SECT. I.

IT would be a wonder to us, to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent, con∣cerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable, or Reconciliable, upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo, Page  148 (that is) of the manner of Being, and that consequently all Con∣troversie about this is but vaine Iangling. Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts, to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies, albeit their diffe∣rence from the Orthodoxe profession were only De modo. As for example, First, The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's begin∣ning by manner of Production, from the substance of God. The Catholikes said nay, but by manner of Creation, of nothing. The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts, from the grace of Nature. The Catholikes nay; but by speciall grace of Christ, freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit. The Catharists held themselves pure, in a purity of an absolute per∣fection: The Catholikes nay, but by an Inchoative, comparative, and imperfect perfection of purity. Furthermore against our Chri∣stian Faith, of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit; the Anthre∣pomorphites conceived of God, as of one (after the manner of men) consisting of Armes and Legges, &c.

Not to be tedious. We come to the Sacraments. The Cataphry∣gae did not baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity, after the man∣ner of the Catholikes. The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese. To omit many others, take one poniard, which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes of the Cause (to wit) the heresie of the Capernaits, in the dayes of our Saviour Christ: who hearing his Sermon, teaching men to Eate his flesh; and conceiving thereby a carnall manner of Eating, irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall manner, which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ, departed from Christ, and Apostated from the Faith. And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiti∣call; her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious; her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous; and all these manners Irreconci∣liable to the manner of our Church, is copiously declared in the Bookes following. For this present we are to exhibit the different, and contradictory manners, concerning the Presence of Christ herein.

The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants. 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome.

SECT. II.

THere may be observed foure kindes of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament: one is veritas Signi, that is Truth Page  149 of Representation of Christ his Body; the next is Veritas Revelatio∣nis, Truth of Revelation; the third is Veritas Obsignationis, that is, a Truth of Seale, for better assurance; the last is, Veritas Exhibi∣tionis, the truth of Exhibiting, and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants. The Truth of the Signe, in respect of the thing signified, is to be acknowledged so farre, as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ. which Truth and Reality is celebrated by us, and taught by ancient Fathers, in contradiction to Ma∣nichees, Marcionites, and other old Heretikes; who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body, but meerely Phantasticall, as you a your selves well know. In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius (as your b Cardinall witnesseth) called the Eu∣charist it selfe, the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius, in the sence of Theodoret, (by whom he is cited, against the Heresie of his time) doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ, because (as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe) it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ: and, as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe [This is my Body] that is (saith hee) This Bread is a Signe, or Figure of my Body. Now because it is not a Signe, which is not of some Truth, (* for as much as there is not a figure of a figure) therefore Bread being a signe of Christs Bodie, it must follow, that Christ had a true Body. This indeed is Theo∣logicall arguing, by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes, that denied the Truth of Christ's Body. Which control∣leth the wisdome of your c Councell of Trent, in condemning Protestants, as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament, because, they say, he is there present in a Signe. As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe, or Figure; which were to abolish all true Sacraments, which are true Figures, and Signes of the things which they represent.

A second Truth and Reality in this Sacrament is called Veri∣tas Revelationis, as it is a signe, in respect of the Typicall Signes of the same Body, and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testa∣ment; yet not absolutely in respect of the matter it selfe, but of the manner, because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ, and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body, and Blood of Christ, but in a difference of manner. For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy Seate, but with different faces oppositely: so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body, but with divers aspects. For the Rites of the old Testament were, as d Saint Augustine teacheth, Propheticall pre∣nunciating, and fore-telling the thing to come: but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall, annunciating and revealing the thing done, Page  150 the former shewed, concerning Christ his Passion, rem faciendam, what should be; the latter rem factam, the thing done, and fulfilled. As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophesie, because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that, which was promised: So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to containe in it a more reall verity, then the Leviti∣call. Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * Shadowes, in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell; according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet, in that hee * foretold Christ, as now to come: but he was called more then a Prophet, as demonstrating and * pointing him out to be now come. Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament, as if the Truth were in these, and not in them, as e Origen did.

Besides the former two, there is Veritas Obsignationis, a Truth sea∣led, which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe, even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ; for so the Apostle called Circumcision (albeit a Sacrament of the old Law) the * Seale of Faith. But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme, in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments; which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth, which they present, are called by o∣ther ancient Fathers (as well as by f Saint Augustine) visible Seales of divine things. So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Signe or signification, but under a Seale of Confirmation also: which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth, thereby represented unto us. This might have beene the reason, why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g Present both in Baptisme, and at receiving the Lord's Supper.

A fourth Reason to be observed herein, as more speciall, is Veri∣tas Exhibitionis, a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faith∣full Communicants the thing signified, and sealed, which Christ expressed, when he delivered it to his Disciples, saying; [Take, eate, this is my Body given for you: and, this is my Blood shed for you.] Thus Christ, by himselfe; and so doth he to other faithfull Com∣municants wheresoever, to the ends of the World, by his Mini∣sters, as by his hands, through virtue of that Royall Command, [DOE THIS.] Vaine therefore is the Obiection made by your h Cardinall, in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius, to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers; As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall, and sacramentall deli∣verance of Christ his Body, except it were by a corporall, and materiall presence thereof: which is a transparent falsity, as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift, which by writing, seale, and delive∣ry conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man; yet this farre more effectually, as afterwards will appeare. But first we are to manifest.

SECT. III.

BEllarmine, with others i obiect against Protestants, saying, that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread, and pit∣tance of Wine. And againe; A morsell of Bread ill baked, by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ, and the benefits thereof. A goodly matter! so doth a Crucifix: and to make the Sacrament only a Signe is an ancient Heresie. So they.

But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants tea∣ching the Eucharisticall Bread to be (more than bare Bread) a Sacra∣mentall signe; more, an Evangelicall signe; more, a sacred Seale; yet more, an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver? And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall? witnessing that the Protestants teach that k Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven, yet is it received in this Sacrament; first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes, in receiuing the Bread, the signe of Christ his Body, and by which God doth truly, albeit Sacramentally, deliver unto the faithfull the reall body of Christ: and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by faith, and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Bellarmine, concerning Protestants, which is so plainly professed by l Calvin himselfe, as would make any Ro∣mish Page  152 Adversary blush at your former Calumnies, who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe.

SECT. I.

