The Summe of all that hath beene said.

1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour, This is my Body, may not be figuratiuely vnderstood, is by Cardinal Caietan confessed.

2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually, is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note: and is, beside other Reasons, by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued.

3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same, and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood, is euinced by diuers Arguments.

1. From the Course of the Context, which plainely sheweth, that Christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed.

2. From the expresse words of Scripture, that calleth the one Bread, and the other Wine, euen after consecration.

3. From the Nature of Signes, whose propertie it is to be one thing, and to signifie another thing.

4. From the Nature of Christs Body, that hath flesh, blood, and bones, which the Eucharisticall bread hath not, that. which our taste, our sight, and our sense informeth vs, by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body.

5. From the nature of euery true Body, such as Christs is, which cannot be in many places at once, nor haue any part of it greater then the whole.

6. From the qualitie of the Communicants, good and bad, promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist, whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ.

7. From these infirme and vnseemely, yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually, or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist, which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body.

Whence I conclude, that since this Corporall presence, such as the Church of Rome maintaineth, hath no warrant from Gods word, as their owne Cardinal confesseth; and is besides contrary to Scripture, to nature, to sight, to sense, to reason, to religion, we haue little reason to receiue it, as a truth of Christ, or a principle of Christianitie, great reason to reiect it, as a figment of a mans braine, yea as a doctrine of the diuell, inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie.

It is the Rule of a Schooleman.

We ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of Durand. in sent. lib. 4. dist. 11. quaest. 3. Non oportet difficu tates fidei difficultatibus superaddere; quin potius iuxta documentum Scripturae conandum est obscuritates elucidare. Et ideò, ex quo vnus modus est clarè possibilis & intelligibilis, alius antem non est intelligibilis, videretur probabiliter quod ille qui est possibilis & intelligibilis, est et eligendus & tenendus. Christian beliefe. But rather according to that which the Scripture teacheth, we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure. And therefore since that the one manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible, whereas the other is not intelligible (yea, nor possible neither,) it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is possible and intelligible should be chosen and held.

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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Xenoph. in sympos. Et inde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Pho • . bibliot. cod. 89. Et. ibid. de altero. illo; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 Dr. 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 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 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.

Absurd Positions, and Contradictions. 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. 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. Crosse and wilfull falshoods and falsifications. 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 • 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 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.

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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Doe not regard (saith he) these things, as bare • read and wine. And in Catech. mystag. 3. the Catechising next before; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the inuocation of the holy Ghost, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . no longer bare bread, but Christs bodie: so this holy Oyntment after inuocation is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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 Priest reaching somewhat to thee: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the people are all died purplered in it with Christs blood; and afterward of Baptisme, that in it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sirac. 50. 16. 1 Mac 6. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Eustath. ad Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Clem. •… ex. paed. l. 1. c. 6. Vinum sanguinem terrae dixit Androcydes apud Plin. hist. nat. l. 14. c. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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, 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.

Orthodox.

Theodoret. Dialog. 2. qui & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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?

Heretike.

Of the Lords Body and Blood.

Orthodox.

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

Heretike.

Of one that is truly.

Orthodox.

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.

Heret.

True.

Orthodox.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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.

Heret.

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.

Orthodox.

I will.

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

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

Heretike.

Answere then aenigmatically.

Orthodox.

The foode that is made of certaine graine.

Heret.

The other Signe, how call you it?

Orthodox.

By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke.

Heret.

But after sanctification how doe you call them?

Orthodox.

The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.

Heret.

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

Orthodox.

I doe beleeue so.

Heret.

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.

Orthodox.

You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

Heretike.

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.

Orthodox.

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 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.

Orthodox.

Theodoret Dialog. 1. qui & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine?

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

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

Heretike.

Wine.

Orthodox.

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

Heretike.

Ioh. 19. 34. Water and Blood.

Orthodox.

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.

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

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

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

Doe you not know that God called his body Bread?

Heretike.

I know it.

Orthodox.

And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate.

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . he called Bread his Body; and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup, Blood.

Heretike.

He did so call them.

Orthodox.

Yea but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body; and in like manner his Blood.

Heretike.

It is acknowledged.

Orthodox.

Our Sauiour indeede, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

Heretike.

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

Orthodox.

Because his will was, that those that are partakers of those 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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. 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, 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 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:

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . enigmaticall ensoldments, bee declared brightly vnto vs, and replenish our intellectuall eye sights with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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:

O aue, Crux, spes vnica: Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis iustitiam; Reis que dona veniam. All h • ile, O Crosse, our onely Hope; This Passion time [thy power set ope:] In righteous Persons grace encrease: To sinfull soules their sinnes release.

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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sacrificium quod signis continetur. Lauss. the symbolicall celebration (or, holy administration) of them, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . according to diuine Tradition: Wherefore religiously and hierarchically (that is, as becommeth an Hierarch, or a Bishop) after the holy celebration (or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Diuinorum operū laudes. solemne praise) of those diuine workes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the bread that was hitherto couered and vndiuided, and diuiding it into many pieces, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . distributing to them all the one onely Cup, be doth symbolically, further their vnitie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . thereby performing his most holy seruice. Now where is there here any mention 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 2. Cor. 2. 16. no man is sufficient, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . a symbolicall seruice; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . a distribution of bread and a Cup: and the bread and the Cup vsed in it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . symboles or signes, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . images, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . pictures, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . paternes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . resembling the truth of their principals, to which he doth also there oppose thē. And not we, but the Monke Maximus aunciently expounding him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Maxim. Schol. in Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3. Marke you (saith he) how still he calleth this diuine seruice a Symbolicall seruice; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . a seruice (saith he) consisting of Symboles or Signes; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Maxim. ibid. the holy gifts themselues signes or symboles of the true things aboue. And againe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid. He calleth them pictures and images of true things vnseene. And if we aske him what that word Symbole or Signe signifieth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Idem in schol. because these things are Symboles and Signes, they are not therefore the truth it selfe. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . doubled, while 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the truth is shewed in the type, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Maxim in lib de diuin. nomin. c. 4. for it were then no type: But these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 Non iam communi pani, &c. common bread: as before him Iustin Martyr, that they receiued those creatures 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist: which these men vtterly deny. Secondly, they will vs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . truely receiue them: which that we doe truely also and effectually (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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 16. 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

Lastly, for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist; let him but compare them with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. 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;

Non est panissed est Deus Qui in cruce pependisti Non augetur consecratus; Nec diuisus in fractura, Homo liberator meus: Et in carne defecisti: Nec cōsumptus fit mutatꝰ; Plenus D • us iu statura.

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.

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. 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, 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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; 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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.