sent. I. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2. he seeth there what we doe, and heareth what we say, though he say nothing himselfe, because he would not be discouered. Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy seruice then and there to be performed, to be too worthy for him to deale with? And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministery of the word; that [...]; 2. Cor. 2. 16. no man is sufficient, or [...]. i. [...]. vt Math. 3. 11 & 8. 8. Luke 3. 17. & 7. 6. worthy enough for such a worke? Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptisme, and the administration of it? There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all helpe to establish the Popish Transubstantiation. And yet this is all, that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce. Who though indeede otherwise not free from sundry fantasticall conceipts, yet is so farre from enclining to that prodigious fancy, that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament (as the auncient Scholiast also hath well obserued on him) runneth cleane another way. He calleth the Eucharist, (as you haue heard) [...]. a symbolicall seruice; and [...]. a distri­bution of bread and a Cup: and the bread and the Cup vsed in it, [...]. symboles or signes, and [...]. images, or [...]. pictures, and [...]. paternes [...]. resembling the truth of their principals, to which he doth also there oppose thē. And not we, but the Monke Maximus aunciently expounding him, [...]. Maxim. Schol. in Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3. Marke you (saith he) how still he calleth this diuine seruice a Sym­bolicall seruice; that is, [...]. a seruice (saith he) consisting of Symboles or Signes; and [...]. Maxim. ibid. the holy gifts themselues signes or symboles of the true things aboue. And againe, [...]. Ibid. He calleth them pictures and images of true things vnseene. And if we aske him what that word Symbole or Signe signifieth; [Page 99] [...]. Idem in inter­pret. nom. A Symbole or Signe (saith he) is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible, as bread and wine for the spirituall and diuine foode and refection, and the like. Yea hereupon he inferreth that [...]. Idem in schol. because these things are Symboles and Signes, they are not therefore the truth it selfe. For [...]. Idem in cap 4. the image (saith he else-where, and that from Dennis himselfe too) albeit it haue neuer so neere a resemblance, yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance. Dionys. eccles. hierar. c. 4 The thing indeede it selfe (saith this Dennis) that by an exact image or picture is represented, is, if we may so say, thereby [...]. doub­led, while [...]. the truth is shewed in the type, and [...]. the prece­dent or principall in the picture or patterne; but yet there is for all that a diuersitie of substance in either.

From this Dennis his owne grounds therefore, we may wel reason and conclude thus against the Popish do­ctrine which they would haue him to vphold. No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is: But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images (so he tearmeth them) of the spirituall foode, to wit, the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it. Or as Maximus directeth vs; No type is the Truth: [...]. Maxim in lib de diuin. nomin. c. 4. for it were then no type: But these [...]. are Types: and consequently other then the Truth.

The second allegation is out of Irenaeus: 1. Irenaeus (saith he) denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread, but 2. The Eucharist, con­sisting of two things, heauenly and earthly, that being recei­ued into our bodies they may be no more corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. These words indeede are found the most of them in Irenaeus, but are foulely disioynted, and related in other manner then they lye in Irenaeus his context. As the bread (saith he) that is from the earth af­ter diuine inuocation is no more common bread, but the Eu­charist consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly: So our bodies receiue the Eucharist are not now corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. 3. Where first, He denieth the bread after consecration, to be any more [Page 100] Non iam communi pa­ni, &c. common bread: as before him Iustin Martyr, that they receiued those creatures [...]. Iustin. apolog. 2. not as common bread, or com­mon drinke. And doth not their Cyril (as before you heard) deny the oyle also after it is consecrate, to be any more [...]. Cyril catech. myst. 3. common oyle? Or may we not say truly as the Auncients also oft doe? yea dare any Christian man say otherwise, but that the water in Baptisme being once consecrated, is no more Non iam aqua commu­nis. Chrysost. hom. in Psal. 22. & Greg. Nyssen, de Baptism. [...] Irenaeus contr. Valent. l. 4. c, 34. common Water? There is no­thing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread, but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature: since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expell either other. Secondly, he saith that the Encharist consi­steth of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly. And doe not all Sacraments the same? Or doth not Baptisme the like? you may be pleased to consider, what out of their owne Ambros. nom. de ini­tiat. myst c. 3. Ambrose was before said of it; as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related. For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth, that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly: For neither * Greg. Nys­sen. de baptis. doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth. But I n Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 6. would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should, when the bread is once consecrated, consist at all of any earthly thing, when the substance thereof is (as they say) thereby vtterly abolished? Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly, and theirs hauing none at all such, are not one and the same. Third­ly, Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible; in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection, which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto: (for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible?) as he afterward expoundeth himselfe. And what is said more here of the Lords Supper, then Ad spem resurrectionis Baptizatur corpus quae nisi corpora­lis, non alias sic baptismate corporali obligaretur. &c. Tertull. de resurr. carn. Hinc Hilar. de Trinit. l. 9. Regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus. Tertullian and others [Page 101] say of Baptisme, to wit, that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall? yea let them looke backe but a line or two, and they shall soone see, how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause? Quomodo dicunt carnē in corruptio­nem deue­nire &c. quae à corpore Domini & sanguine ali­tur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34. How (saith he) say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly, that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? He affir­meth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plaine­ly: Quando mixtus cali [...] & fractus pa­nis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus auge­tur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Idem l. 5. c. 4. When the Cup mixed, and the bread broken receiueth the word of God, it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth. Idem ibid. Now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall, that is nourished with Christs body and blood? And againe, Ea dispositio quae est se­cundum ho­minem, quae ex carnibus & neruis & ossi­bus consistit, de calice, qui est sanguis e­ius nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus eius augetur. Ibid. That part of man that consisteth of flesh, si­newes and bones, is nourished by the cup that is his blood, and groweth, or is encreased by the bread that is his body. The same with that, which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of, that Ex [...]. Iustin. apolog. 2, our flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof, that is, it be­ing changed and turned into them. But to say so Eucharistia nutriri corporis nostri substantiam nih [...]l fingi potest absurdius. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2 c 4. of the very body and blood of Christ is, by these mens owne grants, most absurd. That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus, and before him Iustine, speake thus of, is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe, but Offerimus ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctifi­cantes creaturam. Irenaeus l. b. 4. cap. 34. the creature san­ctified, as he himselfe tearmeth it; or Primitias earum quae sunt eius crea­turatum offerentes. the first-fruits of Gods creatures, which in way of thankefulnesse, Offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius. Ibid. with thankesgiuing, he saith, they offer vnto God; why so tear­med, is out of Augustine and others shewed else-where.

The third allegation is (as he saith) out of Patres in votis primi Niceni Consilii. the voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel. Where I might [Page 102] well out of Cardinal Baeronius except, that there are Baron. an­nal. tom. 3. anno 325. num 62. & 63. no [...] Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant: and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken, is Ide ex Pho­tio, ibid. et an­nal. tom. 6. anno 496. no record of those Acts, but a story onely of that Councell, written by one that liued long after it, Baron ibid. & Greg. de Valent. de transubstan. l. 2. c. 7. whom they themselues ac­count to be but a sorry obscure fellow, and one of no great credite. But let the Author, or the Relator rather, passe; and let vs heare his relation. Those holy Confessors (saith hee) will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed, but to eleuate our minde by faith, and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God, &c. by Priests vnbloo­dily sacrificed; and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection. Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause. First, they acknowledge [...] bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist: which these men vtterly deny. Secondly, they will vs [...] not basely to regard therein the bread and cup, or the ele­ments onely. And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say, that [...]. Gelas. Cyzic de act. Conc. Nic. diatyp 4. wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see, as the power of God accompany­ing it; of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion Diuis. 8. sect. 4. hereafter. Thirdly they will vs [...]. &c. Ibid. diatyp. 5. to lift vp our minde, and by faith to consider (for so their words are) the Lambe of God lying on the Table. And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely, but receiued also in the Eucharist. Fourthly, they say, not (as this man translateth it) that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed, but that hee is [...]. Ibid. without sacrificing there sacrificed; that is not really, but Mysticè im­molatur, & in mysterio Christi passio traditur. Pas­chas. Pp. apud Grat▪ de cons. dist. 2. c. Ite­ratur. mystically and symbolically sacrisiced; or Non rei veri [...]te, sed significante mysterio. Aug. ibid. c. Hoc est. not in truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying the same: as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake. Fiftly, they say, that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist; yea they are reported to say (which hee omitteth here) that wee doe [...]. truely re­ceiue them: which that we doe truely also and effectually [Page 103] (according to our doctrine) though spiritually and not corporally, hath Discourse Argument [...]. Answer to Obiection. already beene shewen, and shall Diuisiō 12. in his due place againe bee further confirmed. And lastly, that these are [...]. symboles or pledges of our resurrection; which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian, who Caro ablui­ter, vngitur, signatur, ma­nuum imposi­tione adum­bratur, corpo­re & sanguine Christi vesci­tur, &c. Ter­tul. de resur. carn. from those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall (as well other as these) that the body partaketh in, draweth Quam Deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestiuit, cuius mundi­tias amat, ca­stigationes probat, passi­ones adpreci­ar, haeccine non resurget? Ibid. Arguments to confirme the faith of the re­surrection of it.

The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem, whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from Bella. de Eu­char. l. 3 c. 19. Bellarmine: which Bellarmine when hee hath cited, addeth withall in a brauery, as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them, Idem ibid. To this testimonie our ad­uersaries neither doe answer, nor indeede can answer ought. That none had then answered, was not much to be mar­uelled: as Harding an­swer to Iewel. art. 10. Sect 6. Harding saith of their Cyrill; few had yet the q Sacrificia Deo grata de bonis carnis adolentur Deo. sight of him. One of that name indeed wrote many things Hieron. in catolog. Script. in the Syriacke tongue long since, hauing no skill at all in the Greeke. And vnder his name our Popish Father­breeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Trea­eises, that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them; translated (as they tell vs) out of Greeke, which hee good man neuer spake; quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large, whom hee neuer vnderstood; wanting all of them that A cumen sublimis in­gen i. Hieron. catal. scr subtilty and sublimitie of wit, that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes, and Hieron. ibid. & Sozom. hist. l. 3. c. 16. ap­peared euen in the trarslations of them, as both hee and others affirm of them; very sorry and silly things a great part of them; not free from grosse vntruths and In his last Will and Testament, that he neuer in all his life spoke foolish word, nor cursed any one, nor was contentious, &c. And yet the direct contrary in his Relation to the Monks of his Con­ [...]ersion. contra­dictions, yea and ridiculous too, if not impious asserti­ons; as that Saluete omnes Sancti, saluete Apostoli, Prophetae, &c. De poenit. c. 7. the damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in y [...]. Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 16. [Page 104] heauen, and by name the Apostles, Prophets, and Mar­tyrs, the Patriarches, Monkes, and the Uirgin Mary: and lastly their Tot ferè mutationes, inuersiones, & additiones, dum iste o­mittit quae il­le habet, & contra, quot verba. Riuet. specim. Criti. l. 3. c. 21. seuerall editions of them so chopped and changed, mangled and made vp againe, cut off or pieced out, as they pleased that had the breeding of them, that scarce any one of them is any whit like another. The te­stimonies cited out of him could not be answered, before the Author himselfe was hatched, and his workes abroad in mens hands, that they might bee seene and knowne what they were. And now that they are seen and known what they are, they appeare plainely to be such, that they are not worthy of any answer. Vnlesse it bee dee­med equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite, that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some An­cient Father clapt on his Frontispice. And yet neither are this Authors wordes (what euer he be) by the Cardinals good leaue, for all his great bragge, so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them. He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscru­table: and who denieth it? this follow himselfe Diuision. 12. brin­geth in Caluin and Beza saying the same: and that men ought not to Curiosè ri­mari. pry ouer curiously into them: wherein not we, but their Qui tamen ipse in Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. [...]. S. Dennis is faulty, & their Vide Eras. in moria, & in enchirid. Sarcer. de vanit. Schol. Theolog. Statum laces­sunt omnipol­lentis Dei ca­lumniosis li­tibus: Fidem mintuis disse­cant ambagi­bus: Vt quis (que) lingu [...] nequi­or; Soluunt ligant (que) quae­stionū vincula Persyllogismos Plectiles Quid non libido mentis humanae stru [...]t? Quid non ma­lo [...]um prutiat? Prudent. apotheos. Schoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure: Pa [...]ticipa corpori Domini tui fide. that we par­take with our Lords immaculate bodie by faith: (for so in Uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished) which we may well without any such corporall presence of it, as See Di­uision 12. num. 2. by their owne Authors is confessed: that Certum quod agnum ipsum integrum comedis. wee must be assured that we eate the Lambe himselfe whole: which is contrary, not to our doctrine, who say and shew eui­dently, that See Di­uision 6. Sect. 6. the Fathers did as much that liued euen be­fore [Page 105] Christ was incarnate, but to Ibid. Sect. 1. num. 4. the doctrine of their Pope Nicholas, as else-where is shewed. So that here is no­thing that we need so much to stick at, or that should be deemed so vnanswerable: vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth, that Ignem & spiritum mā ­ducandum ac bibendū prae­stitit nobis, corpus sci [...]. & sanguinem suum. Ephrē. ibid. Christ giueth vs fire to feed on, when hee giueth vs his body: as Chrysostome saith sometime that Chrysost, de Euchar. in encaen. fire floweth from the Lords table, and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the Eucharist. Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually, as I suppose they must needs, let them giue vs the like liberty to vnder­stand the former wordes in like manner. I will adde on­ly and so leaue this Ephrem, what in the very same dis­course himselfe saith: Quaenam sit ista potio at (que) perceptio dis­c [...]re nostrum est. Ephrem de non scrutā nat. Dei. what this potion and perception is (saith he) it is our part to learne: (And it is lawfull then belike, yea and our dutie too, to make some kinde of in­quiry into it.) Marke diligently, how Christ taking bread into his hands, Benedixit & fregit in figu­ram corporis sui. blessed it, and brake it, for a figure of his im­maculate body; and how hee In figuram sanguinis sui benedixit. ib. blessed the Cup, for a figure of his blood. Which wordes (I take it) encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs. And yet further in the same Treatise: Fidei oculis &c. Dei agnū sincere intue­tur. With the eyes of faith, when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart, doth he cleerly see the Lambe of God, that was slaine for vs, and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie Vt eo perpe­tuo vescamur. perpetually to feede vpon, and to partake of vnto remission of sinnes. Si quis hunc side [...] oculum possider, patē ­ter & lucidè con [...]picit Do­minum. This eye of faith he that hath, doth cleerely and openly see the Lord, and Fide agni immaculati corpus man­ducat & san­guinem bibit. by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate Lambe, the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly Father, and drinketh his blood, &c. By faith (saith hee) wee see the Lambe of God, (as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the Nicene Councell before) and by faith wee seede on him, and his bodie and blood, and partake of him, perpetual­ly; and not in the Eucharist onely. Which as it fitteth not their orall manducation, which without faith may bee effected, so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding, that we expound our Sauiours wordes of. So little doth this their Ephrem further or auaile them in this Argu­ment.

[Page 106] Lastly, for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist; let him but com­pare them with [...]. Dionys. hier. eccles. c. 2. Punici Chri­stiani Baptis. salutem, Sa­cramentum corporis Christi vitam vocant. Aug. de pecc. mer. l. 1. c. 24. those that they giue to its elder sister, the other Sacrament of Baptisme, and I suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either. Onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it: let the places bee produced, and they shall then bee answered. That they are present oft, (and if present, no doubt pre­sent with much reuerence) as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper, as at other parts of Gods worship; and Heb. 1. 6 that they adore him who is therein represented, (which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by De Euchar. l. 2. c. 22. Bellarmine) we deny not: and of Baptisme in ef­fect their In praefat. ad Catechis. Cyrist saith as much. But that they doe adore as y 1 Cor. 11. 10. God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake, as the Papists doe in their Masse, therein committing as grosse idola­try (it is Talis error qualis in orbe terrarum nun­quā visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt statuam aureā aut argenteam, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos vene­rabantur, vel pannum ubrum in hastam eleuatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel vi­ua animalia vt quondam Aegyptii, quàm eorum qui frustum panis, &c. Coster. Iesuit, enchirid. de Transubstan. their owne grant, if it be not Christ, which we well know it is not) as euer any was in the world, that we vtterly deny, nor will this Defendant euer be able to pro­duce any one Orthodox Father that euer so said. And thus much for his allegations, though produced here to no purpose, to disprooue (as they might well enough with­out hurting of vs) no assertion of ours, but a fiction of his owne framing; nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered. Let vs now proceede to the next part of his Answer.

Diuision 6.