OVr Methode requireth to consult, in the first place, in all questions, with the wordes of Christ his In∣stitution; but seeing that you can alleage nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament, but onely a literall Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body;] which by Scriptures, Fathers, your owne Principles, and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * proved to be most grosly false, wee shall not need to insist further upon that; only we shall but put you in minde of Saint Paul's words, in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, to wit, The shewing of Christ's death untill his com∣ming againe: meaning corporally, at the last day. Which word [VNTILL] being spoken of a last day doth exclude your com∣ming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day; for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Comming, and not of the manner thereof; albeit other Scripture teacheth, that his Comming must be in all glorious Visibility. We goe on.

In the Eucharist (saith your m Councell of Trent) is contained truly, really, and substantially the Body, and blood of Christ: and they account him Accursed, whosoever shall not beleeve this. By all which is signified a Corporall manner of presence (excepting one∣ly Relation to place) which we say is, in many respects, impos∣sible, as we shall prove; but first we are to remove a Mil-stone, for so you esteeme an Obiection, which you cast in our way of De∣monstration of a Corporall Presence, de facto, from (as you say) Mi∣racles manifesting the same.

SECT. II.

TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seales of Divine Truth: if therefore you shall alleage any such, for proofe of a Corpo∣rall Page  154 Presence, see they be true, else shall wee iudge them, not to be God's Seales, but the Deuils Counterfaits. Your Bozius, one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome (professedly studied in historicall learning, and appointed to extract out of all Authors, whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes) after his diligent search into all ancient Records, as it were into the Ware-houses of all •orts of stuffes, having collected a packet of Ap∣parances, useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale; telling us by the way of Preface, o that he will report onely such Stories, whereby it is made Evident by God himselfe, that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist, even by the Testimony of mens eyes, that have seene it. A thing (saith hee) most miraculous, which every one that hath eyes may yet see. So he, even as p Coccius before him in every particular: and after both Master * Brereley thus prefacing; Miracles sent by God confirme the same, wherin at the breaking of the Hoast, sundry times great copie of blood issued out, as is testified by many Writers. We are now attentive to the Relation of your Oratour and Others, and afterwards (as you shall perceive) to give that credit unto them, which the cause it selfe shall require. We will take their Relations according to the order of Times.

1. Anno CCCC. Simon Metaphrastes q (saith Bozius) telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour (for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite) that the Sacrament being propounded, presently [Infans visus est] a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar: and whilst the Priest divided the Bread, an Angell was seene, and seemed to divide, and cut in peeces the flesh of the Child, and so [Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est, & resipiscit.] The old Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh, re∣pented.

2. Anno 600. A woman (as r Bozius reporteth, and with him Coccius) had laughed to heare the Bread called the Body of Christ, which she her selfe had made with her owne hands, and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory: who thereupon fell to prayer with the people, and by and by looking aside upon the Hoast, behold the formes of Bread were vanished, and he saw [Veram carnem] true flesh: Then the people wondred, the woman repented, and the Hoast, at the prayer of the Priest [in pristinam formam reversa est] Returned into its owne shape againe.

3. Anno 800. s A certaine Priest called Phlegis, being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist, not that hee doubted thereof, but that hee might receive some heavenly comfort [Divinitùs] from God, after prayers for this purpose, he saw (after Consecration, Puerum Iesum, The Child Iesus) in the Hoast, [& amplexatus est eum, & post mul∣tam deosculationem, &c.] he embraced him, and after much kissing of him, he desired to receive the Sacrament, and the Vision vanished, and he received it. So he. These two last, are also alleaged by your Cardinall t Bellarmine.

Page  155 4. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy, u A Priest saying Masse, and finding [Veram carnem super Altare, verumque sanguinem in Calice,] True flesh upon the Altar, and true Blood in the C•p, fearing to receive it, forthwith reported it to the Bishop, demanding what he should doe; The Bishop consulteth with the other Bishops his Brethren, by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh, shut them up in the middest of the Altar, [Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit:] The Bishop decreed, that these should be perpetually reserved, and kept as most divine Reliques.

5. Anno 1050. a Cardinall Baronius will needs have you know, that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God, as the Bishop of Amalphi (saith he) witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath; That when hee was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ, in the Sacrament, at the breaking of the Hoast [Rubra & per∣fecta caro inter eius manus apparuit, it a ut digitos eius •r•entaret] Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands, insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith.

6. Anno 1192. Behold an History (saith your b Cardinall Baro∣nius) most worthy of beliefe (you must beleeve it.) At Thuring af∣ter that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a yong Girle then sicke, and had washed his fingers in a pot of water, she observing it very dili∣gently, willed them that were by to vncover the water, for I saw (said shee) a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it: which being brought unto her to drinke, all the water was turned into Blood, and the piece of the Hoast, albeit no bigger than a mans finger, was turned [In sanguineam carnem] into a bloody flesh. All that see it are in horrour, the Priest himselfe, suspecting his owne negligence, feareth, and wisheth that it may be burned. After was this made knowne, and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz. This Archbishop com∣mandeth his Clergy to attend upon this, whilst it should be carried in publike procession untill they came into the Church of the blessed Virgin Mary where prayers are made by the Archbishop, that God would be pleased to retransforme this [in primam substantiam panis, & vini] into the former substance of Bread and Wine: and so at length it came to passe. Thus farre the Story. This (saith the same Cardinall) maketh for Transubstantiation, and confuteth the Heresie of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood. So he.

7. Anno 1230. c A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts, and ioyning together againe, an Ab∣batisse lendeth the Priest a Violl to put the Blood in, which the third day after appeared to be flesh. This Flesh is still reserved in a Cristall glasse in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence: and although the outward formes thereof be somewhat darke, yet are they to be seene of all Trau•llers. So hee.

8. Anno 1239. d In the Kingdome of Valentia [Verè memorabile] a thing truly memorable; In the time of the warres betweene the Chri∣stians and Mah•metans there was seene of the Priest in the Altar pieces Page  156 of the Hoast inclosed in linnen, and sprinkled with drops of blood, which Hoast afterwards by aduise was laid, with all reverence, on the backe of a Mule to be carried to that place, wheresoever the Mule should make a stand. The Mule (although inticed often by Provande• to stand else-where) never made stay untill he came to an Hospitall of Dorchara, where falling downe upon his knees (least he might afterwards carry any thing lesse noble, and worthy then that Hoast) protenùs expi∣ravit] he suddenly died.

9. e Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Masse in the Kings Chappell at Paris, and was now in elevating the Hoast, to shew it unto the people, many of them presently saw [formosissimum puerum] a most beautifull Child; And out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosuse∣manavit] much blood issued out; so that this cannot be imputed to the Art of the Devill.

10. Anno 1261. f [Illustrissimum illud] The most famous, upon occasion whereof the Feast of Corpus Christi day was first instituted, which Panvinus mentioneth in the life of Pope Vrban the Fourth, when there issued out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosus] Abundance of Blood. So that it cannot be attributed to the cunning of the Deuill.

11. Anno 1273. g A Miracle was seene at Picenum, where a wo∣man reserved the Eucharist, which she should have eaten, and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recouering the love of her Husband by Magicke; The Hoast she laid on Coales, and it presently turned into flesh: She was astonished, but concealed it by the space of seven yeares, at length she discovereth it to a Priest, he found this flesh being hid so long in a Dung-hill [intactam, & illaesam] perfect, and entire: hee published this Miracle, which moued infinite numbers to come and see it. And even now, after, it doth yet incite men to come and visit it, for the flesh is seene after so many yeares uncorrupt, to the eternall me∣mory thereof.

12. Anno 1510. h At Knobloch, a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburgh, one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix where∣in the Eucharist was reserved, he sold it to a Iew, The Iew pierced it through with a Dagger, and blood flowed out, &c. Most of all these are related by Master i Brerely Priest; whereupon hee maketh this Conclusion: Miracles shewed by God (saith he) doe forceably confirme the same, for at breaking of the Hoast at sundry times great copie and abundance of blood issued out, as hath beene formerly testified. So they.

It were pittie, when as so many Countries have beene gra∣ced with such Miracles, England should be thought unwor∣thy of like honour; nay here also wee heare there was (Anno 950.) at Canterbury * a Miracle wrought for confirming divers Clergy men (then wavering) in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, by a Bloody dropping of the Hoast at Masse.

SECT. III.

YOur Bellarmine, Baronius, Bozius, Mr. Breerly, and Coccius have, for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ, insisted upon Appa∣ritions of (as they have said) true flesh, red flesh, perfect flesh of the Infant Iesus; and the child Iesus seene, embraced, and kissed in the Eu∣charist: of wine turned into Blood, of Droppes of Blood, sprinkling droppes of Blood, issuing out, and bloodying the fingers of the Priest, that saw it. But we rather beleeve your Schoole-men, of whom (be∣sides many k that doubted) divers, together with Thomas Aquinas, with the Thomists, and other Authors, alleged by your Iesuite, Suarez, denyed all this, saying l That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh, nor true blood of Christ at all. Their Reasons; First, Be∣cause Christ (say they) cannot appeare in his owne proper forme in two places at once. Secondly, Because it were hainous wickednesse to inclose Christ in a Boxe, appearing in his owne forme. Thirdly, Be∣cause Christ's Blood to issue, and sprinkle out of his veines, who can easily beleeve? Fourthly, Because it were undecencie to reserve such Reliques, experience teaching that they doe putrifie. Thus your owne Schoole-men produced, and approved by Suarez the Iesuite, whose Conclusion and Resolution is, that The flesh thus appearing is not onely not the fl•sh of Christ, but even no true flesh at all, but onely a co∣lour, and Signe thereof. So they. Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians, and of your owne Divines? namely that those Historians as vncleane beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever commeth into their Mawes; but those your Divines, like more cleane creatures, doe ruminate and distinguish truth from falshood, by sound reason and iudgement, and prove the Au∣thors of such Apparitions flat lyars; the Reporters uncredi∣ble Writers; and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles.

SECT. IV.

ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh (say m some of your Doctors) yet such Apparitions, being miraculously wrought, are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist. But why should not we yeeld more credit to those School∣men? who say n True miracles use to be made in true signes, and not in such as seeme onely so to be; because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Divell. And we take it from the Assurance, which your Iesuite giveth vs, that o Divels and Painters can make such semblan∣ces and Similitudes: and that true Miracles are to be discerned from false, in that false Miracles carie onely a likenes of things, and are un∣profitable. Furthermore, your P Aquinas proveth against the Here∣tikes, from Sense, that Christ had a true Body, Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person, who is Truth, that there should be any fiction in any worke of his. Thus stand you still confuted by your owne domesticall witnesses.

Wee may adde this Reason, why there could be no Resem∣blances of Truth, because all the personall Apparitions are said to be of an Infant, and of the Childe Iesus; albeit Christ, at his ascension out of this world * was 34. yeares of age: and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. yeares old! as if your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had be∣held Christ, with the Magi, in Bethlehem, at the time of his birth; and not in Bethaven, with his Disciples, at the instant of his A∣scension.

SECT. V.

THe first Apparition of flesh above-mentioned was not before the dayes of the Emperour Arcadius, which was about the yeare 395. The second not untill 700. yeares after Christ; nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the dayes of Antiquity, with∣in the compasse of so long a time; excepting that of one Marcus, recorded by p Irenaeus, who faigned to Make the mixed wine in the Page  159 Cup, through his Invocation to seeme redd, that it might be thought, that grace had infused Blood into the Cup: which the same Father noteth to have beene done by Magicke; at what time there were dayly Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion, and on the other side divers Rankes of Heretiques, as namely Valenti∣nians, Manichees, Marcionites, and others, who all denyed, that Christ had any corporall, or Bodily Substance at all. Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in af∣ter-times, in Churches established in Christian Religion, and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity, when there seemed to be a farre more necessary use of them, both for confirming Pro∣selytes in the faith, and reducing Heretiques from their Errour? (that Apparition onely of Marcus excepted, which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolicall Art of Magicke.)

As for the Reporters, much need not to be said of them: Simon Metaphrastes is the first, who was of that small Credit with your Cardinall that, in Answere to an Obiection from the same Author, hee said; q I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith. And if the Fore-man of the inquest be of no better esteeme, what shall one then thinke of the whole Packe? As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius (obiected by your * Coccius) writing the life of Basil, and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh, we make no more account of it, then doe your two r Cardinals, by whom it is reiected as Supposititious and Bastardly. But the Sugge∣sters of these Apparitions, what were they? (a matter observable) ordinarily Priests, together with either old men, weomen, and sometimes young Girles, who (wheresoever superstition raigneth) are knowne to be most prone thereunto. That we say nothing of the lewde Iugglings of your Pri•sts, who in other kinds have beene often discovered amongst us, and in other Countries.