HIs next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstan­ding of Christs wordes and reall presence of his true N. P. bodie and blood in the Sacrament, is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our Sauiours large discourse in S Iohn. 6. [Page 107] not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation, but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him. And first hee quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech, ma­king Berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe, but the body it selfe of Christ to bee handled by the Priests hands, and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull, &c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Councell of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our Sauiours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sa­crament, and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified, and vncapable of ren­ting or any kinde of corporall mutation, as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended, but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing, yet really handled and receiued as Angels in assumpted bodies are said to bee seene, and felt, and as S. Iohn Baptist likewise Ioh. 1. said he saw the holy Ghost, when hee onely saw a Doue the signe of his pre­sence, &c. which manner of speech is not v [...]usuall with the holy Fathers. Thou seest him, (saith S. Chrysostome spea­king of Christ in the Sacrament) Thou touchest him, Thou eatest him, &c. Which is the same in sense which Pope Ni­cholas affirmeth, onely hee explicateth somewhat more parti­cularly the diuision and fraction of the sacramentall formes containing the very bodie and blood of Christ, vnder them all and each particle of them entirely and vndeuidedly remaining. Insomuch as Iohn Husie falsely wont by our Aduersaries to be claimed for Patron and faithfull witnesse of their doctrine, singeth thus in certaine verses of Christs presence and man­ner of being receiued in the Sacrament, which hee with vs to his dying day constantly beleeued, as now also his disciples doe after him;

[Page 108] It is not bread, but God and Man my Redeemer, who hanged on a Crosse, and died in flesh for me. Hee is not encreased on multiplied by Consecration, nor diuided in breaking of the Host, but God full in stature. So likewise S. Andrew in his passion authentically (as Lib. 2. de Euchar. Bellarmine pro­ueth) written by the Clergie of Achaia present thereat, told the Procounsul Egeus; I dayly offer to God, who is one and omnipotent, not the flesh of Buls & blood of Goats, but the immaculate Lambe vpon the Altar, whose flesh when all the multitude of faithfull people hath receiued, the Lambe sacrificed integer perseuer at ac viuus; doth liue and remaine entire, &c. So as Pope Nicholas doctrine vnderstood of Christs flesh being eaten in the Sacrament, nee­deth not Gratians Glosse to saue it from hereticall blaspemy and the danger of a worse opinion then Berengarius renoun­ced, vnlesse hee had taught Christs flesh in it selfe to haue beene torne with teeth and bloodily eaten, as the Caphar­nites imagined; and S. Aug. in Psal. 98. the Gentile persecutors were went to obiect against poore Christians, that they did eate the flesh of a certaine man in their synaxes and meetings; calling them men eaters, &c. to wit, because they did eate bread and drinke wine consecrated by the miraculous force of Christs wordes into his naturall flesh and blood; as Saint Iustine that holy Martyr and great Christian Philosopher told Aurelius the Emperor in his second Apologie for Chri­stians; where hee describeth (as much as it was fit for him to open the heauenly mysteries of our faith to the Gentiles) the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacra­ment as it is now celebrated by vs: this being the new Ob­lation of the New Testament, as Lib. 2. c. 32. S. Irenaeus tearmeth it, instituted by Christ in his last Supper, and that cleane Sa­crifice which Malachie foretold should succeed in place of the Iewish Sacrifices, and be offered by the Gentiles in all places.

IN the next place I proceede to discusse the wordes of T. G. our Sauiour concerning the eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Iohn 6.

[Page 109] Where first I quarell (he saith) at P. Nicholas his maner of speech deuised purposely (as this mine Aduersary here in­formeth vs) in a Coūcell of learned Bishops to make a slippery shifting heretike, make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning the reall presence. His words are, as I haue rela­ted thē, that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with mens teeth, not sacramētally only, but sensually. Which palpable absurdities, and carnall and Capernaiticall assertions this Defendant would faine salue if hee could; (but he sheweth himselfe therein but a sorry Quackesaluer.)

1. By citing (besides some of his owne counterfaits, of which more anone) a saying of S. Chrysostome, affir­ming that the faithfull see, and touch, and eate Christ in the Eucharist: which neither they nor we deny; nor is it ought to the purpose, vnlesse Chrysostome should also say, that hee is eaten in such sort as Pope Nicholas aver­reth, not sacramentally onely, or spiritually, but euen sensually: so hee saith. For so Galat. 3. 1. the Galathians also saw him crucified (as the Apostle telleth them) in their sight: and some of the Ancients say that euen Quotidiè nascitur Chri­stus. Hieron. nomine in Ps. 86. Quotidiè nobis crucifi­gitur: quotidiè resurgit. Idem in Psal. 95. Quod Bern. explicatius, in vigil. nativ. ser. 6. Immo­latur adhuc quotidiè, do­nec mortem eius annunci­a [...] us: [...] videtur, dum natiuitatem eius fideliter repraesentamus. at this day he is crucified.

2. By telling vs that Christs glorified bodie is incapable of renting: which if it be so, how saith Pope Nicholas that it is torne in pieces? This is a strange manner of saluing him, to tell vs that that cannot be done, which he in pre­cise tearmes saith is vsually done. And marke here (I pray you how these men Quod Cardano S [...]al. de su [...]ti [...]. exerc. 149. More Cingarorum in Alpinis mercatibus intus foras mitt [...]nt corrigiolam. play fast and loose with vs. They tell vs, when wee presse them with the indignitie of the thing, that Christs bodie cannot bee bruised now or broken: and this is (it seemeth) when they speake mystically or shiftingly, as hee speaketh. But when they make a plaine and direct confession (for so hee saith Pope Nicholas did when hee thus spake, and no formes are more exact, saith ``Nullae sunt exactior [...]s formulae loquendi in materia fide [...], quàm eae, quibus vtuntur, qui haeresin abiurant Bellar. de imag. c. 22. [Page 110] Bellarmine, then those formes of abiuration are) then they acknowledge that according to their saith and beliefe (if they beleeue at least as they speake, and doe not dal­ly with vs and delude vs) Christs very bodie is sensually rent and torne in pieces in the Sacrament.

3. By granting that if he had taught that Christs flesh in it selfe were torne with teeth, &c. it were indeed hereticall blasphemie. And what other thing (I pray you) doth Pope Nicholas affirme, when he saith that Non solum sacramentum, sed verum cor­pus & sangui­nē Christi in veritate sensu­al [...]ter, & non in sacramento tantum tracta [...]i & frangi Durand. ex Nicol. in ra­tion. diuin. l. 4. p. 2. ad 6. p. can. Christs very bodie not in the Sacrament onely, but in very truth and sensu­ally is torne in pieces with mens teeth? This is not to ex­cuse him, but to accuse and condemne him both of heresie and blasphemy.

4. By affirming that the Popes wordes need not Grati­ans Glosse to saue them from any such imputation. Yet Gabriel Biel a great Schooleman (whom wee rather be­leeue) freely confesseth that Pope Nicholas in so saying Veritatem excessit Gabr. Biel in Can Miss. lect 80. exceeded the truth; (as another Glosse on Gratian also Gloss. ad Grat de con­secr dist. 2. c. vtrum. else-where acknowledgeth) and while he sought to shun one error ranne into another: wherein Quae nec Roffensis cō ­tra Oecolamp. l. 2. c 12. nec Caietanus lib. de coena Do­mini ab errore liberare potu­erunt. Canus loc. Cōmun. l. 5. c. 1. others also of their owne writers dare not defend him. So that the Pops sitting in his Chaire, yea and in Councell too, with all his learned Bishops, like himselfe, round about him, consistorially to censure and to determine truth in matter of faith, may yet erre for all his infallibility, so much & so oft b [...]agged of. And it was not vnwisely done of Bellarmine to let this passe, De Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. where he relateth and refuteth as well as he may, the seuerall errors and heresies that their Popes are charged with.

§▪ 2. Heere by the way (though little to the present purpose, to wit, the cleering of Pope Nicholas) that hee may fill vp his Discourse with some shew of allegations;

1. Hee telleth vs that Iohn Husse was of their iudge­ment concerning the Sacrament; and alledgeth a sorry Rome to prooue it; which whence hee hath, I know not, nor am able to say, what Husse sometime held: But sure I am that in the Councell of Constance one of the Articles, [Page 111] wherewith he was charged, and for which condemned, and (contrary to the Emperours safeconduct granted him) perfidious [...] burnt, was Concil. Constant. Sess. 15. art. 17. the deniall of Transubstantiation as a deuice inuented to delude simple people with: and the teaching and maintaining as well publikely as priuately that the substance of bread, and materiall bread, remained after Consecration in the Sacrament; deposed by many that had heard him, and that had argued about it with him.

2. He citeth a few Fathers, some forged, as the Au­thor of the Passion of S. Andrew; some falsified, as that of Iustine Martyr; (which shall by and by be examined) some saying nothing but what wee will willingly yeeld him, as both Irenaeus, and that also out of the apocryphall Story of S. Andrew: which howsoeuer he saith that Bel­larmine (which is his wonted manner of proofe) hath pro­ued to be authenticall: Yet neither are his proofes preg­nant; no iust antiquitie being produced for it; and by To which adde Card. Baronius An­nal. Tom. 1. ann. 44. nu. 42. & 43. & ann 69. num. 34. acknow­ledging as much. others of their owne (as we shewed before) it is con­fessed to be apocryphall: and, if we may beleeue Bellar­mine himselfe, there is some grosse vntruth in it. For this vncertaine Author affirmeth that S. Andrew was not nailed with nailes, but with cords eyed to the crosse, (as their counterfeit Abdias Ba­bylon. histor. lib. 3. Abdie also saith) that he might liue the lon­ger in paine, as he did preaching two daies together as he hung there aliue: Whereas, if Bellarm. de cult. Sanct. l. 2. c. 27. Bellarmine may be be­leeued, it was not so, but he was with nailes fastned, as Ioh. 20. 25. Christ was, to the Crosse.

But to leaue that, as saying nothing that we neede sticke at; no more then we doe at ought that out of Ire­naeus is alleadged. I may not let passe his falsifying of Iu­stine Martyr; whom hauing so little occasion to alledge here, he may well seeme for no other end to haue allead­ged, but to falsifie what he saith of this Sacrament; in which kinde he hath the best gift one of them that euer I knew any. Iustine Martyr (saith he) in his 2. Apologie, where, as far as was fit, &c. he describeth the whole order of [Page 112] the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs, telleth Antoninus the Emperour that they did therein eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the mi­raculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood. Now heare Justines owne words: Hauing spoken before of Baptisme: After this (saith he) is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the Prelate of the brethren: Who receiuing the same sendeth vp praise and glo­ry to the Father of all, by the name of the Sonne and the holy Ghost; and at large giueth thankes to him for being vouch­safed to be by him reputed worthy of these things. And when he hath ended his prayers and thankes-giuing, all the people answer, Amen. Now when the Prelate hath giuen thankes, and all the people haue answered, those that we call Deacons, giue to each one of those that be present to partake of Eucharisti­catum. i. san­ctificatum & benedictum. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10. the bles­sed Bread, and wine and water, and they carry of it to those that be not present. And this foode is with vs called the Eu­charist; which none may partake of but those that beleeue, haue beene baptised, and liue as Christ taught. For we re­ceiue not these things as common Bread and Wine; but in like maner as Christ our Sauiour being by the word of God incar­nate had flesh and blood, so haue wee beene taught that the foode Eucharisti­am factum. Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. blessed by the word of prayer that is from him, whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ incarnate. For so in the Gospels haue the Apostles deliuered that Iesus enioyned them, hauing taken the bread and giuen thankes to say, Doe this in re­membrance of me; This is my Body: And taking the Cup likewise, and hauing giuen thankes to say; This is my blood; and to giue it to such onely.

Now first tell me (I pray you) where there is any mention of a Sacrifice in Iustine, distinct especially from the Sacrament, that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with, should say; Iustine describeth the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament. True it is that the Fathers tearme the Lords Supper oft a Sacri­fice; (as we also in our Liturgie:) partly in regard of the [Page 113] Vnde & Eucharistia dicitur. Iansen concord. cap. 131. Vide Aug. epist 120. & Euseb. demonstr. E­uang. l. 1. c. 10. spirituall Sacrifice of praise therein offred; and partly because it is a liuely representation and commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Heb. 13. 15. once offred on the Crosse; (as their Lombard. sent. l 4. d. 22. Ma­ster of the Sentences himselfe explaineth it;) and partly also because Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 4. Ambr. in Luc. c. 1. Gau­dent. in Exod. tract. 2. & Aug. contr. Faust. l. 6. c. 5. & l. 20. c 21. & contr. ad­vers. leg. & proph. c. 18. it succeedeth in the roome of the Passeouer, and those other Sacrifices, that in the old Testament were offred. But that they euer dreamed of any other Sacri­fice distinct and diuers from the Sacrament, no Papist shall euer be able to prooue. Nor either out of our Sauiours words, or Iustines report can be gathered.

2. Obserue how iustly Iustine describeth the whole order of this Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament, as it is celebrated by them. Yea, marke and iudge (I pray you) whether his description of it come neerer vnto ours or vnto theirs.

1. Where are all those crossings and bendings, and [...]rin­ges, and turnings, and eleuations, and adorations, and mi­micke gestures, and apish sooleries that their Masse-bookes enioyne?

2. As well the cup as the bread is giuen to all present; which Iustine also saith that Christ enioyned them to giue; and which Pope Gelasius Diuisio v­nius eiusdem mysterii sine grandi sacri­legio non po­test prove­nice. Gelas. Pp. apud Grat. de con­secr. d. 2. c. [...]ōperimus. saith cannot be seuered from the Bread without great Sacriledge. Whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it.

How many toyes are there in theirs that are not tou­ched at all in Iustine? And againe, what is there in Iu­stines relation, that is not found in our Protestanticall (as he tearmeth it) communion? that sending of it home ordi­narily onely excepted, which neither they themselues vse ordinarily when they celebrate, and the danger of re­paire hindring accesse (it seemeth) then occasioned.

3. Where doth Iustine say, as this corrupt corrupter re­porteth him, that they eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of Christs words into his naturall flesh and blood? No one word in him of a miraculous con­uersion, nor of their being the naturall flesh and blood of Christ. There is mention indeede of a change, and that a [Page 114] naturall change, not of the creatures into Christs naturall flesh and blood, but of the blessed foode, Or the foode made the Eucharist (as De Eucha­rist. lib. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine translateth it) into our flesh. Which words though Bellarm. ibid. Bellarmine would faine wrest a­wry, because they wring him, yet no Grammer will ad­mit any other sense of them. From whence it is appa­rent that the blessed foode that Iustine speaketh of, is not really, but symbolically and figuratiuely Christs body. For Eucharistia nutriri sub­stantiam cor­poris nostri, nihil absurdi­us fingi po­test. Bellarm. Ibid. there can nothing be deuised more absurd (saith Bellarmine) then that the Substance of our bodies should be nourished with Christs flesh. But our flesh and blood (and that, I hope, is the substance of our Bodies; as Irenaeus also expressely spea­keth) are nourished (saith Iustine) by the blessed foode, or by the Bread and Wine made the Eucharist, and that [...]. N. P. by a * Ex quibus augetur car­nis nostrae Substantia. Iren. l. 4 c. 5. change of the things receiued. The blessed foode therefore that Iustine speaketh of, is not really Christs naturall Body, as this mis-reporter and mis-expounder of him affirmeth.

NEither can euer the Minister prooue his ensuing Asser­tion, that Christs corporall presence in the thing eaten must necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him, vnlesse his bodie had therein a corpo­rall extensiue and sensible manner of existing; which is by no Catholike Author affirmed; and so no hainous and vnseeme­ly thing is in such a manner of receiuing Christs body commit­ted: For auoiding whereof we should be enforced to runne to a figuratiue interpretation of our Sauiours speeches, Ioh. 6. So as to exclude the reall receiuing of our Sauiours flesh and blood in the Sacrament; as out of an obscure place of S. Au­stin, cited by him page 7. and fully Lib. 2. de Euchar. answered by Cardinall Bellarmine, hee falsely gathereth; the place proouing no more but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so farre forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten, but after a Sacra­mentall and inuisible manner, as the signes of bread and wine doe containe them; the chiefe end of his being so receiued by vs being indeed to communicate with Christs passion, and [Page 115] profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded for vs, as S. Austin in that place affirmeth. Whose Vide apud Bellarm. l. 2. de Euchar. plaine places for the reall receiuing of our Sauiours body and blood in the Sacrament my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of, but as Eeles loue rather to hide themselues in durt then to swim in cleere waters; so are hee and his companions glad to hide themselues and their hereticall nouelties, in darke and obscure places of the holy Fathers, not regarding their pregnant and plaine testimonies for vs, and against them, vn­answerably in other places expressed.

§ 3. AT length he pleaseth to recollect himselfe and T. G. returne to the matter in hand. Christs corporall presence (saith he) in the thing eaten, doth not necessarily in­ferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him, vnlesse his body had therein a corporall, extensiue and sensible manner of existing.

To passe by these mysticall and metaphysicall tearmes, wherewith he and his Associates are wont to enwrap and inuolue themselues, like Eeles in mire and mud (as himselfe speaketh) that their absurd and senselesse doctrines, or do­tages rather, may not be discerned; nor to insist vpon the implication of contradiction, when he saith that Christs bo­dy is corporally, that is, bodily present in the Eucharist, and yet hath there no corporall, that is, bodily existence: a bodie bodily present, and yet not bodily existing; like the Marcio­nites riddles in Tertullian; A man no man; Flesh no flesh; r Vide Ter­tull. de carn. Christi, & contr. Marc. lib. 4. & 5. a body no body; blood no blood: or, A body; but not as a body; with blood, but not as blood; in a place, but not as in a place; with qualities, but not qualitatiuely; with quantitie, but not quantitatiuely. Such strange fancies and prodigies are these mens braines possest with.