We conclude. A true Miracle, for Confirmation of Religion (we are sure) is Divinum opus, the Infidell Magicians being enforced to confesse as much, saying, * Digitus Dei hic est. And as sure are we that a fained miracle (although it be in behalfe of Religion) is impi∣ous and blasphemous against God, who being the God of Truth, neither will, nor can be glorified by a lie: * Hath God need of a Lye? (saith holy Iob.) Wee right willingly acknowledge, that diuers Miracles have beene wrought, for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: but to be it selfe the true and substantiall flesh of Christ, not one. When a * Iew, that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop, betooke himselfe to another Bishop, to be againe Baptized of him, in hope of profi•, The Water in the Font presently vanished away. s S. Augustine telleth of a Physitian, who was vexed extreamly with the Gout, and at his Baptisme was freed from all paine, and so continued all his life long. t Ba∣ronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little well, prepa∣red for men of age to be Baptized in, and after that it was held for Page  160 drowned, in the opinion of all by-standers, at the prayer of Da∣mascus it arose from the bottome as whole and sound as it was be∣fore. These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the mat∣ter, which was the water of Baptisme, but of the nature of the Sa∣crament it selfe, albeit voyd of the Corporall presence of Christ. Not to tell you (which your u Durantus will have you to know) of Miracles, wrought by the Booke of the Gospell, for the extingui∣shing of Fiers. This first Obstacle being removed out of the way, our passage will be so much the more easier in the follow∣ing Discourse.

SECT. I.

NO sooner doe you heare Protestants talke of the Impos∣sibility of your manner of Presence, which your Church prescribeth, but you presently cry out upon them, as vpon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God, as if they meant x To tie God to the Rules of Nature, as your Authors are pleased to suggest. Wee hold it necessary therefore to remoue this scandall, thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon, before wee can conveniently proceed to the maine matter; and this wee shall endeavor to doe by certaine Propositions.

SECT. II.

THis Proposition accordeth to the Iudgement of Ancient Fa∣thers, shewing that y God cannot doe something, even because he Page  161 is omnipotent, as not die, not sinne, not lye, because such Acts proceed not from power, but from impotencie, and infirmity. So the Fathers.

It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding wor∣thy Scholler, that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the anci∣ent Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently z The Sanctuary of Heretiques. And they give an instance in the Arrians, who denying Christ to have beene God eternall, beleeved him to have beene created God in time; as if it were possible there should be a made God, whose property is to be eter∣nall. Their onely pretence was Gods Omnipotencie, to make false things true: wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars. Take unto you a second Proposition.

SECT. III.

YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground: a All Divines affirme (say they) that God is omnipotent, because hee can doe any thing that implyeth not contradiction; for that Contradiction both affirmeth and denyeth the same thing, making it to be, and not to be that it is. But God, who is Being in himselfe, cannot make a thing ioyntly to be and not to be. This is a Contradiction, and were not Om∣nipotencie but Impotencie; not an effect, but a defect. To conclude. Every thing either is, or is not: take away this Principle (say you) and farewell all learning and knowledge. So you, and that, without contra∣diction, most truely.

As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi, and Doctrine, so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi, by examples of Impos∣sibilities, because of Contradiction: namely, that it is b Impos∣sible for God to be contained in one place: Secondly, for a Page  162 Spirit to be divided into parts: Thirdly, for Bread to be the Bo∣dy of Christ, at the same instant when it is Bread: Fourthly, for the same thing to be present together at divers times: Fiftly, for one thing to be twice produced in divers places at once: Sixtly, for a Bo∣dy, having quantity, not to be able to possesse a place: Seaventhly, It is impossible for Christ his Body, as it is in the Sacrament, to come from one place into another: Eighthly, Impossible it is to vndoe that which is once done; because this were to make that which is true to be false. So your Iesuites, with others.

SECT. IV.

IT is no new Calumny, which you have against Calvin, as if he had impugned the Omnipotencie of God, in this Question of the Sacrament; which Calvin himselfe did refute in his life-time, pro∣fessing, that he is farre from subiecting the power of God to man's reason, or to the order of nature; and beleeving, that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles, that Christ doth feed men's soules with his Blood. But his only exception is against them, who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction, which is no better than infirmity it selfe. c Wee (saith hee) are not so ad∣dicted to naturall reason, as to attribute nothing to the power of God, which exceedeth the order of nature, for we confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall vn∣derstanding: but that one should be in divers places at once, and not contained in any, is no lesse absurdity then to call light darknesse. God in∣deed can when hee will turne light into darknes; but to say light is darknesse, is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome. So Calvin, and Beza accordingly with him.

And so say we, that it is possible for Christ, (as God) if he were so pleased, to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham; for there is involved no Contra∣diction in this. But to make Bread to be flesh, while it is Bread, is a Contradiction in it selfe, and as much as to say Bread is no Bread; and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotencie of Christ, wee iudge this saying properly taken to be Impossible.

SECT. I.

THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught, concer∣ning the Body of Christ, That it was borne of the Virgin Mary: Secondly, that this, so borne, was, and is but One: Thirdly, that this one is Finite: Fourthly, that this finite is Organicall, and consisting of distinct parts: Fiftly, that this Organicall is now Perfect, and endued with all Absolutenesse, that ever any humane body can be capable of. Sixtly, that this Perfect is now also Glorious, and no more subiect to vilification, or indignity here on earth. But your now Romish Doctrine, touching Corporall Presence in this Sacra∣ment, doth imply Contradictions, touching each of these, as now we are to manifest, beginning at the first.

Our Apostolicall Article, concerning the Body of Christ, is ex∣presly this; Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary: which is the an∣cientest Article of Faith, concerning Christ, that is read of in the Booke of God: The seed of the woman, &c. Gen. 3. to shew that it was by propagation. But your Romane Article, of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament, is, that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread, as we have already * proved, and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew, whether they be na∣turall, or miraculous. When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water, this water is made of Ayre: when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine, the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water: when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bo∣dily flesh.

SECT. II.

YOur Profession standeth thus: g The Body of Christ, albeit now in Heaven, yet is (say you) substantially in many places here on earth, even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated. So you. Next your Master h Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once, contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter; where he directly confuteth this Romish Do∣ctrine of Madnesse, saying thus: i To seeke, that Christ his Bodie should be in many places at once, is no lesse madnesse than to re∣quire, that God should make his body to be flesh, and not to be flesh at one time; whereas not Aristotle, but the Spirit of God (saith he) hath taught us, that this his body is to be contained in Heaven untill the last day. Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the fol∣ly of your Church, which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament, except it be locall on earth, As if (saith Page  165 he) she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven. And at last, after that he had said, k Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant, he so explaineth himselfe, that hee meant a spirituall Vnion: so that it doth fully appeare, that Master Brerely in this point (as usually in many others) alleageth Calvins testimony, a∣gainst Calvins sence; and his owne conscience.

It is irkesome to see the fury, wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants, amongst whom wee see againe your Master l Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the pre∣sence of Christ's Body in Heaven, and in Earth at one time. Al∣though, notwithstanding, m your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly ta∣xeth Beza, for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once; whom therefore he calleth an Apostata: and whom n another tearmeth for the same cause, Blasphemous, as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God. Whereas, ac∣cording to our former Proposition, it is rather to defend it, be∣cause God is the God of Truth (which is but one) and Truth is with∣out that Contradiction, which is necessarily implyed in your Do∣ctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once, as in the next place is to be evinced.

SECT. III.

IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas, (the chiefest Do∣ctor, that ever professed in the Romish Schoole) o It is not pos∣sible by any Miracle, that the Body of Christ be locally in many pla∣ces at once, because it includeth a Contradiction, by making it not one; for one is that, which is not divided from it selfe. So he, together with others whom you call Catholikes, who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in divers places at once. Which al∣though Page  166 he speake concerning the locall manner of being; yet his Reason (as * your Cardinall confesseth) doth as well concerne your Sacramentall manner of being on earth. And Aquinas his reason being this, [Vnum] One (saith he) is that, which is not divided from it selfe: but, to be in divers places at once, doth divide one from it selfe, and consequently maketh it not to be One: which being a Contradiction, doth inferre an Impossibility. So he▪ Earnestly have we sought for some Answere to this insoluble Argument, as we thinke: And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say, but that the p Be∣ing in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing, and therefore can be no more said to divide the body from it selfe, then it can be said to divide God, who is every where, or the soule of man, which is one in every part, or member of the Body. So he. We throughout this whole Tractate, wherein we dispute of the existence of a Bo∣dy in a place, doe not tie our selves every where to the precise Ac∣ception of place, as it is defined to be Superficies, &c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct vbi, from another, which wee call here, and there. we returne to your Cardinals Answere.

SECT. IV.

MAth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman, that sought Christ in the grave, said; He is not here, for he is risen, and gone into Galilee: which is as much, as to have said, hee could not be in both places at once; an Argument Angelicall. But you an∣swere that it was spoken Morally. How? (wee beseech you) as if one should say (saith your r Cardinall) Such a man sitteth not at ta∣ble, for he hath supped: what fond trifling is this, and wilfull per∣verting the Truth of God? for this your Argument, A man sitteth not at table, for hee hath supped, is scarce a probable Consequence, that a man is risen from the table, as soone as he hath supped. Con∣trarily, the Angel's Logicke is not by a Peradventure, but necessa∣ry not imaginary, but historicall; not coniecturall but dogmati∣ticall, and demonstrative. For better explanation whereof, we may turne the Causall word (FOR) into an Illative [THEREFORE,] because it is all one (as you know) to say hee is not here in the Grave [For] he is risen out of the Grave, And to say, Hee is risen out of the grave, [Therefore] he is not heere in the Grave. Vnderstand then, first, that the matter subiect of this Argument being no mo∣rall arbitrary Act of man's will; but the omnipotent Resurrecti∣on of Christ from the dead, (which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith, yea, and as it were the foundation of all other Articles, without which, as the Apostle saith, * Our Faith were vaine) the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically; which is the reason that he is so instant, and urgent, saying to the woman, Come, and see the place, where the Lord was laid. Which he addeth (saith your s Iesuite) for confirmation of that, which he had said, [He is not heere.] And as much as if he had said (saith Anselme) t If you beleeve not my word, give credit to the emp∣ty Sepulchre, in satisfying your owne sight. Therefore was it demon∣strative. And againe, the Angell putting them to make use both of his •aying, and their owne seeing; Goe yee (saith hee) and tell his Disciples: And they went (saith the Text) to bring his Disciples word. Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall, such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth. It were iniury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ; * The Poore you shall have alwayes with you, but me Page  168 you shall not alwayes have. The light, which wil expel all Romish dark∣nesse out of every corner of exception to the contrary, is, first if you shall say, that Christ did not speake of his bodily Presence; u He spake (saith Augustine) of his bodily presence, in saying, you shall not have me alwayes with you. Secondly, if you answer, that Christ de∣nyed not absolutely his Corporall presence, but onely the manner of his presence on earth, in his visible shape: Augustine will reforme you, shewing, that Christ, in saying You shall not have me; by [Me] meant absolutely his Body, as it is distinguished from his God-head, namely, You shall have mee, according to my Maiesty, and my providence, and invisible grace (all spirituall:) but according to my flesh, even that flesh, which was borne of the Virgin Mary [you shall not have me.] Thirdly, If you reason, saying; But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth, and there in Heaven at one instant? Augustine will confute you, who asking, why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence, giveth onely this reason, because he ascended into Heaven, and (as alluding to the former words of the Angell) addeth, And he is not here. So raw therefore, so vaine, and perverse is that Answere of Morall, and Civill reasoning, which your Cardinall obtruded upon his Readers, against an Argument both so Angelicall, and Evangelicall.

SECT. V.

CHrist (Acts 9.) appeared to Saint Paul, then Saul, when he was in his way to Damascus, &c. whence your Cardinall a laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ, at one instant, (to wit) in Heaven with the Saints, and in the Ayre unto Saul. First, because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde. Secondly, because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ, which he heard. Thirdly, because Saul asked saying; Lord, who ar• thou? and heard and understood the voice. Fourthly, Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead. And therefore (saith hee) was this Apparition in the Ayre. Every obiection may receive it's opposition. To the first, thus: Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the bright∣nesse of the Sun-beames on earth, that hee could not see for a∣while; and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere? So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth.