1. If the one doe not follow vpon the other, Pope Nicholas was much to blame, when he inferred thereup­on that Christs very body was sensually (that is as much, if not more then corporally) chewed and eaten in the Eucha­rist.

[Page 116] 2. If it be true that Bellarmine telleth vs, that Carnaliter in nobis ma­nere per Eu­charistiam, Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 12. by the Eucharist Christ remaineth carnally in vs: which he citeth also, but with a foule hand, and Per Eucha­ristiam. some of his owne words foisted in, as a saying of S. Hilaries: then sure he must needs carnally be eaten of vs. And to see how inconstant error is, and how contrary to it selfe: one while he saith that there is Manducatio corporalis. Ibid. a corporall eating of Christs body in the Sacra­ment; as their common tenent is: (and how is he not then corporaelly eaten?) and that Christ carnally thereby abideth in vs: And yet againe another while; out of Athanasius, that Manduca­tionem cor­poris Christi non debere carnaliter ac­cipi. Ibid. c. 11 the eating of Christs body is not carnally to be taken, nor is Carnali modo. Ibid. c. 14. in a carnall manner to be vnderstood.

In a word; 1. Either Bread or Christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist: but not bread, if we beleeue them; for there is none there: and to say that meere accidents onely are chewed and fed vpon is most senselesse and absurd: It remaineth therefore that Christs body, if that alone be there, be corporally eaten there, as Pope Nicholas before affirmed.

2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiri­tually onely. If corporally, why doth this fellow sticke at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually one­ly, why vrge they those passages of Iohn 6. to prooue [...] corporall and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eu­charist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of Christ.

§ 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth vs, that his superficiall Aduersarie hath in an vnlearned and slender manner endeauoured to prooue that our Sauiours dis­course there is not to be vnderstood of Sacramentall Mandu­cation, but of spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him.

I propound two Propositions to be prooued.

1. That the words are not to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking, as they hold.

2. That Christ doth not in that whole discourse speake of [Page 117] the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was not as yet in­stituted, but of such spirituall feeding on Christ, as is per­formed, not in the Sacrament onely, but out of it also.

The former I prooue by a plaine place of S. Augu­stine; which this Aduersarie, referring vs still for an an­swer to Bellarmine, (from whom he borroweth the most that he hath) saith is an obscure place, and is pleased a little after to tearme it no better then durt, which wee Protestants, like Eeles, desire to hide our selues in.

1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speake [...]bscurely there, where he giueth rules for the opening and right vnderstanding of places obscure? where should he speake more plainely and perspicuously then there; where his maine aime is to make things cleere?

2. This shifters answer borrowed from Bellarmine is but a bare shift; to wit, that the place prooueth no more, but that our Sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so far forth, as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten, and in a bloody manner, as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten, &c. As if flesh bought in the shambles vsed to be eaten raw and in bloody manner. Here is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble Augustines cleere water. The Question is whether our Sa­uiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely. Non pos­sunt figuratè accipi sed propriè. Bel­larm. de Eu­char. l. 1. c. [...]. They say properly; and not figuratiuely: Augustine saith figuratiuely; and so consequently, not properly: which is as much as is here required. Caro Chri­sti verè ac propriè man­ducatur. Bel­larm. de Eu­char. [...]. 1. c. 11. Christs body (saith Bellar mine) is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist. But it is no proper, but a figuratiue eating, saith Augustine, that Christ speaketh of Iohn 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore, as they imagine to be in the Eucharist. Yea so contrary to them, and so pregnant for vs is that passage of Augustine, that in Fulbertus his workes, where those words of his are related, they haue with a foule in­sertion branded them for Facinus vel flagitium vi­detur iubere. Figura est er­go, [...]icet here­ti [...]us, &c. Apud Fulber­tum in ex­cerp [...]is post Se [...]m [...]o tr. Iud. p. 168. hereticall.

Yea but (saith mine Aduersarie) there are many plaine places in Augustine, cited by Bellarmine, for the reall recei­uing [Page 118] of Christ; which my superficiall Aduersarie taketh no notice of. Bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth; and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned Aduersarie. But this (I am sure) is a very vnlearned, slender and super­ficiall proofe of points questioned, to turne his Reader o­uer still for satisfaction to some other. Yet I will doe him the couttesie, since he telleth vs of other plaine places in Augustine to present him with one of them, though such an one (it may be) as will not easily goe downe with him. Augustine speaking of this place in Iohn on Psal. 98. saith that Christ hauing vsed those words, Ioh 6. 35. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, you haue no life in you. When some vnderstood them Stultè car­naliter. foolish­ly and carnally, he taught them to vnderstand them Spiritaliter intelligere. spiri­tually; saying, Ioh. 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth; the flesh pro­fiteth nothing: the words that I speake are Spirit and life. As if he should haue said; vnderstand you spiritually what I haue spoken. Non hoc corpus quod videtis man­ducatur, iestis & bibituri il­lum sanguinē quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. You are not to eate that body which you see, and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall cruci­fie me. Sacramen­tum aliquod vobis com­mendaui: spi­ritualiter in­tellectum vi­uificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visi­biliter cele­brari, oport [...]t tamen inuifi­biliter intel­ligi. N. P. I haue commended a kinde of Sacrament vnto you; which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you. Though it must be visibly colebrated, yet is it inuisibly to be vnder­stood. Thus Augustine in plaine tearmes: and yet if we beleeue these men, the very same body of Christ that was then seene, and that very same blood that was shed on the Crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the Eucharist.

ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might pre­uaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth, he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Do­ctors expounding or treating of Christs words, Ioh. 6. haue literally vnderstood them of the Sacrament, as learned Tolet in c. 6. Ioan. To­let, Saunders in lib. de illo cap. Saunders, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. Bellarmine, and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued; collecting from them inuincible Testi­monies also, to prooue the verity of our Sauiours body and blood really in the Sacrament conteined and receiued: Inso­much as S. Austin affirmeth S. Iohn purposely to haue emitted [Page 119] all mention of the Sacrament in our Sauiours last Supper, be­cause he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospell so particularly ex­pressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof: and many euident and vnanswerable Arguments are by Ca­tholike expositors of that Chapter made to prooue the same; which with silence my Aduersarie ouerpasseth. First, (for example) our Sauiour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Fa­ther had giuen to the Iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten Sonne for it, and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them, speaking of the one as a gift already past; but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them. Secondly, He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert; which was a cor­porall food really eaten by them. Thirdly, If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him, it had beene a strange course in him, who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an ob­scure manner of speaking to driue away so many, such persons especially as had formerly followed him, without any word added, which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them; as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our Sauiours doctrine.

§ 5. MY second Proposition is, that Christ in that T. G. whole Discourse Iohn 6 doth not speake of the Eucharist.

That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fa­thers doe expound it of feeding on Christ, yet not corporal­ly, but spiritually in the Sacrament (for so Iansen. har­mon. Euang. cap. 59. Sed & Gabr. Biel i [...] Can. Miss. lect. 36. Bishop Ianse­nius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually, not cor­porally; yea and so De comesti­one sacramentali ait Dominus; Accipite & comedite; Hoc est corpus meum: de comestione spirutuali dicit; Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis, &c. non habebitis vitam in vobis. Innocent. Pp. apud Durand in ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 2. ad p. 6. Can. & Biel in Can. lect. 36, Pope Innocent himselfe, witnesse Du­rand, [Page 120] and Biel, and Magister a­pud Bonauen. in l. 4. sen. d 9. q. 1. Peter Lombard also, witnesse Bon [...] ­uenture, expound it:) I deny not; nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence. Yet the rather herein wee are inforced (together with diuerse Popish writers) to de­part from them in that their exposition; so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eu­charist, (as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen See below Bellar. de Eu­charist. l. 1. c. 5. Bellarmine himself doth) in regard of some erronious con­sequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto, which euen the Papists themselues now condemne, and for other weighty reasons, as in my first writing I shew.

Yea but Catholique Expositors (saith this Answerer) by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood; which his Aduersarie also (saith hee) euerpasseth with silence.

And say I, A Catholique Expositor (in their language) to wit, Corn. Iansenius (no Iesuite now, for so this Answe­rer hath informed me, and yet) a Bishop of Flanders, in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of (they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it) hath by euident and vnanswerable Argu­ments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood; which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence: And the like also doth Frier Ferus: and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited.

But hee will at length (I hope) say somewhat him­selfe.

1. Our Sauiour (saith he) maketh a difference there be­tweene the gift which his Father had [...]iuen the Iewes, and the gift that himselfe ment to giue, speaking of the one as past, of the other as to come: This out of Bellarmine.

I maruell where this man learned his Logicke. He ne­uer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had gi­uen; and the gift that Christ would giue: Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in [Page 121] the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what nec [...]ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other?

For first, Are they diuerse gifts that God the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue? then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull, as we say, spiritually; to both faith­full and vnfaithfull, as they affirme, corporally. And ther­fore the gift is not diuers, as he saith, but the selfe same.

2. If hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing: who knoweth not that Christ, who had beene giuen by his Father (and yet by himselfe also) in his incarnation; was after Mat. 20. 28. Ephes. 5. 2. giuen also by himselfe (and yet Rom. 4. 23. and 8. 32. by his Father also) in his passion. So their owne Iansenius expoundeth his words, that Quam & in mortem dabo. Iansen. vbi sup. he would giue his b [...] ­die also vnto death: and Frier Ferus that In mortem ad crucem. Fe [...]us in Ioan. 6. hee would giue it vnto death on the Crosse: for Illic coque­tur panis iste. Fer. ibid. there (saith hee) was that bread to bee basked: and there that flesh of his (saith Bona­uenture) was to be boyled. Yea so Gregory of Valence, My flesh that I will giue, Quam dab [...] 1. quā [...]fferam pro mund [...] vi­ta. Greg. de. Val. de sacr. Mis. 1. 1. c. 3. that is, that I will offer for the life of the world: Where (thinke we) but on the Crosse?

2. Christ (saith he) compareth the eating of his flesh to the Iewes eating of Manna; which was a corporall food re­ally eaten by them: and he must needs therefore speake of the Eucharist. Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to o In cruce fa­cta est de [...]o­ctio ca [...]is, &c. Bonauen. in sent. l 4. c. 9. q 2. argue on this manner. As if the Manna were not also a spirituall type of Christ: and Christ might not as well com­pare the type with the truth; as the type with the counter­type; the type of the Manna 1 Cor. 10. 3. a spirituall food then re­ally taken with the spirituall eating of Christ that was ther­in figured.

Or [...] [...]f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten (which both here and else-where it is confessed, as shal presently be shewed, that he doth) and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all.

[Page 122] Bellarmine saith indeede that Bellar. de Euchar. li. 1. c. 5. Christ compareth there with the Manna his bodie, not as it is receiued by faith alone, (and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued, euen out of the Sacrament) but as in the Sacra­ment it is receiued. But how doth he proue it?

1. From the Apostle, where 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3. hee compareth Baptisme with the red Sea, and Manna with the Eucharist.

But how doth this follow; The Apostle doth so there: therefore our Sauiour doth so heere? especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is. The A­postles scope is to shew that 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. the old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods fauour and loue as wee Christians now haue; and yet Vers. 5-12. were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath, for all that. Our Sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh, which Ioh. 6. 27. he there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after, was much more excellent and of farre grea­ter vertue and efficacie, then the Manna that their Fa­thers did once eate in the Wildernesse. For, that Vide quae ex Cyri [...]lo Ian­sen. concord. cap. 59. that (considered as corporall food) was it selfe corruptible, and could not Ioh. 6. 49. preserue them that eate of it from death, whereas this was Vers. 27. food incorruptible, and being spiritually fed on would cause them Vers. 50. 51. to liue for euer. For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Man­na as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it, as with our Baptisme hee had paralleled the Red Sea be­fore. But for our Sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all: Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament, no more then the Iewes did, that there menti­oned it to him; nor doth hee speake cught of the Sacra­ment where hee speaketh of the Manna, as Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5. & 7. see be­low. Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth. His speech to them occa­sioned by the Vers. 26. bread that they had eaten of, and Vers. 31. the Manna that they spake of, is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritane woman, occasioned by Ioh. 4. 7 10. the water that hee had asked of her; Vers. 13. 14. He that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe; but he that drinketh of the [Page 123] water that I shall giue him, shall neuer thirst more, &c. Which had it been considered, would easily haue assoyled those difficulties, that (as Vide Iansen. in Ioan. 6. 49. Iansenius obserueth) so much troubled Augustine, and Caietan, yea and Iansenius him­selfe too. Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place, then the drinke of it in the other.

2. Because Quia corpus Domini vt su­mitur sola fi­de, non defuit veteribus. Bel­lar. ibid. Christs bodie, as by faith it is receiued, was not wanting to those of old time, that liued before Christs Incarnation.

What hee giueth vs heere wee take, that Christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate. But how prooueth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it? and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers, from the corporall feeding, either on Ioh. 6. 26. the bread that they had eaten of, or the Vers. 31. Man­na that they mentioned, and Vers. 34. would faine still haue been fed with, that they might liue without labour, not to an eating of sacramentall bread, which they would not haue much misliked, but to that Vers. 27. spirituall feeding, Vers 50, 51. which as well their holy forefathers, as all true and faithfull Christi­ans now, were eternally saued by. Yea this may be confir­med by Bellarmines owne grants: Who first confesseth this as Constat in magna parte capitis de Eu­charistia non agi. Solū quae­stio est de illis verbis, Panis quem ego dabo, &c. & sequen­tibus Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5. a certaine truth, that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Sauiours discourse, before those wordes, (which were spoken after hee had done Vers. 3, 49. speaking of the Manna) Vers. 51. The bread that I will giue is my flesh, that I will giue for the life of the world. 2. Hee granteth expresly that those wordes, Vers. 35. I am the brad of life; hee that commeth to me shall not hunger, &c. doe Non perti­nent ad Sarramentum propriè Ibid. c. 7. not properly belong to the Sacrament. 3. He obserueth Triplicis panis mentio fit. Bellar ibid. a three fold bread spoken of by our Sauiour: the first, that Panis materialis. ma­teriall bread, Vers. 11. 12. that Christ had fed them withall: the se­cond Secundum panem dicit seipsum esse. spirituall bread, Vers. 33. 41, 51. himselfe incarnate, Verse 27. which hee [Page 124] wisheth them to get, and must Vers. 29. 35. by faith be apprehended, that it may feed and refresh [...]s: the third (hee might well haue said Vers. 49. M [...]nna, which he omitteth, termed also Vers. 31. ex P [...] l. 78. 24, 25. bread there, but) Panis Eu­cha [...]st cus. Ibid. the sacramentall bread (saith he) expressed in those wordes. Vers. 51. the bread that I will giue, is my fl [...]sh that I will giue for the life of the world: as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before. 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucha­rist o De pane quē da [...]u [...]us erat in coena. Ibid. c. 6. (as they say) ^k & therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of, neither can it bee meant of the bread that Christ was to giue in the Supper, as hee else­where had said: he saith that Non signi­ficat panem triticeum. Ibid. c. 7. bread there signifieth not wheaten bread, Nec corpus Christi abso­lutè. nor Christs body absolutely, but Cibum ge­neratim. meate or food in generall: and so the sence of it is this; The bread, that is, the meate, that I will giue, is my flesh it selfe, that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind. And he addeth that Pan [...]s, i. ci­bus, &c. Ibid. peraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread, to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten. So that all the force of Bellarmines Argu­ment is but meerely coniecturall, and dependeth vpon a peraduenture, which hee cannot certainely auerre. But t Fortasse ideò carnem suam aliquoties pa­nem appella­uit, &c. Ibid. without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said; Ioh. 6. 32. My Father giueth you the true bread from heauen; and Verse 33. The bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world: and Vers. 35. I am the bread of life; hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger; and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst: and Vers. 41. I am the bread that came downe from heauen: and againe, Vers. 48. I am the bread of life: and vers. 50. This is the bread that came downe from heauen, that whosoeuer eateth thereof should ne­uer die: and vers. 51. I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen: if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer: that the bread I say, of which hee said all this, was not the Encharist, or the sacramentall bread, and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it. And well may wee put it out of peraduenture, that the bread of which our Sauiour saith vers. 51. it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the [Page 125] world, and vers. 54. whosoeuer eateth of it, hath life euerlasting; vers. 53. which no man also can haue without it; is no other then that of which hee had before said, that vers. 35. 48. it is himselfe, and that vers. 33. it giueth life to the world, and vers. 50. 51. life euerlasting to eue­ry one that eateth of it: the rather also for that our Saui­our himselfe so informeth vs when he saith, (not Transitum facit ad panem Euchar. Bell. ibid. passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third, but more particularly expressing what the second bread was, and repeating more fully what before hee had said) vers. 51. I am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen: [...] vers. 35, 41, 50. if any man eate of this bread, hee shall liue for euer: vers. eodem. and the bread that I will giue (what bread, thinke we, but the same that he was euen then speaking of? which yet was Bellar. vbi sup. c. 5. & 7. none of the sacramentall bread, saith Bellarmine) is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world. Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist, no more then the former. But leaue wee Bel­larmine, and returne we to this our Defendant, whom we are principally now to deale with.

His last Argument out of Tolet is not so much for the Eucharist, as against the spirituall eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith. If our Sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him, it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking Ioh. 6. 66. to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him, without any word added that might open this darke doctrine.

To omit that here againe he departeth from Augustine, who Aug. in Ioa. tract. 26. saith thus expresly; Our Lord being about to giue the holy Ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him. Credere in eum, hoc est manducare pa­nem viuum. For to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread. He that be­leeueth in him feedeth on him, Qui credit in eum, man­ducat. In [...]si­biliter sa [...]r, quin invisibi­liter renascitur: iuf us nouus in [...]us est: vbi novell [...]r, ibi satiatur. he is fatted inuisibly, because he is inuisibly bred againe: he is there filled, where he is renewed. And again, Sang [...] em fuderunt cum saeuire [...]t, biberunt cum crederent. Aug [...] Ioan. tr. 1. Saeuieutes [...]u­de [...]u [...]t, credentes biberunt. de temp. 74. & de verb. Dom. 59. They that shed Christs blood, drank his blood whē they beleeued in him; and C [...]edendo bibe­runt, quem saeuiendo fuderunt. Idem. in Ioan. tr. 8. they drank it by beleeuing in him.

[Page 126] 1. It pleased our Sauiour sometime, as to Ioh. 3. 3. Nicodemus, and to Math 13. 10, 13, 14. the people oft-times, to speake things in obscure Parables, which yet to them he did not explicate. See Chrys. on Ioan. hom. 46. Nor may any taxe the wisedome of Christ without impiety for so doing. Yea Sic oporte­bat vt dicere­tur, quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur. Aug. in Ioan. tr. 27. so (saith Augustine) he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand.

2. Those that went away from him vpon it, were (as our Sauiour himselfe intimateth) Reade Ioan. 6. vers. 26. 36, 64, 69, 67, 69. such as followed him onely to be fed; and did not beleeue in him.

3. If his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread, as these men would make vs beleeue, had it not beene as ob­scure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it?

4. It is not true that our Sauiour added nothing to expli­cate himselfe. Augustine in the place before cited Exponit quomodo id fiat quod lo­quitut; & quid sit man­ducare corpus cius & sangui­nem bibere. Aug. in Ioan. tr. 26. Citante etiam Biele in Can. Iect. 36. Beda in 1 Cor. 11. & Fulbert. in excerpt. Ex­posuit modū attributionis & doni sui. Aug. ibid. 27. shew­eth that he did. And both in the beginning, when Ioh. 6. 32. 33 hee first told them of this bread: and ^d they desired him euer to giue them of it; he maketh them answer in these words; Vers. 35. I am the bread of life: Hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger; and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst: and in the processe of his speech againe, Vers. 47. Uerely, verely, I say vnto you, Hee that beleeueth in mee, hath life euerlasting: Whereby Iansen. har­mon. cap. 59. saith Iansenius, they might well haue vnderstood, in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate. Who also thence gathereth (agreeably to Augustine and other of the Ancients) that Idem esse manducare se, & credere in se. Et Biel. Idem est in Christum credere, & in Christum ite: & qui credit in Christum, incorporatur Christo; & per hoc manducat Christum. it is all one to feed on Christ, and to beleeue in him: As also in the Conclusion and shutting vp of all, when hee saw how they mistooke him: Verse 63. It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh availeth nothing: the wordes that I speake are spirit and life. In which wordes saith [...]ansen vbi sup. the same Iansenius (out of Chrysostome, Theophylact, and b Vers. 34. Augustine) hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said.

[Page 127] MY Aduersaries Arguments to the contrary are meerely N. P. topicall, and prooue nothing. For first it is false, that the faithfull Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue our Sauiour as well as we: which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not, page 7.

Secondly, those words of Christ, Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you; was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the Sa­crament as they were to whom it was vttred; such persons (to wit) as are by age capable of Sacramentall manducation. And surely if Christs words be onely vnderstood, as my Ad­uersarie would haue them, of spirituall eating Christ by faith, they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him. For sooner may children receiue the Sacrament, especially drinke of the consecrated Chalice (as anciently in the Greeke and Latine Churches they were went to doe) then actually beleeue in him.

His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more (if this Mini­ster had wit to discerne the force thereof) against his owne exposition of Christs words, then it doth against our vnder­standing of them. For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood, are not saued; no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him. This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordai­ned to produce those excellent and heauenly effects which Christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthi­ly receiue it; and such centrarily as come vnworthily there­unto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it.

As for those few Catholike writers who haue denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint Iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of Sacramentall manducation; I answer, that their number is not great, and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient Fa­thers and moderne Doctors of better note contrarily vnder­standing them; yeelding better reasons for that their literall [Page 128] true explication, and easily soluing all hereticall Obiections gathered from the literall sense of our Sauiours words in that Chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of Catholike doctrine. And sithence my Aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very Authors in their other knowne Catholike doctrines, why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion, wherein without any here­ticall intention or obstinacie of Iudgement they differ from vs?

§ 6. AT length he commeth to refute mine Argu­ments; T. G. which he saith are topicall, and prooue nothing.

My first Argument is this:

None are saued but such as so feede on Christ, as is there spoken of. But many are saued that neuer fed on Christ in the Eucharist; as the Fathers before Christ; the children of the faithfull that die infants, &c. Ergò it is not spoken of the Eucharist.

To this he answereth.

1. That I barely affirme that the Iewes before Christ did sacramentally receiue Christ as well as we, but I prooue it not. It is true; I say obiter that they fed on Christs flesh spiritually as well as we now doe: though that be no part of mine Argument. And I adde a place or two of Au­gustine for the proofe of it grounded on the Apostles words, 1. Cor. 10. 3, 4. Which seeing that this shifter ouerslippeth, let him heare Bishop Iansenius himselfe (not to goe any further) relate a little more at large, to wit, that Iansen. ibid. Boni manna manducando viuificati sunt: eo quod sub visibi [...] illo ci­bo etiam spi­ritualiter manducauerunt ve [...]um panem vitae per manna significa [...]um quem & nos ede [...]do viuificamur. the good Iewes in the old Testament were quickned by eating of Manna, because vnder that visible foode they also spiritually did eate the true Bread of Life by Manna signified. Or if Iansenius will not serue, let him heare their great Albert; Albert. Magn. de Sacram. Euchar. serm, 17 Modus man­ducationis triplex, Sacramentalis tantûm, spiritualis tantùm, sacramentalis & spiri­tualis simul. There is (saith he) a three-fold eating of Christ; [Page 129] sacramentally onely, spiritually onely, or sacramentally and spiritually both. In the first sort Omnes sal­uandi ab ori­gine mundi. all that euer were saued did eate: in the second sort euill Christians eate him in the Sa­crament: in the third sort, good communicants onely. And againe, alleadging those words of the Apostle; Idem ibid. se [...]m. 18 om­nes [...]oni ve­teres in Man­na cibum in­uisibile. n. s [...]. Christum spi­ritu [...]ter in­ [...]exerunt, crediderunt, gustauerunt, &c. All those good Auncients in the Manna vnderstood beleeued and tasted Christ himselfe, and were thereby saued. And this no Papist (I suppose) will be so absurd as to deny. But this is but a by-matter, no part of the maine Argument; and therefore I forbeare here to insist further on it.

2. That is as impossible for children to eate Christ by faith spiritually, as to receiue him sacramentally in the Eu­charist.

Not to runne out into more Questions then needs must at the present, I answer:

1. Many yong ones die, though at yeeres of discreti­on, when in ordinary course they may well haue faith, and beleeue actually, yet ere they be admitted to the Eucharist: and yet is not their saluation at all thereby preindiced.

2. By the doctrine of their Church euen B [...]llarm. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 11. ex Concil. Tr [...]dent. sess. 7. can. 13. Et Biel. in Can Miss lect 36. De pueris eti [...]m quod spiritualiter manducant corpus Chri­sti in suscep­tione baptis­matis, patet de consecr. dist. 2. Quia passus Infants haue an habite of faith infused into them in Baptisme.

3. Neither is it a thing impossible for the Spirit of God by an extraordinary manner to worke faith in such in­fants as are to be saued dying before yeeres of discreti­on; no more then it was to regenerate Iohn Baptist Luk. 1. 15. in his mothers wombe: of whom Gregorie therefore saith that he was Prius quam nasceretur renatus Gr [...]g. mor. lib. 3. cap. 4. new bred yet vnborne.

4. The speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other; Ioh. 6. 47. & 3. 18. whosoeuer beleeueth in me, hath life eternall: And, Iohn 3. vers. 36 Whosoeuer beleeueth not in the Sonne of God. shall neuer [...]tam, pro viuere; vti videre mortem pro mori. Psal. 89. vers. 48. & Iohn 8. 51. liue, but Ioh. 3. vers. 18. Mark. 16. vers. 16. shall be damned: and the like; which comprehend those onely, to whom it appertaineth actu­ally [Page 130] to come vnto Christ, and to beleeue in him, Iansen. vbi sup. saith Ianse­nius. And that is enough for my purpose.

§ 7. My second Argument was thus framed.

All that so feede on Christ, are eternally saued: our Sauiour so Ioh. 6. 50, 51, 58. saith.

But many feede on the Eucharist that are eternally dam­ned.

Ergò Christ speaketh not there of orall eating in the Eu­charist.

Now this Argument (saith he) if I had wit to discerne the force of it, maketh more against vs then against them. And why so? Forsooth, because all are not saued that spi­ritually and by faith feede on Christ. This is like B [...]llarmines bold assertion, that Aliquos cre­dentes in Christum in aeternum pe­rire, quod ante morian­tur, quam à Sacerdote ab­solui potue­rint. Bellarm. de poenit. l 3. c. 2. some that beleeue in Christ perish eter­nally, because they die before they can haue a Priest to assoile them. And what is this but to say that all that doe truly beleeue in Christ are not saued? Yea what is this (not to repeate all the allegations both of Scripture and Fathers produced for the proofe of the Proposition, which he pur­posely passeth ouer, not being able to answere) but to giue our Sauiour himselfe and the holy Ghost the lye, who so oft say; Ioh. 3. 14, 15, 16, 18, 36. & 6. 47. & 7. 39. Rom. 10. 11. &c. Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued.

Nor is it sufficient (as he addeth) for to verifie our Saui­ours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the Soules of such as worthily receiue it, though the contrary befall those that doe vnworthily rēceiue it. For (to answer them againe in the words of one of their owne Authors) our Sauiours words imply manifestly Manducati­onis & potus certum effe­ctum. Iansen. concord. c. 59. a cer­taine effect (as he speaketh) not a matter that may be: (as Augustine and Cyril also in the places cited by me there shew,) whereupon also he concludeth that Hinc manife stum euadit, non omnes. &c. Idem ibid. it is ap­parent thence that all are not there said to eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood, that receiue the Sacraments of Christs body and blood.

§ 8. To their owne Authors, Cardinals, Schoelemen, Canonists, publike Professors, or Readers of Diuinity in their Vniuersities, (Feius in Ioan. 6. & Mathias Do­ring in replic. super. Lyr. in Psal. 110. Friers I might haue said too,) and in steed [Page 131] of Iesuites (being better informed by him) I now say, Bishops, which will not much mend the matter.

1. Hee answereth that they bee but few in number, and their authoritie of no great weight, in regard of those that hold the contrarie. Yet one of their owne Bishops (though of an other mind himselfe) confesseth, that there are Ex ipsis Ca­tholicis per­m [...]lti [...]unt, qui totum is [...]um sermonem ad spiritualem manducatio­nem referunt: Sebastian Ox­oniens. Epi [...]c. ad part. 3. Thom. q. 76. nu. 28. very many of them that are of this iudgement. But had there beene but one or two of them (especially of note, as some of them were) of some one sort, it might well haue weighed much on our side. For [...]. Isidor. Pesus. ep. 228. l. 2. the witnesse of an aduersarie is of no small weight. How much more, when so many of all sorts, of so speciall repute, shall so vni­formely speake for vs, and herein accord with vs?

2. He demandeth of his Aduersarie, why he doth so highly value them and mainely vrge them herein, when in o­ther points he will not sticke to contemne them. Had he any wit in his adle braine, he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite, because a man taketh hold (as he may well doe) of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries, or is granted him and confessed by them, because it furthereth his owne cause, he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right. The greater differences are be­tweene them and vs, yea in the present controuersie con­cerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament, the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs; and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that, that should take away some of those grounds, whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained, is ordinarily vpheld.

3. He addeth in the end: These men herein without hereticall intention, or obstin [...]cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that, Vs, I leaue to himselfe to explaine: And the lesse hereticall their intention was (as he vnderstandeth hereticall) the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs; and [Page 132] so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. Confessio propria testi­mo [...]is qui­busnis; [...]estes­que non fami­liares dome­sticis praefe­runtur. Me­noch. lib. 2. a [...]b. cas. [...]26. & Althus. dicae­olog. l. 3. c. 45. The testimonie of a meere stranger, or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment. But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement, he glaunceth at a secret in their Church, which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer. It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them, so long as he acknow­ledgeth the Popes Supremacie, the maine pillar of their faith, and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure, and so be ready to vnsay what he saith, when he will haue him so to doe. For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church. And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points, for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes, of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes, because they submitted them­selues to this Censure. I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine.

1. In this very particular; he confesseth that Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 5. many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe: but they submit themselues (saith he) and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes; which the Heretikes doe not.

2. In the present controuersie, Durandus held not a Transubstantiation, but a transformation in the Sacrament: Idem ibid. lib. 3. cap. 13. which opinion (saith he) is hereticall; and yet was hee no Heretike; because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church.

3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intenti­on in the Sacrament, differeth not (Idem de Sa­cram. in Gen. lib. 1. cap. 27. saith he) for ought I see, from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes, saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the A­postolike Sea and Councel.

4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes Idem de iu­stific. lib. 3. cap. 16. held as we now doe, that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie, and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say, that God were vniust, if he should not [Page 133] so reward them: And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned.

And thus are we at length arriued (after much winding to and fro, while wee follow a shifting wind) at the end of the former part of my Discourse: wherein hath beene shewed, beside other Arguments, confirming the same, by the confession of their owne Authors, that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine, which they commonly produce to prooue it.

Diuision 7.

PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall N. P. Disputant then before: and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument;

Which is a formel [...]sse and fallacious kinde of arguing, wholly forcelesse, if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true, that Christs words haue force now as then they had, when himselfe vttred them, to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood: As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine, I should make this deduction: The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: therefore that which they drew and carried was water. If the Minister shall tell me, that they drew water; but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation: so I will tell him, that [Page 134] Christ tooke bread and wine, and conuerted them by his mira­culous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them, as he by his plaine words pro­nounced of them, saying, This is my Body, &c.

HItherto, if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor, his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure, T. G. that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused, deformed and mis-figured; for the fault (it seemeth) was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes; which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them. Here (he confesseth) he becommeth a more formall Dissutant; and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defen­dant.

Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Trans­substantiation and the reall presence (corporall, hee should haue said for more perspicuitie; for so I speake) igno­rantly the one with the other. I perceiue well what his drift herein is; to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times; yet a reall, that is a corporall presence was euer ac­knowledged. But if we will beleeue Bellarmine, Aquinas, and the Councel of Trent, the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other, yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other. Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 13. cap. 4. Et idem Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. This, (the Councel of Trent telleth vs,) was alwaies the faith of the Church, that by the conse­cration of Bread and Wine, the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body, and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood. And, Thom. Aq. sum part 3. q. 75. art. 3. A body, (saith Aquinas) cannot be, where it was not before, but either by lo­call motion, or by the conuersion of some other thing into it. But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion: And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it. Yea, Idem ibid. art. 4. by locall motion it cannot be there, nor by any meanes but by this. And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where, [Page 135] Bellar. in A­polog. contr. Praefat. moni­tor. Reg. Iacob. c 1. It cannot be, that the words of Christ should be true, but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation. It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things, which those we deale with conioyne, yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned.

To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstanti­ation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist; I first reason from the Context, Mat 26 26. Mark. 14. 22. Christ tooke bread, and blessed it, and gaue it, and said; This is my body. Whence I thus argued:

But it was bread that hee tooke, blessed, brake and deliue­red; (Steph Du­rant. de ritib. Eccles. l. 2. c. 38. It is bread, saith Durant a Popish writer, that all those verbes are referred to.)

It was bread therefore of which he said, This is my body.

Now this (saith mine Adversarie forgetting, it see­meth, what he had said but euen now, that heere I began to dispute formally) is a formlesse, fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing, if we suppose with the holy Fa­thers (who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence, if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued) that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood. That is, as if hee should say, this Argument is of no force at all, if the point in Question be granted, or if that be yeelded, that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like de­duction of Ioh. 2 [...] the water that Christ turned into wine;

How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is; sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure. [Page 136] But let vs helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme; and then hee shall haue an Answer. Thus, it see­meth, he would argue, if he could hit on it:

What the Ministers drew out of the well, they caried:

But they drew water: Therefore they carried water.

And now I deny his Proposition: The Ministers car­ried not that that they drew: They drew water; they carried not water but wine.