To the second, thus. Have you not read of a voice from Hea∣ven, Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately, and said, An Angell speaketh, and the common people said, It thundreth? be∣cause (as your b Iesuite confesseth) they heard it but confusedly.

Page  169 To the third, thus: Men heare, and heare not, so farre as God is pleased to reveale, or not to reveale himselfe, or his word and voice, yea or any sight unto them; for Saint Stephen saw the Hea∣vens opened, and Maiestie of Christ, when others wanted that sight.

To the fourth, thus: The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection, as were the eyes of Saint Stephen, Acts 7. who saw him; and so much more, because he was both made blinde by the brightnesse of that sight of Christ, and after healed in the Name of Christ.

If any desire to know the iudgement of ancient Fathers, in this Case, your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where hee shall please. Sure we are that c Augustine, d Ambrose, Pope e Grego∣ry the first, and f Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the ap∣pearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [de Coelo] from Heaven. And if all this were true that hath beene obiected, that Christ appeared in the Ayre, yet is your Consequence but lame, that therefore hee was bodily also in Heaven, if we may beleeve your Iesuite Lori∣nus: g Because Christ (saith he) might for so short a time have des∣cended from Heaven. By all which you may perceive, that your Cardinall, for all his arguing about the Ayre, hath beene (as the Proverbe is) but Beating the Ayre. And as lancke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by (as hee saith) Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth, when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven: for it is not certaine, that he appeared personally to any here on earth, if the position of your Evangelicall Doctor Aqui∣nas may stand for good, who held it * Impossible for Christ to ap∣peare here on earth, in his proper shape, in two places at once: which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather only Visions, without any personall appearing. We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine, whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once; and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez, who now commeth concluding as follow∣eth. h The Body of Christ, except it's being in the mysterie of the Eu∣charist, is no where but only in Heaven: and to affirme the contrarie were a great rashnesse without ground; and contrary to all Divines. So hee. We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire, and both of the same Societie of the Iesuites, the one for Rome, the other for Spaine, in this their Contradiction, that wee may consult with Antiquity it selfe.

SECT. VI.

ANcient Fathers iudged it Impossible for a Body to be with∣out Determination in one only place at one time: yea (say you) they did so, but meaning Impossible, according to the course of nature, but not absolutely Impossible, as if by Divine Mira∣cle a Body might not be in many places at once. This is your on∣ly Answere, and the Answere of every one of your Answerers, whereat wee should wonder, but that they have given us so often experience, what little conscience they make, how true their An∣sweres be, so that they may be knowne to have answered: other∣wise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossi∣bilitie; and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne; and also by their manner of confuting the same. The Eutychian Heretikes (you a know) confounded the properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead, pretending (as you doe) the Omnipotencie of Christ, for the patronizing of their he∣resie, As thinking thereby (thus saith b Theodoret, out of Am∣philochius) To magnifie the Lord Christ, whereas this was indeed (as the same Father saith) to accuse God of falshood. You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire. Pope c Leo, speaking of Eutyches, the Authour of that heresie, saith that Hee affirmed, that thereby hee did more religiously conceive of the Ma∣iestie of Christ, by denying his humane nature; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the spirit of falsity. Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers, in confuting an heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotencie, did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible, which they withstood, as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves. Theodoret a∣gainst this Heretike argueth thus: d The Body of Christ, being a compounded thing, cannot be changed into a divine nature, because it hath Circumscription. This had beene no good reasoning, ex∣cept his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility. Page  171 e Vigilius (anciently Bishop of Trent) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent, who against the same Heretique, distin∣guishing the two natures of Christ, his humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place; the divine by being unlocable, doub∣ted not to inferre, saying of his Bodily nature: It being now in hea∣ven is not at all on earth. And, least that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion, he averreth saying; This is the Catho∣lique profession taught by the Apostles, confirmed by Martyrs, and hitherto held of the faithfull. So Fulgentius upon the same distinction maketh the same Conclusion, saying of his Bodily substance, that therefore f Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven; and going to Heaven it left the Earth. Damascen had to deale with the fore-named Heretique, and professing to deliver the substantiall diffe∣rence of both natures, hee differenceth them by these contrary Charters, g Created, not Created; Capable of mortalitie, and not ca∣pable of mortalitie; circumscribed, and not circumscribed; and In∣visible in it selfe, and visible: which notwithstanding is in the Eu∣charist, by your doctrine, not Capable of Circumscription, because whole in the whole hoast, and in every part thereof, and to the very Angels of God Invisible.

Let vs ascend hither to the more primitive Ages, to inquire of Fathers, who had conflicts also with Heretiques, who gaine-said the Truth of either nature. Athanasius urged Christ his Ascention into Heaven, to prove that he was truely man, as God, because his God-head was never out of Heaven, being h Vndeterminate in place, and uncircumscribed, even then, when it was Hypostatical∣ly united with the Body, being on earth. Therefore it was his Bo∣dy that ascended into Heaven from Earth. His Argument is taken from Circumscription; even as i Nazianzene also doth Characte∣rize them. Augustine falling upon such Heretiques, as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sunne, and in the Moone, at once, (which you your selves will confesse could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature) giveth them first this Ca∣ueat: k You may not (saith hee) so defend the Deity of Christ, as to defraud the Truth of his humanity: then he addeth (as if none could faine a presence of a Body without determination in space or place) Bodies cannot be without space. And againe, l A Bodie cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another. And what els doth that say∣ing of Ambrose imply, spoken as to Christ? Stephen (saith he) who saw thee in Heaven, sought thee not upon earth.

Page  172 Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father, whose Patronage your Dispu∣ters would bee thought often to rely vpon; hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly, as if he had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposites in the same Answere, which he maketh against certaine Heretiques, who held that God's nature is a Substance, which can receive division and partition: If God (saith m Cyrill) should be divisible, as a Bodie, then should it be contained in place, and then should it have Quantity, and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed. Will you now say (which hitherto hath beene your onely Answere to other Fathers) that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible, that Quantity should be without Circumscription, but onely according to the Course of nature? then might the Heretiques, whom Cyrill confuted, have made the same Answere, and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had beene of no force. What shall wee say? must still the antient Fathers be made no better than Asses in ar∣guing, that your Romish Masters (forsooth) may be deemed the only Doctors, even then, when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretiques, which they devise for themselves? but you must pardon us, if wee beleeue that Cyrill (seeing hee durst say that God himselfe, if hee were a Body, must be in a place, as a thing having Quantitie and Circumscribed) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of beleeving * Christ's Bodie consisting of Quantity, al∣beit not Circumscribed in place.