And for his addition hereunto, that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine, and before hee distributed them, by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood, as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them, This is my body. Though it be nothing to the Argument, and a meere begging of the point in Question, yet let vs consider a little of it, where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them: for the wordes, This is my body (as was formerly shewed) doe not euince it. But he findeth it (it seemeth) in the benediction or the blessing of the bread; which is yet a­gainst the common conceite of his Associates, that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words, This is my body. Heare we Bellarmine a little Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19. ar­guing this point against Luther. Hauing acknowledged (as was said formerly) that Christs words, This is my body, may beare either the sence that wee giue them, or the sense that they giue them, but not that sense, that the Luthe­rans giue: For (saith hee) the Lord tooke bread, and blessed it, and gaue it his Disciples, saying, This is my body. Bread therefore he tooke; bread hee blessed, and of bread of he said, This is my body. Either therefore Christ by blessing chan­ged the bread into his body truely and properly, or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely, by adding signification (or as Theodoret rather, [...]. by adding to nature that grace) which before it had not. If hee changed it truely and properly, then gaue he bread changed, and of that bread so changed he truely said, This is my body, that is, that which is contained vn­der the shape of bread is no more bread, but my body: and [Page 137] this we say, If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiue­ly, then shall there be that bread given the Apostles, that is siguratiuely Christs body, and those words, This is my body haue this sense, This is the figure of my body: and so the Protestants hold. Yea so indeede (as you haue heard be­fore) did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them, who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant. Now let either Bellarmine, or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion, and wee will yeeld vnto them. But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that Mar. 10. 16. hee blessed into bread, as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie. Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19. wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word, in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way, but not Luthers way; and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it, much lesse any sound proofe, either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnder­stood as they say, or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say; but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion, to wit, that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament. Which opinion also I indan. in di [...]og. quam Ruew rd siue pacificum in­s [...]psit. themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renoun­ced before he died. Hee beginneth with Primum au­tem argumen­tum ducitur ex illis Domi­ni verbis, &c. a first Argu­ment, without any second, the summe and substance whereof was before related: Either his second (he saw) was vnsound, and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it, or else he wanted a second, and thought to let the first though without a fellow, stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians, who say, Primus est, quem nemo praecedit, e [...]iāsi nullus sequa­tur. Reg. Iur. That is first, that hath none before it, though no other come after it: or, that is first that hath none before it, that is last that hath none after it. And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there. And e Primus est, quem nemo praecedit: vltimus, quem nemo sequitur. Ibid. [Page 138] in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and preten­ded Fachers. Bellar. vbi sup. in fine cap. Though there were some ambiguity (saith hee) in our Sauiour Christs words, yet it is taken away by Councels; (what Councels think we? Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself af­terward sheweth) and the consent of Fathers: which re­maineth yet to be shewed. As for the benediction, the best, nay the sole Argument, whereby hee can prooue such [...] conuersion wrought there is this; Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing: For he is read onely to haue given thankes, Ioh. 6. 11. 23. when hee would multiply the fiue loaues; and againe Mat. 18. 26. when the seuen: Ioh. 11 41. and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the dead; and lastly, Mat. 26. 27. Mar. 24 23. Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24. in the institution of this Sacrament. And in like manner hee is not wont to blesse insensible things, but when he was to worke some admirable thing with them: For he is neuer read so to haue done, but Luh. 9. 16. Mark. 6 7. when hee blessed the bread to be multiplied; and Mat. 26. 26. Mat. 14. 22. in the Encharist. As on the contrary Mat. 21. 19. when hee cursed the figtree: for it withered away instantly. For Gods blessing is a well-doing; not a praying, as ours; but an effecting, as appeareth, when Gen. 1. 22. hee blessed the beasts: for by that blessing hee bestowed fruitfulnesse vpon them. Nor do we reade that Christ euer blessed the water in Baptisme. And what of all this? Therefore (forsooth) it must needs follow that Christ by that blessing turned the bread into his owne naturall body.

Where to omit that it is not true, that Christ is neuer read to haue giuen thankes oftner then is here said: for at Mat. 11 25. Luk. 10. 21. other times also hee is reported to haue [...]. Chrysost. in Mat. hom 38. Confiteor hic gratiarum a­ctionem significat. Ex Beda Thom. in Luc. 10. giuen thankes, and that when hee was not about to worke any miracle neither: Nor is it truely said, that Christs blessing was not a prayer, (which that it was, not Dei beneficentiam & potentiam super panem invocauit, &c. Iansen. concord. c. 131. Galat. 4. 3. Iansenius onely, but Sanctumque precatus. Iunenc. l. 4. i. prece Sanctificans. Maldon. in Mat. 26. Maldonat the Iesuite from some of the Ancients also [Page 139] confesseth) being conceiued by him as man, but effected by him as God: and beside, that it is absurd to reason à non scripto ad non factum, hee is not read oft [...]er to haue bles­sed or given thankes, therefore hee neuer oftner did either: yea it is impious to imagine that Christ, who for our sakes made himselfe subiect to the Law, did not ordinari­ly 1 Tim. 4. 4. blesse and sanctifie the food, that he tooke commonly, by thankes-giuing and prayer: who denyeth but that Christ went about a marueilous worke, when hee was to institute this Sacrament? or who doubteth but that Christs bene­diction was a most effectuall benediction, and as effectuall as that of Gods was in the Creation, whereby Gen. 1. 22, 28. he blessed the creatures? by vertue whereof yet the creatures so bles­sed were not transformed into new shapes, but had a naturall facultie only conferred vpon them which before they had not, nor of thēselues could haue; and so haue the elements a spirituall and supernaturall (by our acknowledgement) in the Sacrament. But who seeth not what a silly and senselesse consequence this is? Bellarmine could not be so silly and sottish as not to see it himselfe. Christ gaue thankes and blessed the bread ere hee gaue it: therefore hee wrought such a miracle on it as wee would haue; or, there­fore (if you will) he turned it into the very substance of his body. It may as well bee said that Samuel wrought some miracle by 1 Sam. 9. 13▪ blessing the sacrifice, as our Sauiour here by blessing the bread.

For the water in Baptisme it is easie to answer, though it be little to the purpose: It is not to bee maruelled if hee be not read to haue blessed it: for we are told expres­ly that Ioh. 4. 2. he neuer baptised, saue as he doth. Ioh. 1. 33. spiritually bap­tise to this day. But dare any say that his Disciples were so prophane as to baptise without blessing? or must a bald, yea a Baals Priests blessing of bread at this day be needes more effectuall then their blessing of water then was? Or doe not Tertul. de bapt. H [...]eron. ad Ocean. de bapt. Episc. Ambrosium quem volunt esse de initiat. c. 3. the ancient Fathers compare the blessing of the water and the effect thereof in Baptisme with the blessing of the waters and Gen. 1. [...] ▪ the moouing of the Spirit vpon them in [Page 140] the Creation? And why must the blessing then of necessity import such a change more in the one Sacrament then in the other?

Diuision 8.

AS for the names of bread and wine after giuen by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of N. P. the Sacrament; which with this Minister is a great argu­ment tediously vrged, page 10. hee cannot be ignorant (I sup­pose) as not to conceiue the little sorce of the Argument. For if Aarons red after it was conuerted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, bee notwithstanding called so; with much more reason may the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them Christs body and blood, retaine their old names: especially with articles su­peradded, importing the singular and diuine excellency of them, still vsed by Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as this bread, this Chalice; the bread which wee breake, &c. willing them to prooue themselues, &c. before they come to eate of this bread; least eating it vnworthily, they eate their owne damnation, not discerning the body of Christ; or (which is all one) not distinguishing it from other common bread, it being indeed bread blessed and conuerted into the ve­ry body of Christ, and therefore not irreuerently and vnwor­thily to be receiued by any Christian vnder paine of damnati­on; as the ancient Doctor and holy Mariyr of Christs Church S. Cyprian serm. 5. S. Cyprian affirmeth: S. Basil. l. 2. de bapt. c. 3. S. Basil also, S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. ad Corinth. & hom. 83. in Mat. & hom. 45. in Joan. S. Chrysostome, S. Ierom. in [...]. cap. Malac. S. Ierome, Origen in Psal. 37. Origen, and S. Aug. l. 5. de bapt. c. 8. & l, 8. contr. Crescon. c. 25. S. Augustine, with other Fa­thers express [...]ly teach the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the Sacrament to be haynous, and equall even to the sinne of such as betrayed and killed Christ, because they presume vn­worthily to eate that bread wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained.

[Page 141] MY second Argument was taken from the expresse T. G. words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the Sacrament.

1. The little force of this Argument (hee saith) I can­not be so ignorant as not to conceiue: because Aarons rod af­ter it was conuerted into a Serpent, and retained not the es­sence or figure of a rod, yet was notwithstanding so called, &c. And hee cannot bee so ignorant as not to conceiue that this very Obiection is there by me propounded and answe­red: yea, and that Bellarmine himselfe reiecteth it as Haec solutio non videtur solidissima. Bellar. de Eu­char. l. 1. c. 14. not very sound, but such as iust exception may be taken vnto. Did hee thinke that any one not voyd of common sense would not soone see this?

2. He saith that the accidents of bread and wine remai­ning retaine still their old names. To what purpose? For who doubteth but that the accidents, that is, the colour, sauour, shape, sise, &c. of the elements, remaine still in the Eucharist, not without a subiect, as they say, (for how can accidents so do, when the very Accidentis esse est messe. essence of an accident, as it is an accident, is to be in some subiect?) but in the selfe same subiect, wherein formerly they were? And what should hinder but that remaining so, they should retaine still their old names? But neither are the accidents of bread and wine, bread and wine: and it is absurd to say either that the Apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread onely; when he said 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread which wee breake, &c. and, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man eate of that bread, &c. Or that by the fruit of the vine our Sauiour meant nothing but the acci dents of wine, when hee said, Mat. 26, 29, I will drinke henceforth no more of this fruit of the vine, &c. So that his reason is [...]i­diculous, The accidents remaining retaine still their old names; therefore the substance that is gone retaineth it owne name still: or, the colour, savour shape and sise retaine their old names, and that which is in the Eucharist what euer it be, is said still to be white, round, thin well tasted, &c. and that with good reason, since it is so still as it was; [Page 142] therefore though it be no more bread now, yet is it said to be so still. Sure reason and this mans braine were farre asun­der, when he writ this.

3. He addeth that the Apostle when hee calleth it bread, (for so I suppose he would say, and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread onely) speaketh with such articles superadded, as may note the singular and divine excellency of it, This bread, and so This Chalice, and The bread which we breake: and requireth men to examine themselues before they come there: least they sinne in not distinguishing it from other common bread, &c. And that the ancient Fathers shew what an horrible sinne it is to come vnreuerently to it, &c. because they presume to eate that bread, wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained.

And is not this a most silly Argument to prooue that that hee should prooue, vnlesse you take in withall his ly at the last, where he saith that the Sonne of God himselfe is contained in the bread, which hee falsely also fathereth vpon those Fathers, as would haue appeared, had hee ci­ted their wordes; and which being the point in Question (had it beene propounded as it should haue beene) vn­lesse you grant him hee sticketh fast still and cannot goe forward? For may not a man say as much of Baptisme, that the holy Ghost speaks of it with such Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. Tit. 3. 5. Gal. 3. 27. elogies superadded, as may note the singular & diuine excellency of it; that those therefore that are of yeeres See Bellar. de bapt. l. 1. c. 25. ought with great care to addresse and prepare themselues vnto it, when they are to be baptised, and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water, or vse it irreuerently, commit an hainous sinne euen against Christ himselfe? And yet who euer dreamed therefore of any such Transubstantiation in Baptisme? yea the very same Authours here produced by him so plentifully (though by their bare names onely out of Bellarmine) in a point for the generall not at all denied, to wit the hai­nousnesse of their sinne that abuse this Sacrament: yet distinguish expressely some of them (as in mine allegati­ons I haue noted) betweene the bread of the Lord, (as [Page 143] 1. Cor. 11. 27. the Apostle tearmeth it) and the Bread the Lord; of which Ioh. 6. 32, 33. our Sauiour in the Gospel; betweene the body that was on the Crosse, and the bread that is on the bord: Which he taketh no notice of.

4. And yet neither is it true that so confidently here he affirmeth, that all those Fathers in all those pla­ces, yea or that any one of them, in any one of those pla­ces that he quoteth, (nor as I verily beleeue, in any place of their writings else-where) doe (as he saith) ex­pressely and purposely teach that the sinne of vnworthy recei­uers is equall (for the hainousnesse of it) with the sinne of those that betraied and killed Christ. Which no sober Di­uine will say; nor can it be iustified, vnlesse the Stoicall paritie of sinnes (charged Aug. de haeres. c. 82. vpon Iouinian by some, Nihil enim eiusmodi I [...]uiniano Hieronymus obii­cit. how truly I know not, Campiā rat. 8. Sed & [...]oc­cius idem fe­rè, Thes. Ca­thol. tom. 1. l. 8. art. 3. vpon vs by some of their side, falsely I am sure, Lutherani non dicunt paria esse pec­cata. Bellarm. de Iustif. l. 3. c. 16. Bellarmine himselfe therein acquitting vs) be in Theologie admitted. Bellarmine indeede De Euchar. l. 1. c. 13. in the Chap­ter, whence he tooke all these quotations as he found them there mustered together, hath somewhat out of Oecume­nius that may seeme to looke that way, (Oecum. cō ­parat indignè communican­tes cum eis qui Christum crucifixerunt. He compareth vnworthy communicants, saith he, with those that killed Christ) which this man hauing strained more then an inch further, ascribeth vnaduisedly and vntruly to them all. Whereas onely Basil (if those ascetica at least be his) and Chrysostome, (who is wont to presse farre in reproo­uing of sinne) the one of them willeth vs to repaire ho­lily to Gods bord, least we incurre the iudgement of them that killed Christ: the other of them in one of the places there quoted saith, that as those that defile the princes robe are [...], &c. Chrysost. in Ioan. hom. Grae. 46. Lat. 45. [...] vel vt alii, [...]; punished in like manner, as those also that rend it; so it is ^u not vnlikely or vnequal that those that with an vnholy heart receiue the Lords body, vndergoe [...]. the same punishment with those that tore it with nailes; that is, that the one be dam­ned for so doing as well as the other; which may well [...]. Basil de bapt. l. 2. c. 3. [Page 144] be, albeit their sinnes be not equall. The rest of them, to wit, Origen, Hierome and Augustine haue not any one word at all in any of all those places of the sinne of those that killed Christ; yea the places well weighed vtterly ouerthrow the ground of that Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 13. Argument, which from the words of the Apostle, and their application of it, they would frame to prooue a reall and essentiall presence of Christs naturall body and blood in the Eucharist, because such vnworthy receiuers are said to be 1. Cor. 11. 27. guilty of wronging Christs body and blood, and thereby Ibid. [...]9. to acquire iudgemen [...] c De baptism. l. 5 c. 8. Vide & eundem contra Faust. l. 19. c. 11, 12. or condemnation to themselues. For beside that in the one place Augustine saith nothing but this, that the Sacra­ment of Baptisme, as well as that other of the Eucharist, is a true Sacrament euen to those that vse it otherwise then they ought: which is nothing at all to that for which here it is alleadged. In Contra Crescon. l. 1. c. 25, 26. the other place he saith nothing of the Eucharist, but what he saith also both of Rom. 7. 7. 13. 1 Cor. 8. 1. the Word of God, or the Law, and Baptisme expressely in the same place; to wit, that euen Obsunt san­cta & diuina malè vtenti­bus. holy and diuine things hurt those that vse them otherwise then they ought. Yea Hierome goeth further in the place alleadged, and g In Malac. 1. applieth what he speaketh not to the Sacraments onely of the New Testament, but to the Sacrifices also (which were Sacraments too) of the old. For commenting on those words, Malac. 1. 7. Wherein doe we pollute thee? Dum Sacra­menta vio­lantur, ipse cuius sunt Sa­cramenta vio­latur. When the Sa­craments (saith he) are violated, he is violated whose Sacra­ments they are. And that is all he saith there. Now were not the Colos. 2. 17. Heb. 10. 1, [...] ▪ 10. & 13. 11, 12. Talium figu­rarum obser­uatio, Christi fuit praefigu­ratio. Aug. ad Faust. l. 19. c. 11. Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the old Testa­ment (as the ^l Paschall Lambe at least) Sacraments of Christ, yea Heb. 10. 10. & 9. 7, 11, 12. and of his body and blood too? If they were, as no doubt can be but they were, then by Hieromes Rule was Christ and his body and blood wronged in them, when any wrong was done to them, albeit it were not essentially or corporally present in them: nor doth such wrong there­fore or guilt acquired by euill vsage of the Eucharist im­ply any such corporall presence thereof in it.

5. Let me adde onely, that this Defendant telleth vs, [Page 145] [...]hat the Sonne of God is contained in that bread that is eaten [...]n the Eucharist: and yet by their doctrine there is no bread at all there. How is he in bread where no bread is? Or how is there no bread there, where in bread the Sonne of God is (as he telleth vs) conteined? What is this but that which Bellarmine condemneth in the Lutherans, to forge vs Christum impanatum. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. a Christ impanated, or enclosed in bread? Nor doth their owne doctrine any whit mend the matter. For as Bellarmine saith of Rupert us and some others that they make Christ haue Corpus pa­naceum, non carneum. Ibid a breaden body: so may wee as truly say the same of them. For what is a body made of bread but a breaden Body? But that (you see) this Doctor here swarueth from and saith, that Christs body is but couched in Bread.