SECT. VII.

IT is a kind of Morosity, and Perversnes in our Opposites, to obiect those testimonies, which have their Answeres, as it were tongues in their mouthes, ready to confute their Obiections. For s Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ, at one and the same time, sitting with his Father in Heaven, is here handled of Communi∣cants on earth; than hee doth say of the Priest and People com∣municating, that They doe not consist or stay on earth, but are trans∣ported into Heaven. And againe, a little after the words obiected, The Priest (saith he) is here present, not carrying the fire, but the ho∣ly Ghost. These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your * Senensis upon him, that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's. Another Obiection is commonly made out of t Chrysostome, of a double Elias, one above and another below (meaning, by Elias below, the sheepe-skin, or mantle of Elias, received by Helisaeus,) namely, that Christ ascen∣ding into Heaven, in his owne flesh, left the same, but as Elias did his Mantle, being called the other Elias, to wit, figuratively: so the Sacrament, a token of Christ's flesh, is called his flesh. Which must needs be a true Answere, unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited, as a double Elias; so consequently a dou∣ble Christ. As for the next * Testimonie, it is no more than which every Christian must confesse, namely, that it is the same whole, & undivided Christ, which is spiritually received of all Christians, wheresoever, and whensoever throughout the world: the same we say Obiectively, although not Subiectively; as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and §. 3. will demonstrate.

SECT. VIII.

a AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme, and falling vpon a Translation, where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these (by inter∣pretation) Page  174 Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands; saith that these words could not be understood of David, or yet of any other man literally: for [Quomodo fieri potest?] (saith he) How could that be &c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ, at what time he said of the Eucharist, [This is my Body.] This is the testimonie which not onely your b Cardinall, but all other your Disputers, upon this subiect, doe so ostentatively embrace, and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes, which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant; which therefore, above all other, they dictate to their Novices, and furnish them therewith, as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites, especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture.

Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie, in urging a testimonie, which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech, to shew that it is not Scripture at all, and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence, even out of Augustine himselfe.

SECT. IX.

YOu have already * heard of the Antecedent, which was gran∣ted by Aquinas, viz. It implyeth a Contradiction, to say a Bo∣dy is corporally in two places at once, because this maketh that one Body not to be one. Which being confessed, you have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence, viz. by the same reason it must follow, that it is absolutely Impossible. But besides, there are Actions and Qualities, whereof some are Relatives, and have re∣spect to some place, and others are Absolutes. Of the Relatives you have determined that e One Body (say you) as it is in diverse places at once might be below, and above, on the right hand, and on the left, behind, and before it selfe, may move, and not move, at the same instant, without Contradiction: because it is so said in divers Respects, namely of divers places, as the soule of man in divers parts of the Body. So you.

These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines, who disputing of Bodily Locality can find no exam∣ple, within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Crea∣tures, but only Man's soule, which is a Spirit: which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section. In the Interim know you, that although Relations doe sometimes take away Contradictions, where they are applyable: As namely, for the same Body to be high, and low in respect of it's owne divers parts, to wit, high in respect of the head, and low in respect of the heele, wherein there is no comparison of any whole, or part with it selfe: yet if any should say as much of the same Body, whether whole, or part, as Page  178 thus: The same whole head goeth before, and after it selfe: or, the same one finger is longer, and shorter then it selfe; hee may iustly be suspected to be besides himselfe: all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves, (and consequently Impossible) as for a man to say, he is elder, and yonger than himselfe. You * will say, (and it is your common Sanctuary) that place is not essentiall to a Body, and therefore separable from a Body; so that a man may be in two places at once. And you may as well say, that because Time is not of the essence of a man, some man may have a Being without any time, or else in two times at once. Finally, this your Subtilty would have beene iudged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie, to hold true in Divinity (to wit) that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it, and another thing on the left, it is Circum∣scribed in place. Whereby hee demonstrateth the truth of Christ's Body, because it is Circumscribed: and that it is circumscribed, be∣cause it is written of him, that f The sheepe shall stand on his right hand, and the goates on the left. Nor doe you your-selves teach, nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand, or his left, as he is present in this Sacrament. One word more. The Fathers, who were many, that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head, because the first is Circumscribed, and the o∣ther is not circumscribed, would never yeeld to either of both, that it is both crucified and not crucified; as you doe to Christ's bo∣die, teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven, when it is Vncircumscribed, as it is on many Altars vpon earth.

SECT. X.

VVEre it possible, that Actions and Qualities, which have re∣spect to Place, might avoid the Contradiction; yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place, it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so, as will appeare by your owne Resolutions. For your Cardinall, and your Iesuite Suarez, with di∣vers others have thus g determined, that such Actions and Quali∣ties Page  179 as are reall in a Body, without any relation to place, may not be said to be multiplyed in respect of divers places, wherein the same Body is supposed to be: (As for example) the same Body to be hot in some Countrey, and cold in another at the same time; wounded, and not wounded; passible, and not passible. And the like may be said of Love, and Hatred, which are vitall Actions, proceeding naturally from the Subiect. So that the Body, which in one place is affected with love, cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever. So your owne Disputers.

But have they any reason for these points? Yes they have, (See the Margent) For your Cardinall denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, may be hot, and not hot at the same time, giveth us this reason: Because (saith hee) it is one Body, and not ma∣ny. So he. A reason Infallible. Your Iesuite Suarez also, deny∣ing that the same party can love, and hate, consent, and dissent at the same time, in respect of divers places, yeeldeth this reason; Because (saith he) these repugnant affections belonging to one subiect, cannot by the omnipotency of God be together in the same, because they destroy one another. Aquinas, and other Schoolemen * denying that the same Body can be said to grieve, and not to grieve, both at once, in respect of divers places of being, propoundeth the like Reason; Because Griefe being in the same man, as he is a man, cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him; lest we should make a man not to be himselfe. Lastly, your Cardinall h Alan denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, can be said to be Mortall, and Immortall, Passible, and impassible expresseth this rea∣son, which (hee saith) was used of old: Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man. Enough, enough.