ANd I maruaile not to finde this Minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy Fathers to his hereticall purpose, si­thence N. P. he maketh Bellarmine himselfe page 10. to speake like a Protestant, and seeme to say against his owne expresse do­ctrine, that the bread blessed and consecrated on the Al­tar is not, nor cannot be called Christs body: Whereas Bellarmine onely disputeth against Luther teaching naturall bread to remaine still in the Sacrament, and making the sense of Christs words, This is my body, to be the same as if he had said, This bread is my body; saith this and no more, that Naturall bread cannot be otherwise then figuratiue­ly and significantly affirmed to be Christs body: Spea­king not at all of bread consecrated, and by consecration con­uerted into the true body of Christ, yet still retaining the name of bread for the Accidents of bread still remaining, as this false fellow would haue; frequently citing Authors which he vnderstandeth not.

§ 2. ANd here againe, as one running the wild goose T. G. race, he windeth backe to a passage in the for­mer Argument: and saith, he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers (he thought sure euery [Page 146] one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said, though he neuer assaied to shew it) since I make Bellarmine himselfe speake like a Protestant. No: I make him speake nothing but what De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1. hee saith of himselfe: and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient Fathers spake very ab­surdly, or else they ment as we meane. The Argument is this:

Nor is it enough to prooue that I corrupt Bellarmine, to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther, who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament: For what is that to the purpose? much lesse to say vntruly, that he spake not of bread consecrated; when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread.

But I cite Authors (he saith) that I vnderstand not. It is true indeede; In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine, that neither I, nor any such dull-heads as I am (I thinke) can easily vnderstand; as for example, where De Euchar. l 3. c. 24. he saith, as I here cite him, that The Priest maketh Christs body of bread; and yet Christs body is not made by the Priest: And againe, Ibid. that the body of Christ that was crucified, was truly or verily made of Bread: And yet con­futing Rupertus he saith else-where, that De Euchar. l. 3. c. 11. it was not a breaden body that was crucified for vs; as Tertullian infer­red from the doctrine of the Marci [...]nites; and as we may well inferre from theirs. He waiueth De Euchar. l. 3. c. 9. else-where Me­taphysicall subtilties in disputing of this Sacrament. And Inepta Cal­uini Meta­physica. Idem de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10. taxeth Caluine for his fond and foolish Metaphysicks. But these are such transcendent subtilties, if not absurdities, as [Page 147] any Metaphysicks will afford. And this deepe Metaphy­sicall Doctor, that hath no want of wit, and vnderstandeth him so well, should haue done well to vnfold to vs these mysteries, and arreade vs these riddles: whereas he very vncharitably passeth them by, and onely controlling vs for our ignorance, leaueth vs sticking still in the bryers with them, not vouchsafing to helpe vs out.

PAg. 12. He affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirme, as N. P. we doe, that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth, or is turned into that which succeedeth onely in the roome thereof; Whereas in euery substantiall conuersion one substance is destroied and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action: as where wood is conuerted into fire, &c. The difference betwixt Trans­substantiation in the Sacrament, and other substantiall natu­rall conuersions chiefely consisting in this, that the whole sub­stance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance, Christs body, to wit, introduced in place thereof, so as nothing thereof remaineth; whereas in them the same matter, albeit receiuing a new forme and so made a distinct substance from what it was before, still remaineth: which is to the Mini­sters purpose wholly impertinent, vnlesse hee will falsely and foolishly withall affirme that God can destroy no substance in­tirely leauing the Accidents thereof still remaining, to intro­duce an other substance in place thereof.

And albeit we cannot say of Christs body, that it was bread, (which is another Argument of the Minister, ibidem) yet may it be said to haue beene of bread, as being by the same mi­raculous and omnipotent power of Christs words, whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present. And this is without any difficultie affirmed by vs, who know the same in a propertionable man­ner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuer­sions, howsoeuer his poore Iudgement will not serue to consider it: heate (for example) was neuer cold, albeit in place there­of produced; fire was neuer wood, but as a substance (as na­turall [Page 148] vnderstanding might teach him) essentially different, and produced by the others destruction.

§▪ 3. AFter he hath thus recoiled back a little, now he T. G. beginneth to make againe forward. And 1. wheras they not knowing wel how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily vpon this their senselesse conceit of the conuersion of bread into Christs body, affirme that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread, and the bread said to be turned into Christs body, because the bread ceasing to be there, Christs body (as they say) doth one­ly come in the roome of it: For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it, or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the materiall cause Christs body is framed, as ashes are made of wood, or glasse of some ashes: And I thereupon reply, that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome thereof. (That which Suarez in Thom. part. 3. quaest. 75. disp. 50. sect 5. Per [...]olam actionem adductivam. non explica­tur vera con­uersio sub­stantialis, sed solum trans­locatio quae­dam. Quan­do vna sub­stantia solum succedit loco alterius, non potest dici v­na conuerti in aliam, Ibid. Suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation, then a transubstantiatiō, or a true & substan­tiall conuersion. He telleth me, that, if my poore iudgement would serue to consider it, such a succession is to be found in e­uery subst [...]ntiall conuersion, whereby one substance is destroy­ed, and another succeedeth in the roome of it.) And conse­quently (for that or nothing must follow) that it is not ab­surd so to say. Did euer man (thinke we) either sober or in his right wits thus reason? In euery substantiall conuer­sion one thing succeedeth in the roome of another, and is turned into it. Therefore whatsoeuer thing doth succeede onely in the roome or place of another, is conuerted into it. Suppose a puppy should get vp into the Chaire that this Disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse, after he quitted it: would he not take it euill, if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy, because the puppy were got into his place. Or suppose some light-fingred per­son hauing pickt his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it, should put in a copper counter or two in the roome of it; would it follow that his gold were really [Page 149] turned into copper, because the one is gone, and the other is come in the roome of it? Or suppose an old house pul­led or burnt downe, and an other raised vp againe in the roome of it, and that iust of the same proportion with it: would any man say, that the one were turned into the o­ther, because the one succeeded in the roome of the other being destroied? But idle and absurd consequences are no strange matters with this Disputant for all his great learning, that which a little learning will serue to disco­uer.

2. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs, that Christs body is called bread still after Consecration, as Aa­rons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent, be­cause it had sometime so beene; I say (among many other things, which he here ouerslippeth) that the case, by their owne confession, is not alike: for that, of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent, but of Christs body it cannot be said that euer it was bread; he replieth; that al­beit we cannot say of Christs body that euer it was bread, no more then of heate that euer it was cold, nor of fire we can say that euer it was wood, though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced, Yet it may be said to haue bin of bread; because in this their prodigious Transfor­matio. Metamorpho­sis or Transmate­riatio. methyleosis, or what euer you will tearme it; (for new inuentions require new names) the whole substance (to vse his owne tearmes; that is both the matter and forme) of bread passeth into a praeexistent substance, to wit, Christs body, in the roome of it introduced, so as nothing thereof re­maineth, whereas in other naturall conuersions the matter re­maineth still, though receiuing another forme. In which few lines it is not easie to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmines doctrine, and to his owne assertions.

For first, If it cannot be said of Christs body that euer it was Bread; here is it affirmed by them, as Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c 14. Bellarmine himselfe also acknowledgeth, that Vocari pa­nem, quia au­teà suit panis. Christs body is there­fore called Bread, because it was bread before. Neither doth [Page 150] Bellarmine at all controle them therein: yea De Euchar. l. 3. c. 18. he confes­seth, In Thom. p. 3 q. 75. a. 4. with Caietan, that it may truly be said, Quod fuit panis, nunc est corpus Christi. That is now Christs body, that once was bread.

2. If it may be said to haue beene of bread, why may it not be said that once it was bread? as of Adam because he was Gen. 2. 7. 1. Cor. 15. 47. of the earth, it may truly be said that once Gen. 3. 19. hee was earth. As for his instances, they are idle: the one is of an accident not made of, but succeeding onely in the roome of another, or in the same subiect whence it hath expelled the other; and for the other we may say tru­ly that a fire made of wood, not onely was wood once, but is wood still, till the forme of the wood be vtterly destroi­ed, and the wood turned into coales, or dissolued into ashes; whereof we may also truly then say, that those coales or those ashes were once wood; in such sense as they say, that the rod was sometime a snake.

3. If it may at any time be said, Christs body hath beene of bread, it might at sometime be said, Christs body is of bread: and if of bread, why not Corpus pa­naceum. a breaden body? which yet Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 15. Bellarmine will by no meanes admit. For what is a body of bread (as was said before) but a breaden body, as a pot of earth, an earthen pot, a dish of wood, a wooddendish? &c.

4. Not to demand if nothing remaine of the bread, what figure, and colour, and weight, and taste it is that we dis­cerne in the Eucharist, whither the breads or Christs bodie; because for those things they tell vs that they hang, I know not how nor where, neither in the bread that now is not, nor in Christs body neither, Neque e­nim potest verè dici, hoc album & ro­tundum est corpus Chri­sti. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c 19. the accidents where­of they are not: and in that answer we must rest (though it be hard for any man indued with reason so to doe) for them; since no other from them can be had: I aske, if the whole substance of the bread be vtterly abandoned, so as nothing thereof remaineth; how saith Panis in Eu­charistia verè non annihila­tur. Bellarm. ibid. Bellarmine, and Quod panis substantia in nihilum vertatur, nemo dicit. Roffens. contr. Occolamp. lib. 2. c. 14. other of them, that the bread is not annihilated, or We doe not say that the substance of bread is cleerely consumed to nothing; as many haue dreamed, Harding ag. Apolog. part. 2. is not [Page 151] cleerely brought to nothing? and checke vs for Idem ibid. belying them when we say that any such thing is maintained by them? albeit their great Vel in prae­iacentem ma­teriam solui, vel in nihilum redigi. Lom­bard. sent. l. 4. d. 11. D. Master of the Sentences say as much. For how is it not annihilated, if nothing remaine of it?

5. If no bread bee left in the Eucharist, how said hee before, that Christ is there contained in bread; and that the ancient Fathers so affirme? For how can hee be contai­ned in that that is not?

6. If the whole substance of it be destroyed so that no­thing remaineth of it, how doth the whole substance of it passe (as hee saith) into Christs body? For how can that passe into it, that is not at all? Or how can that substance passe into the substance of some other thing, that vtterly perisheth and ceaseth to be, so soone as euer that other substance approacheth?

7. If the very substance of bread passeth into the sub­stance of Christs body, then Christs body (belike) doth not barely succeed in the roome of it, (as before was affir­med) but is produced therefore and consisteth of it, which yet Non est producti [...]a, sed adducti [...]a cō-uersio. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 18. they vsually deny. Else how doth the substance of the one passe into the substance of the other?

8. If the whole substance of bread (that is, both matter and forme) passeth into Christs body, why may it not as wel be said of Christs body, that that body was once bread; as of Exod. 4. 3. Moses his rod it might well bee said, that that rod was once a Snake; or of Ioh. 2. 9. the wine that our Sauiour so mira­culously produced, that that wine was sometime water? the rather since that but part of the substance, to wit, the matter onely of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there, whereas the whole substance (as this fellow beareth vs in hand) that is, both matter and forme of bread, passeth into Christs body here.

9. To say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting; is to say, that that is made, that already is, or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it, that is in beeing already, when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once; nor can beeing be giuen to that, that al­ready [Page 152] is; or to say, that a creature is now Actum age­re. Cic. de amic. made, that was fully made before, or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it: Yea (to speake more plainely) it is all one to as say, that a man is [...]. So­phocl. Antig. killed, when hee was dead before; or is quickened when [...]. Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 83. An ignoras nudum nec à decem palae­stritis despoli­ari posse? A­pul. metam. l. 1. Itaque maximas nu­gas agit, Nu­do detrahere vestimēta qui iubet. Plaut. Asin. 1. 1. hee was aliue before; or is now stript, when hee was starke naked before, or is now bred or begotten, when he was borne before.

Lastly, to say that Christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe, is all one as to say, that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yester­day gathered and pressed, and were yet growing the day before; or that an Oke hauing stood vpward of an hun­dred yeeres, and yet standing in the Forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth. And consider wee now how well these things agree together: The body of Christ is contained in the bread; and yet there is no bread at all in the Eucharist: The body of Christ suc­ceedeth onely in the roome of bread; and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of Christs body: The whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remai­neth of it, and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of Christs body: Christs body was in beeing before: and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not: yea Christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since, is now made of a wafer­cake of yesterdayes baking: The whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into Christs body; and yet wee cannot say of Christs body, that euer it was that wafer-cake. But like [...]. v [...]l. ar [...]a fine calce. ropes of sand (as wee are wont to say) doe these things hang together: and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed (I feare) as [...]. Dionys de di­uin nomin. c. 8. ridiculous, (to vse their Dennis his tearmes) as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little chil­dren haue in sport built vp of sand.

[Page 153] NEither is it a good or Christian kinde of Argument N. P. which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh; Other substantiall conversions are sen­sible and easily discerned, albeit miraculous, as when Aarons rod was made a Serpent, &c. Wheras in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary: therefore we are not to beleeue there­in any such conversion; citing thus for proofe thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margent, which directly if hee had marked it, overthroweth his owne doctrine, and purpose of citing it: That which you see (saith this Father) is bread and a Cup: but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of, is, that the bread is Christs body, and the Cup his blood. Could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensuall and absurd Argument; which were it good, would lead vs to beleeue nothing; Ad Heb. 11. faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses. How farre is this carnall, poore, vnlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine, as I haue formerly cited their assertions? wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses, and with the Apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the o­bedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith, humbly to bee vpon the warrant of Gods word assented vnto, and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. Lib. 8. Trin. We are (saith S. Hillarie, that great Doctor of Christs Church, and victo­rious Champion of his deity) not to dispute (as my Ad­versarie doth) in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things. For of this naturall veritie of Christ in vs (spea­king of the Sacrament) vnlesse we learne of Christ himself, we speake foolishly and impiously. Wherefore sithence hee saith, Ioh. 6. 55, 56. My flesh is truely food, and my blood is truely drinke: Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, re­maineth in mee and I in him: there is no place of doub­ting left cōcerning the verity of Christs body and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord and faithfull be­leefe which we haue thereof, it is his true flesh and blood: and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in Christ [Page 154] and Christ in vs. Is not this truth? Surely it is; but to those that deny Iesus Christ to be true God, &c. With a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable Testimonies of the ho­ly Fathers formerly touched could I confound my sensuall Ad­versary, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine Mysteries instituted by the Sonne of God with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs; wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them.

§ 4. NOw further, whereas I alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bo­dies T. G. there is a sensible change; whereas no such thing at all is found in the Sacrament: Our eyes, saith Augustine, in­forme vs that it is bread that is there. He telleth me, this is no good, nor Christian, but an absurd, secular, and senslesse arguing, and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see: and that Augustine, if I had marked him, whom I cite in the margent, (as if his very wordes were not in the text) vtterly ouerthroweth it: as also Hillarie and other Fathers, when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses, which this poore, carnall, vnlearned man his Adver­sarie is so farre from, &c. And withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity, (Oh how farre is this poore &c.) He telleth his Reader, that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy Fa­thers confound this his sensuall Adversarie, and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine myste­ries. Wel, when he doth this, you may beleeue that he can doe it: and his poore puny Adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it. But meane while let vs see what Pyrgopolinices here saith.

1. Augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the Sacrament, and something else is to bee belieued. But doth Augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there, though our eyes informe vs, that there is? [Page 155] No: He telleth vs expressely, that there is bread there, as our eyes doe informe vs. And what can be more euidently or plainely spoken? Yea but hee addeth withall, that our faith informeth vs that the bread is Christs body. Yea but, saith Bellarmine, that sentence is most absurd and impossible, if it be not meant figuratiuely. In which manner Augustine (as before was shewed) expoundeth himselfe else-where.

2. Doe the Fathers tell vs that in this holy Mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vs, as what our faith apprehendeth? And doe they not say the same of Baptisme, and of all mysteries or Sacraments in general? Heare we one or two of them speake for all. The Fa­thers of the Nicene Councell, whom before he alleaged: [...]. Gelas. Cyzic. act. Conc. Nic. diatyp. 4. Our Baptisme (say they) must not with bodily eyes be con­sidered, but with spirituall. Seest thou water? vnderstand the power of God hidden in it: conceiue it full of the holy Ghost, [...]. Ibid. and diuine fire. And then wil they the same regard to be had also at the Lords Table. That Ambrose that this Author and his Associates so oft cite, as making so much for them: Ambrosii nomine de sa­cram. l. 1. c. 2, 3. & de ini­tiand. c. 3. You are come (saith hee) to the Font: consider what you there saw; consider what you said, &c. You saw the Font; you saw water, &c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect. You saw not those things that worke and are not seene. The Apostle hath taught vs that wee are to behold not the things that are seene, but the things that are not seene. For farre greater are the things that are not seene, then those that are seene. Be­leeue not thy bodily eyes alone. That is better seene that is not seene. So Gregory Nyssene: Greg. Nyss. de sacr. bapt. Both the spirit and water con­curre in Baptisme. And as man consisteth of two parts, so are there medicines of like like appointed for either: for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense; for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene, nor doth appeare, but is called by faith, and commeth in an ineffable manner. Yet the water that is vsed in Baptisme, addeth a blessing to the Body bapti­sed. Wherefore doe not contemne the divine Laver: neither make little account of it as common, because of the water that [Page 156] is vsed in it. For it is a greater matter that it worketh: and marueilous effects proceed from it. And a little after of the Eucharist: ^y The bread also is at first common bread: but Idem ibid. when the Mystery hath sanctified it, it is called Christs bo­dy. And in like manner the wine, though it be a thing of small price before the blessing, yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the Spirit, both of them worke excel­lently. And so in many other things, if you regard it, you shall see the things that appeare to be, contemptible; but the things wrought by them, to be great and admirable. And so Chryso­stome speaking of those wordes of our Sauiour, Ioh. 6. 63. The wordes I speake are spirit and life. Chrysost. in Ioan. hom. 46. Lat. 47. Graec. To vnderstand (saith hee) things carnally, is to consider the things simply as they are spoken, and no otherwise. Where as [...], &c. all mysteries (and then not the Eucharist onely) are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible, but are to be considered with the inward eyes, that is, spiritually. And in particular of Baptisme Idem in 1. Cor. hom. 7. else-where: The Gospell is called a mystery, be­cause we beleeue not in it what we see; but wee see somethings, and beleeue other things. [...]. For that is the nature of our my­steries: which my selfe therefore and an Infidell are diversly affected with, &c. Hee when hee heareth of a Laver, thinketh it but bare water: but I consider not the thing seene simply, but the purging of the soule by the Spirit, &c. For I iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight, but with the eyes of my minde. Againe, I heare Christs body. I vn­derstand the thing spoken one way, and the Infidell another. And as children or vnlettered persons, when they looke on bookes, know not the power of the letter, nor know what they see: but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters con­tained, liues, or stories and the like, &c. [...]. So it is in this my­stery: the Infidels, though hearing, seeme not to heare; but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill, see the force of the things therein contained. Nothing then in this kinde is said of the Eucharist, but what is said of all Sacraments, and of Baptisme by name. Nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other.

[Page 157] Nor doth it follow that we would haue men to beleeue nothing but what they see, because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so. Tertul. de anima. cap. 7. Non licet no­bis in dubium sensus revoca­re: ne & Chri­sto de fide eo­rum delibere­tur. &c. We may not (saith Tertullian) call in question our senses; lest in so doing we detract credit from Christ himselfe, as if he might be mistaken when Luk. 10. 18. hee sawe Sathan fall downe, or Mat. 3. 17. & 17. 5. heard his Fathers voyce from heauen, or Mat. 26. 27, 28, 29. mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vpon him, or the Vini saporē quod in san­guinis sui me­moriam con­secrauit. tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memo­riall of his blood. Neither was nature deluded in the Apostles. Faithfull was 2 Pet. 1. 17, 18 their sight, and their hearing on the mount: Faithfull was their taste of the Ioh. 2. 9. wine that had beene water: Faithfull was Ioh. 20. 27. the touch of incredulous Thomas. (And yet, as Aug. in Ioan. tract. 79. Augustine well obserueth; Non hoc credidit quod vidit: Sed aliud vidit ali­ud credidit. Vidit enim hominē cre­didit Deum. Thomas saw one thing, and beleeued another thing: Hee saw Christ the man, and beleeued him to bee God: Hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not, by that which appeared to his bodily sen­ses. And when we are said to beleeue our eyes, Idem. ibid: saith hee, by those things that wee doe see, wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see.) In a word, Tertul. ibid. Rehearse mee (saith Tertullian) Iohns testimony: 1 Ioh. 1. 1. That which we haue heard and seene with our eyes, and felt with our hands, that declare we vnto you: Falsa vtique testatio, si o­culorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur. A false testimony (saith he, an vn­certaine at least) if the nature of our senses in our eyes, eares, and hands be such. But these men would haue vs as Num. 16. 14. the sonnes of Eliah speake, to thrust out our eyes, and as the Iewish Rabbines say (abusing Deut. 17. 11. a place of Scripture to that purpose) that a man must beleeue the High Priest in all things, yea Talmudici Glossatores in eum locum. teste Lyra in Deut. & Hieron. à S. Fide Hebraeomastig. l 2, c. 2. though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right, and his right hand the left: so they would haue vs to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope or they say, though they tell vs that, that both our sight and sense informeth vs to be most false.

§ 5. But to make good in part yet his former glori­ous [Page 158] flourish; hee citeth a place of Hilarie, where hee af­firmeth, that concerning the veritie of Christ in vs (not speaking, as hee here saith specially of the Eucharist, but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall) vn­lesse we speake as Christ hath taught vs, wee speake foolishly and impiously: that there is no place left to doubt of the veri­ty of Christs body and blood; that the Sacraments being re­ceiued cause that Christ is in vs, and we in him.

Now who (I pray you) doubteth of, or denyeth ought that is here said? who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught, but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated, and of a body of Christ made of bread, of Christs flesh contained in bread, or vnder the accidents of bread, and of his blood in the bread, and his body by a con­comitancie in the Cup, &c? Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood? For of the corporall pre­sence of either in the Sacrament, Hilarie hath not heere a word. Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries, Christ is (spiritually) in vs and we in him; Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it [...]. Rom. 6. 5. & Pachymer. in Dionys. hier eccles. c. 4. we are ingraffed into Christ? and Chrysostome, that Chrysost. in Ephes. hom. 20. by it we become flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone? Hila­ries scope is to shew that Ioh. 10. 30. Christ is one with God and his Father, and Ioh. 17. 21. 23. we one with him, not by consent of will onely, (as some Heretikes said) but by a true and reall vnion, yet 1 Cor. 6. 17. spirituall; as his words implie when he saith, Ioh. 6. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Ian­senius. Iansen. con­cord. Euag. cap. 59. They (saith hee) that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone, or in the Eucha­rist, are said to haue Christ abiding in them, and to abide themselues in him, in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ, whereby we are made 2 Pet. 1. 4. partakers of the divine nature. Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist, nor could Hilarie so meane, if he were [Page 159] otherwise of their minde, appeareth. For Christs body so taken as they imagine, doth not abide long in those that so receiue it, but by their owne doctrine goeth away a­gaine, I know not whither, a while after. Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there spea­keth of, We doe abide in him, and he in vs; that is, we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ, and he vnto vs (they are still Iansen. ibid. Iansenius his tearmes, and Per hono­rem nobis da­tum [...] Dei, & Permanen­tem in nobis carnaliter fili­um, & in co nobis corpo­raliter & inse­parabiliter v­nitis, mysteri­um verae & naturalis vni­tatis est praedi­eandū. Hilar. de Trin. l. 8. Et Ibid. Vt nos quoque in eo naturaliter inessemus, ip­so in nobis naturaliter per manente. Hila­rie also saith the same,) and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life, as we doe by the eating of corporall meate, that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it, but life permanent and eternall. Idem ibid. Whence it is manifest also (saith the same Author) that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacra­ments of his body and blood, since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them. But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood, as he there speaketh, who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde, and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life, do either by such faith alone, or in the holy Eucharist also, receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues, & imbrace him, and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them, as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire, commeth to vs, and is conferred on vs. Thus he; by whose words it plainely ap­peareth, that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs, which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of, dependeth not vp­on any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament, nor doth necessarily require the same: which Ideircò vo­luit Christus à nobis man­ducari, vt nos sibi incorporaret, quod non intelligitur nisi de spirituali manducatione; quia in sa­cramentali tantum non fit haec incorporatio. Biel in Can. Miss. lect 36. by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect.

Diuision 9.

HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes N. P. and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse. For wee denie not (as there he supposeth) the Sacramentall Signes contai­ning [Page 160] the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat di­stinct from themselues, to wit, the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them. They signifie like­wise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion. And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered, as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified: his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards, as Eusebius Emis­senus and other Fathers teach: and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories, &c.

MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments: whose nature is to signifie T. G. one thing, and to be another. The Argument is this:

No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie:

But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist:

They are not therefore essentially either.

To this idle and forcelesse Argument (as he pleaseth to style it) he thus answereth:

1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nu­trition of soules liuing by grace; as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion.

Now 1. what is this to mine Argument? was this man (thinke we) euer a disputant, that answereth Arguments on this wise? which part of my Syllogisme (I pray you) is this Answer applied to? I had thought that a Syllo­gisme being propounded, the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propo­sitions.

2. It is not true, that the bread and wine in the Sacra­ment are signes of these things. Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are. The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment, not nutrition. The eating and drinking is a signe of it. Signes [Page 161] they are of Christs body and blood; not of the dolorous se­uering of them in the passion, though their being apart is a signe of it also.

3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered: as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified; his trium­phant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen; and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie.

But 1. If signum & res signata, the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues (as without all Question they are) a Father may as well be a father to himselfe, as a signe may be the signe of it selfe. Not to adde that the Anci­ents (as hath formerly beene shewen) are wont to call the Sacraments pictures, and pledges: and it is against com­mon sense to say that ought is either a picture, or a pledge of it selfe.

2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present a Math. 17. 24 glorification, or that Math. 21. 7-10. his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen, whatsoeuer his bastard­ly Eusebius Emissenus say of it; whose authoritie is no bet­ter then his owne.

3. Let him haue what he would; that the one was a type of the other: Doth it follow; Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification: therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe?

4. An Emperour and his victorie (I suppose) are not all one; no more then Christs body and the glorification of it; nor againe the transfiguration, & the present glorification.

The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forceless [...] for ought that he hath yet shewed.

Diuision 10.

HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit N. P. indeede to be answered. For who but a babbling igno­rant [Page 162] Person would as he doth there, make such an inference? Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion (which tediously and needelesly he prooueth,) But they are not so in the Eucharist: Ergo, the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it. For if the Argument were good, we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus (for example) after he had blessed and brake bread, he vanished out of the Disciples sight; when he hid himselfe from the Iewes, who would haue stoned him, in the Temple, not by running into a corner (as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine) but by becom­ming vndiscernable by them; as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him to­wards the hill on which there Citie was built, whence they ment to tumble him. As if locall extension, visibilitie, palpa­bilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof. This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour.

MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of T. G. Christs Body, which hath slesh, blood and bones, is an organicall body, endued with limmes and lineaments, yea and life too. Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist, is (as Epiphanius well obserueth) liuelesse and limmelesse, &c. Now here, (according to his vsuall manner) he letteth the Argument goe, and falleth to raile downe right; that it is an argument grossely carnall, and vnfit indeede to be answered, of a babbling and ignorant per­son, and a stupide professour. He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him. Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it; he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise: Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable af­ter his Passion:

But they are not so in the Eucharist: ergò

Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh, blood and bones, and sense and life, and limmes and lineaments of a body [Page 163] organicall. But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these. And then he telleth vs that I might as well af­firme that Christ had no body when Luk. 24. 31. No more was done with Christ here, then with Philip. Act. 8. 39. at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples; when Ioh. 8. 59. he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple; when Luk. 4. 30. he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long, &c.

1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure, as his Disciples had, Luk. 24. 39. when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection, (which in prosecu­tion of mine Argument I produce also and presse) did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands, nor feete, flesh blood, nor bone, life nor limme; and the consequence shall then bee granted him; but neuer till then. And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had, when hee was here on earth, the same he retaineth still. Au­gustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still, and other bodily limmes and lineaments; Aug. epist. 149. Ego Do­mini corpus ita in coelo es­se credo, vt erat in terra, &c. I be­leeue (saith he) that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth, when he went vp into heauen. For so [...]uk. 24. 38, 39. when the Disciples doubted, whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw, he had them see and feele his hands and feete: for that a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw that hee had. So he was on earth; so he was seene to be when he went to heauen; and so shall he, as Act. 1. 11. the Angell told, come againe from thence. But such (wee are sure) their little breaden God is not. It is none of Christ therefore.

2. Looke how this man argueth, so did the Heret [...]kes of old, to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery, spirituall, aad fantasticall body. Ioan. Hie­roscl. Ep in Fpist Hieren. contr. [...]rror. [...]. Let it not deceiue you, you simple sots, (saith Iohn of Ierusalem) when you reade that Ioh. 20. 27. Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side, or when you heare him say, that he hath L [...]k. 24. 3 [...]. flesh and bones: These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples. But he shewed that hee had an ai [...]ry and spirituall body in truth, when Ioh. 2. 19. he came to his Disciples while [Page 164] the doores were shut, and Luk. 24. 31. hee vanished out of their sight. And to the like purpose did Tertul. contr. Mare. l. 4 & Hieron. ad Pāmachi. the Marci [...]nites vrge his Luk. 4. [...]0. escape frō those of Nazareth. Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer? Tertul, cōtr. Marc lib. 4. That Christs body (saith Ter­tullian) is no fancy euer, hereby appeareth, in that it end [...]red violent handling, when hee was taken and held, and haled to the hill-brow. For Etsi per me­dios euasit, sed ante iam vim expertus, & poste à di­missus scil. soluto, vti as­solet, tumul­tu, vel etiam irrupto, non tamen per ca­liginem eluso &c. albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them, being first forcibly held, and after let goe, ei­ther the throng being dissolued, or forcibly broken through; yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion. For he had a true body still, and hands that hee touched others still with, and were by them felt; (and then his body belike was not im­palpable as this fellow saith it was.) And againe, Idem contr. eund. lib. 5. when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet, without doubt he hath hands, and feet, and bones, which a spirit hath not. And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem; Hieron. ad Pāmach. con­tra error. Io­an. Hieros. As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side; so hee ate truely with them, spake with his tongue truely to them, and with his hands truely brake, and reached them out bread. For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight; as before his pas­sion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them, that is, he made an escape out of their hands, Virtus Dei est, non vm­btae aut phan­tasmatis. it was done by his diuine power, not by any fantasticall delusion. Quod Ma­gis licet, hoc Domino non licet? Apol­lonius, &c. repente non comparuit. Noli poten­tiam Domini Magorū prae­stigiis coaequa re, vt videatur fuisse quod nō suit, comedisse sine dentibus, fregisse panem sine manibus, ambulasse sine pedibus, locutus sine lingua, latus [...]stendisse sine costis. Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done? Apol­lonius, as he stood in the Court before Domitian, vanished suddenly out of sight. Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not, to eate without teeth, breake bread without hands, walke without feet, speake without tongue, shew a side without ribs. And whereas it might be deman­ded how it came to passe that Luk. 24. 16. those two Disciples did not know him, till a little before hee left them; Hieron. ibid. Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe, that it was not be­cause his body was not the same it had beene, but because their eyes were held that they might not know him. And the same [Page 165] Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages, Idem in E­pitaph. Paulae. Christ (saith hee) had hands and sides, had breast and bel­lie too: he that had hands and feete, had armes and thighes too. And seeing hee had all the members of the body, hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those mem­bers. Let vs reason backward, as well wee may. If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes, then he hath all those limmes, whereof such a body consisteth. And then let vs say to these, as he then to them, Idem. ibid. You heare of flesh, and feet, and hands, and other limmes. And Sticorum globos & a [...] ­ria quaedam deliramenta. doe you forge vs some Globosam siue rotundā formam Diis dabant Stoici. Ex Sen ep. 94. Lips. physiol. Stoic. l. 1. c. 8. Stoicall round bals, and aiery dotages. (As these doe little round wafer-cakes, which they beare vs downe to be Christs body.) He alludeth to the Stoicks, who held that the Gods had some shape; and Nec tamen ea species cor­pus est sed quasi corpus; nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi san­guinem. C [...]c. de nat. Deor. l. 1. that shape was as a body, but yet no body; and had as it were blood and yet no blood. Wherein the Marcionites also in a man­ner agreed with them, (and our Romanists at this day with either) imagining our Sauiour (Tertul. de carne Chri­sti & contr. Marc. saith Tertullian) to haue Vt carnem gestaret sine ossibus durā, sine mus. ulis solidam, sine sanguine cru­en [...], sine tunica vestitam, sine same esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lin [...] [...]quer tē. flesh hard without bones, solide without muscles, bloody without blood, clad without coate, speaking without tongue, eating without teeth, &c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth, that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Descipl [...]s, they that imagined such a Christ as this, Ecce [...], decipit, circumuenit omnium o [...]ulos, sensus, access [...]s, contactus. Ergò Christum non de coelo deferre debueras, sed de caetu aliquo circul [...]torio, spe­ctaculi artificem, non salutis Pontificem, that deceiueth, beguileth, and deludeth all mens eyes, and senses and touchings, (and taste too hee might haue said, we at least may say) should not bring him from heauen (from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body, though the Papists dare not say, they haue theirs from thence) but fetch him rather out of some So translate I him, aliuding to our En­lish phrase. His sense is apparent. iuglers box (the Popish pyx, or the like) not to worke saluation, but to make sport with. This I haue the rather in­sisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits [Page 166] about this their breaden God; and strange fantasticall body, that hath all parts of a mans body, and yet none at all to be seen, felt, heard, yea or vnderstood, with the Hereticks of old time; and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did, by the ancient Fathers long since answered: As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments a­gainst them, that we doe now against these; which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered.

§ 2. Oh but (saith hee) it is a grosse kinde both of di­uinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor, to hold that locall extention, visiblitie, palpability, and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it.

1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage, or in their lying Legends they haue en­deauoured to obtrude vpon the world: To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature, and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth, or goe downe a childs throat, or to make Ex vi Sa­cramenti sub specie panis continentur, non solum ca­ro, sed totum corpus Chri­sti, soil. osla & nerui, & a­lia huiusmodi; non enim di­citur, Haec est caro mea, sed, Hoc est cor­pus meum. Thom. Aq sum. part 3. q. 76. a. 1. ad 2. a mans body consisting of flesh, blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all, not other acci­dents and properties of a naturall body; is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be, to be a body and no body; which implyeth contradicti­on. And Quae contradictionem implicant, sub divina omni­potentia non continentur. Idem ibid. part. 1. q. 25. a 3. those things that imply contradiction, they thē ­selues grant that God cannot doe. For it were to make fals­hood truth; which hee that is Elohim emeth Deus veri­ [...]as. Ier. 10. 10. Ioh. 14. 6. Truth it selfe can neuer doe.

2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret, to maintaine their absurd do­tages [Page 167] against the Orthodox Christians, who likewise an­swered them then, as wee doe these now. [...]. Eranista a­pud Theod. dial 1. & 3. There is no­thing (saith the Hereticke) that God cannot doe. Wee say, that Mar. 10. 27. all things are possible with God. And Iob saith, that Iob. 42. 2. God can doe all things, and there is nothing impossible with him. There is nothing therefore but he can doe, that is able to doe all things. Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this? Theodoret. ibid 3. God (saith hee) can do Psal. 115. 3. & 135. 6. whatsoeuer he will: But [...]. God neither can doe, nor will any thing which is not a­greeable to his owne nature. As for example Iam. 1. [...]. he cannot sin; Tit. 1. 13. hee cannot ly, Psal. 92. 15. nor do any vniust thing, being iustice and truth it selfe. [...]. Many things there are therefore that God, that can doe all things, yet cannot doe. Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them, no argument at all of any im­potency in him. This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then; and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries, fighting with the same weapons that they then did, for points as absurd as euer any of them held.

Diuision 11.

ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously pro­secuted N. P. pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven, hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament. Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine, Aug. lib 2 [...]. de Ciuit. Dei, cap. 51. Be­hold with what manner of Arguments humane infi [...]mity possessed with vanity, contradicteth Gods omnipotency. As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vt­most limit and extention of Gods power, which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles: of which (as I haue said) no other reason can be giuen, but that hee is omnipotent that did them, and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them. Can wee con­ceiue (for example) the creation of the world of nothing at [Page 168] all preexisting; the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuer­sions into other things altered and consumed; the personall vnion of man with God; the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire; the consubstantiall subsi­sting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons; and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament; yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued? Can this Minister tell me (to come more neerely to our purpose) how our Sauiour ap­peared visibly to S. Paul on earth (as diuerse plaine texts im­port, particularly by Bellarmine Lib. de Eu­char. produced and discussed) and yet (as himselfe will not deny) still remaining in heauen? Or can he tell me, how our Sauiours body went out of his Se­pulcher, without remoouing that huge stone, rolled afterward by the Angell from it? Or how hee entred the house, the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples; as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted? Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them? Sithence it is equally a­boue nature for many bodies to possesse one place, as for one bo­die to be in many places. And if according to Christian true Philosophy, the soule of man being a spirituall and indiuisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of mans body exercising all distinct operations in them, why is it impossible for God to giue his humane body distant presences and a spiri­tuall manner of being in the Sacrament? when as by personall vnion with himselfe, he giueth to the same body a far higher and more inconceiuable manner of beeing.

MY fift Argum [...]nt is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and en­tire T. G. in many places at once, much lesse in places as farre di­stant, as East and West, Heauen and Earth.

Now heere againe is hee faine to fly (as before) to Gods omnipotency. That is their [...]. Quem aduo­cabant Comi­ci, vbires hae­rere videba­tur. Deus è machina; as they [Page 169] had wont to speake; that is the knife still at hand to helpe to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and ab­surd fantasies they haue snarled themselues in. And the better to enforce this Catholicon Medicorum, siue Panacaeú Papisticum. Catholike Answer, that se [...]ueth them for the saluing of all sores, hee reckoneth vp a long bead roll of wonderfull works; as the Creation, the Resur­rection, the Hypostaticall vnion, the Trinity in Unity, the torment of Spirits by corporall fire, Christ comming out of the Sepulcher without remooving the huge stone, his entring into the house while the doores were still shut, his appearing to Paul on earth while hee was still in heauen, (which he tel­leth vs Bellarmine hath plainely prooued) his piercing of the solide Orbes of heauen in his Ascention, the soule being at once entirely in distant parts of mans body, &c. And then demandeth why God cannot cause Christs body to be as well one and the same, whole and entire in so many seuerall distant places at once; the rather since that it is equall aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place, as for one body to be in many places.

1. Here are diuers things that are questionable both in Diuinity and Philosophy: which albeit he take pro con­cessis, will not so easily be granted him, till they be bet­ter prooued then as yet they are, howsoeuer we exclude not diuerse of them out of the reach of Gods omnipotency, euen as he vnderstandeth them; as

1. The manner of the Vise Iul. Scalig. de sub­til. exercit. 307. Sect. 29. Aegidium in l. 2. de anima. c. 2. q. 6. & Hospinian. de sede anim. soules being in distant parts of the body is disputable: nor is there the same reason of bo­dies and of spirits.

2. The torment of spirits whether it be by corporall fire or no, is not agreed on as a matter of faith; De purgat. l. 2. c. 11. Bellarmine himselfe so confesseth.

3. The manner of Act. 9. 17. Christs apparition to S. Paul is not certaine. Neither doth Bellarmine prooue that Christ was below on earth, or neere the earth in his humanity; nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. Act. 7. 56. Steuen saw him in heauen, the heauens opened: 2 Cor. 12, 2, 3, 4. Paul was rapt vp [Page 170] himselfe into heauen. Yea Apparuit il­li primum in coelo. Ambr. hom. in 1. Cor. 15. in heauen, and Superna ei pietas coelos aperuit, sese (que) illi Iesus de sublim [...]bus ostendit. Greg. mor. l. 19. c. 5. from heauen it was that Christ appeared to him; if we may beleeue Pope Gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for Ambrose. Nor can Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 3. Bellarmine produce any one of the Ancients that saith otherwise. Howbeit neither do we so pen vp Christ in heauen, but that he may at his pleasure (though ordi­narily he doth not) descend.

4. For Ioh. 20. 19. Christs comming in to his Disciples when the doores were shut. Why might not (as Ierome speaketh) Creaturam cedere crea­tori. Hieron. ad Pāmach. contr. error. Ioan. Hieros. the creature giue way to the Creator; as Act. 12. 10. the iron gate did to Peter? Durand. in senten. l. 4. d. 44. q. 6. ad. 3. It is said, saith Durand, one of their Schoole­men, that Christ came when the doores were shut: but it is not said, that he came in through the doores so shut: he might enter in by some other place; or cause the doores to open sud­denly, and shut instantly againe.

5. For Christs resurrection; Let him heare the same Durand. Idem ibid. ad 2. It cannot (saith hee) be prooued by any Text of Scripture, that Christ rose againe while the Tombe was so shut: and so consequently that his body passed through the stone. Or if Durands authority will not serue; let them heare Pope Leo in one of his decretall Epistles: Reuoluto monumenti lapide caro surrexit. Leo Pp. epist. 83. Christs body (saith he) rose againe the stone being rolled away.

6. For his Ascension; to omit, that this Vid: Zanc de operibus creat part. 2. l. 2. c. 3. Th. 3 Et Keckerm. system. physic. l. 2 c. 2. solidity of the Orbes is in Philosophy a thing questionable; and such a point, as if it bee denyed, this great Doctor will hardly be euer able to make good: I answer with Durand; that Durand. vbi sup. ad 1. Whether the heauens bee divisible in their owne nature, or by divine vertue, (as the one they well may bee, and the other certainly they are) there is no necessity that Christs body in his Ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the Orbes.

So that in none of these Examples there is any necessi­tie of two bodies being in one place at once. Which yet if it were prooued (if they will beleeue their owne Schoole­men) were not suffiicient. For howsoeuer this great Do­ctor tell vs, that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to [Page 171] be in one place, and for one body to bee in many places: yet they say, that it is not so. Tho. Aqui. quodlib. 1. art. 22. Though two bodies (saith A­quinas) may be in one places at once; yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once. The former is not possible but by miracle; the latter not at all. Durand. in 4. d. 4. q. 6. ad 1. It is not alike (saith Durand) for two bodies to be at once in one place; and for one body to be at once in more places then one. For the one implieth a contradiction; the other doth not, (the former he meaneth) though it may seeme so to doe.

2. And so he hath a direct answer, why wee deny that a body can be in diuerse places at once; notwithstanding we beleeue and acknowledge Gods wonderfull workes of Cre­ation, Resurrection, Christs Incarnation, and those vnsear­chable mysteries of the Trinitie, and Hypostaticall vnion, &c. because the one implyeth a contradiction, those other doe not.

And here let me entreat the Reader (since that these men so much presse vs with Gods omnipotency) to cast his eye backe with me to those manifold Diuis. 2. sect. 4. num. 3. impossibilities be­fore mentioned, and by themselues acknowledged, euen in this very businesse concerning the Sacrament. Where­by it may appeare, that they make vse of it onely to serue their owne turnes, vrging it then when it may stead them, and denying it then when it doth not. To recite againe some one or two of them onely, adding one or two more to them Bellarm, de Euchar. [...]. 3. c. 19. Luthers opinion (saith Bellarmine) cannot be true: because Nullo mo­do fierr potest vt vna res non mutetur, & ta [...]en [...] alia. it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed, and yet should become another. And Impossibile rem vnā con­verti in aliam, nec tamen in ea parte desinere esse quod erat. Lanfranc. contr. Bereng. It is impossible (saith Lanfranck) that one thing should be turned into another, and not cease to be, so farre forth as it is converted. Supra Diui [...]. 2. It is impossible (saith this Defendant, that can­not endure here to heare of any impossibility) That a man should be a Rocke, or a Uine. And Fieri non potest vt pauis sit corpus Christi. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. [...]. 1 [...]. It is impossible (saith Bellarmine) that bread should bee Christs body. Non potest esse aliquis simul in diuersis temporibus. Fr. Mairon, in sent, l. 4. d. 11. q. 1. It is not [Page 172] possible (saith Maironis) that one should be in two times at once. (And is it not as impossible then, for one to bee in two places at once?) And Idem effe­ctus non po­test habere plures causas totales. Ibid. it is impossible that one single effect should haue diuerse totall causes: and Ideò idem a [...]idens non potest esse in diuersis sub­iectis. Ibid. impossible therefore that one and the same accident should bee in diuerse subiects. (And why not as impossible for one subiect to haue diverse accidents, as diuerse seates, sites, qualities, and quantities at once? which Christsbody must needs haue, i [...] it bee with vs in the Eucharist.) Vnde & idē non potest si­mul moueri motibus op­positis. Du­rand. in sent. l. 4. d. 10. q. 3. It is impossible (saith Durand) that one and the same thing should mooue two contrary wayes at once. And Impossibile est quod vnus motus eiusdē corporis loca­liter moti ter­minetur simul ad diuersa [...]o­ca. Thom sum. p. 3. q 75. a. 2. It is impossible (saith Aquinas) that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuerse seuerall places at once. And Impossibile est idem esse motum & qui­etum. Ibid. q 76. a. 6. It is impossible that one and the selfe same thing should both rest and stirre at once. And yet should Christs body, if it were in the Host, or if it were the very Host rather, doe all this, when at the same time it both resteth in the Pyx in one place, and goeth in Procession in ano­ther place, and is in diuerse processions, or on sundry se­uerall occasions carried contrary wayes to seuerall per­sons and places at the same instant. No more therefore doe we curb or restraine Gods [...]mnip [...]tency, when we deny that a body can bee by any meanes in two distant places at once, then they doe, when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken. And for the reason of our denyall, let them heare be side Durands, Aquinas his confession. V [...]um cor­pus non potest esse in lu [...]bus locis. V [...] enim corpus esse localiter in duobus lo­cis implicat contradictio­nem. Thom. Aq. quodlib. 1. art. 22. For one body (saith hee) to bee locally in two places at once, it implieth a contradiction: and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once; no not by miracle neither: For those things that imply contradiction God cannot do. Deus non potest sacere, vt vnum corpus localiter sit si­mul in duobus locis. Idem quodli I. 3. art. 2. God there­fore cannot make a body to bee locally in two places at once. The very selfe same saith Aegid. Rom. quodlib 1. q. 1. Aegidius too: and A­molynus on him; that Si es­sent mille miracula, non adaequarent potentiam ad id quod implicat contradictione. Laurent. Amolyn. in eund. ibid. although a thousand miracles were wrought, nothing could bee effected that implyeth a contra­diction; as this doth.

[Page 173] CErtainely the holy Fathers doubted not to affirme that N. P. Christ left his body here on earth, and yet assumed with him the same bodie into heauen; hee held his body in his owne hands at his last Supper, and distributed it severally to his Apostles; as hath beene already out of S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, and other holy Fathers formerly by me alle [...]d­ged. Insomuch as Melancthon one of the maine pillars of Protestant Religion, vnderstood the opinion of the holy Fa­thers so well in this point, and attributed so much withall to Gods omnipotency, as hee writeth thus of this very Argu­ment. Epist. ad Martinum Ge [...]ob. I had rather offer my selfe to death then to af­firme as Zwinglians doe, that Christs body cannot bee but in one place at once. And S. Augustine (as Bellar­mine prooueth) was so farre from denying this to the bodie of Christ, as he doubted whether the holy Martyrs may not be at the selfe same time in severall Churches and Memories erected of them; albeit naturally no spirit nor body can bee more then in one place, or remaine without some certaine place of beeing: which latter is in the places ciced by this Mini­ster out of him onely affirmed. And if a perfect substance or nature (as was the humanity of Christ) could want the na­turall personality and subsistence thereof, supplyed by the di­vine person and hypostasis of the Sonne of God (as our Chri­stian faith teacheth vs) why cannot in like manner by Gods omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remaine without actuall inhering and being in their naturall subiect?

His other Arguments page 15. are drops of an after­storme, and obiections gathered out of S. Augustine, which doe onely prooue that Christ is not visibly but in heauen; not denying his sacramentall beeing in many places; as this Mi­nister would haue him. And surely our Saviour himselfe in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn, verse 61. solueth this very ob­iection (as S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth him) when per­ceiving that his Disciples murmared at his promise of giuing his flesh for meate, &c. he said to them, Doth this scanda­lize you? If then you shall see the Sonne of Man ascen­ding where he was before, &c. As if hee had said; Are [Page 174] you scandalised that I said being now present with you, I will giue my flesh for food? what then will you doe, or how farre will▪ you be from beleeuing that I canso giue you my flesh, when I [...]ll ascend to heauen and be absent so sarre from you?

§ 2. THe places of the Fathers here pointed at, were before answered, where by him they were a [...] T. G. large alledged. And howsoeuer Augustine Aug. de cu­ra pro mort. ger. c. 16. spake mo­destly (after his manner) of a difficult Question, not da­ring peremptorily to determine by what meanes that was effected, that by diuers other meanes might be: yet in his bookes against Fa [...]stus the Manichie hee saith ex­pressely and peremptorily, that Secundum presentiā cor­poralem simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in Cruce esse nō potest. Aug. contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 11. Christ in regard of his bodily presence could not bee at once in the Sunne and in the Moone, and vpon the Crosse also: as they absurdly imagi­ned and maintained that he was. And againe in his Com­ment aries on the Gospell of S. Iohn; not (as Bellarmine corruptly citeth him, as hee doth also many others) that Corp. Chri­sti, in quo re­surr. vno in loco esse po­test. Bellar. de Euthar. l. 2. c. 24. Christs body in which he rose againe, M AY be; but (as Vno in loco esse oportet. Aug. in Ioan. tr. 30. Peter Lombard, Petr. Lomb. sen. l. 4. d. 10. A and other of their owne Authors ac­knowledge him to say) that Grar. de consecr. d. z. c. 1. Thom. in 4. d. 10. a. 1. Scot. in 4. q. 3. & alii. ibid. it MVST be in one place; howsoeuer his verity (that is, his Deitie) be every where. Yea discusing the question at large in one of his Epistles, and hauing concluded the Negatiue, hee saith that Cauendum ne veritatem corporis auferamus, August. Epist. 17. they take away the truth of his body, that maintaine it to be in many places at once: Whereas though Immortalitatem dedit, na­turam non abstulit. Ibid. immortality bee conferred on it, yet nature is not taken from it. To which purpose hee disputeth much of the nature of a true body, and deliuereth those things, which I presse out of him: all which together with the testimonies of other of the Ancients this superficiall Answerer passeth ouer with sad silence; onely boldly and b [...]asen facedly auouching that all that is alleadged out of Augustine prooueth nothing but this, that Christ is not visibly but in Heauen. Did hee thinke that his Reader would not cast an eye on them, [Page 175] whem they were verbatim set downe before him?

§ 3. Yea but our Saviour himselfe (he saith) solveth this Obiection, Iohn 6. 61. as Chrysostome vnderstandeth him, when hee saith, Doth this scandalize you? What if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where hee was before, &c? as if hee had said; Are you scandalized be­cause I said being now, present with you, I will giue my flesh for food? What then will you doe, or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I can so giue you my flesh when I shall as­cend to heauen, and be so farre aboue from you?