SECT. I.

MAster a Brerely thus: The difficulty may be better con∣ceived, rather then directly proved, by an example of the same word: the which, being once uttered, is there∣upon at one instant in the severall hearing of sundrie persons, and that not as a distinct noyse confusedly mul∣tiplyed in the •…re, but as one and the same peculiar word, distinguished by the selfe-same syllables wherein it was uttered. So hee, and your Doctor Wright b before him.

SECT. II.

TWo other d Instances you have, whereby to maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once; one is in man's Soule, the other in God himselfe. First, we will enquire into the na∣ture of the soule. Our exception against a Bodies being in divers places at once, is by reason of the distance betweene place and place, for it is farre lesse than imaginable that one Bodie should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spaine, and at Paris in France; and yet not to be in the intermediate Space betweene both, which divideth Toledo from Paris. But the Condition of the Soule is utterly different, for it is in the Bodily members, not as a Body in diuers places, but as a forme in it's owne matter; nor ha∣ving Quantity and extension, (the unseperable properties of a Bo∣dy) but by a formall perfection, As containing the Body, and not contained thereof, e saith your Aquinas. For the Soule is so in the head and foot, that it is aswell in the parts and members be∣tweene both; and therefore, not being possibly severed from them, cannot be said to be divided from it selfe. Insomuch that if any Page  182 member of the Body (as for example the hand) should be cut off, and diuided from the Body, the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein. So utterly dissonant is the Soules being in divers places.

Nay and your Cardinall having * confessed already, that It is not possible by any divine power, that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body; doth hereby as fully confute himselfe, as if hee had said, there is no comparison to be made betweene Body and Spirit, in respect of Locall being: how much lesse betweene it and God the Father of all Spirits, who cannot be so in many places at once, that he is not likewise both in every intermediate space, be∣tweene place and place, and also in all places without them: this being the propertie of his infinitenes to containe all places, and not to be contained of any. And therefore cannot this manner of pre∣sence, without irreligious impietie, be applyed to any creature; which notwithstanding, f your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that manner, as was hitherto (we thinke) never imagined by any Di∣vine before him, namely, a manner of being of a Body in a place, which is neither Circumscriptively, as naturall Bodies are, nor De∣finitively, that is, so that being in one place, it is not at the same time in another, as Angels and Spirits are; but a third, how? By only pre∣sence after the manner as God is in place. So hee. O golden Divine! for who knoweth not that Existence in place onely by presence is a propertie of Divine Infinitenes, which being attributed to any thing, that is not God, doth equall the creature with the Creator.

SECT. III.

ANcient Fathers (we trow) were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall, and in Theologicall Mysteries, who notwith∣standing (as your g Iesuite witnesseth) held it as a Doctrine of Faith, that Angels, which are Spirits, have every one their owne definite pla∣ces and space, and that they cannot be in divers places, but by moving from one place to another, which cannot be said of any Body that (as you say) is without motion in divers places at once. Surely, if ever such strange and paraphysicall, nay more then Hyperphysicall Croche•s had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers, we should have heard you alleage, at least some one of them, if not for proofe, yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Pa∣radoxes, concerning a Bodie taking the right hand, or left of it selfe, and the like,—Velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur Species.

Page  183 For your better satisfaction, we shall alleage some Testimonies, which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibili∣tie of a Spirit's being in divers places at one time, whether we consi∣der the Spirits of Angels, or of men; yea or the humane Spirit or soule of Christ. Of Angels, Damascen; h They are so circumscri∣bed in the place where they worke, that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once. Athanasius, i As the Holy Ghost filleth all places, so An∣gels are contained in a certaine place. Accordingly Ambrose: k Here∣in doe Angels differ from the holy Ghost, which filleth all things, that the S•raphims doe move from place to place. Pope Gregory would be heard speake: l Angels are c•rcumscribed, being, in respect of our Bodies, Spirits: but, in comparison of the uncircumscribed God, they are to be esteemed as Bodies. So they. Our next speculation must be touching the soules of Saints departed. The Author set out by your selves, in the name of Athanasius, unto this Obiection; How doe the soules of Saints so often appeare at one moment of time in the Sepulchres, as they seeme to have done? Answereth that They are not the same Saints, but rather visions, and adumbrations of them, by transfigurations of Angels. He giueth his Reason, why he thinketh the other impossible, m Be∣cause it is proper (saith hee) to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once. So hee. And if the Fathers shall say, in effect, as much of the humane soule of Christ, you (wee should thinke) would require no more. Tertull•an among his many divine An∣swers, to prove Christ to be God, hee urgeth the Arian Here∣tiques with this one, as not the least: n Because Christ is present in all places, where he is invocated upon, which is a power not incident un∣to man, but proper to the nature of God. So hee. How like you this? And Augustine may not be thought to dissent, when in arguing hee tooke as granted, that the o Soule of Christ, when it departed this life, could not be in Heaven, and in hell at once.

As for the Beeing of God in divers places at once, which was your Cardinal's instance, for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places, without Contradiction of making One not One, by dividing it from it selfe; wee know not whether rather to cen∣sure it •gregiously absurd, or extreamly impious; seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's Infinitenes of Being in whatsoever place: which is (as your owne Schoole might have taught him) so, as p Containing all places, and not contained in any: which the Fa∣thers have as fully declared, in making Being in all places, as filling them with his presence, to bee the property of his Deity. Such then is the impietie of your arguing; by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Bodie, by the manner of Being of a Soule or Page  184 Spirit, denyed by q Nazianzene; and manner of the Being of a Creature, by the manner of the Being of God the Creator, excedeth all Absurdities that can be named. The holy Fathers have some∣thing more to * say to you; but first we are willing to heare what you can say for your selves.

SECT. IV.

MYsteries of Faith, (saith your r Cardinall) which excede man's understanding, are only to be apprehended by Faith. Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation, of the Resurrection, of the Creation, and of Eternity it selfe; and so ought this, concerning the Presence of Christ his Body, notwithstan∣ding any Obiection from Reason. So you. Wee answere. Some of these former Mysteries we confesse to be such as excede man's understanding, yet such againe they are, as are not contrary to un∣derstanding, though above it; that is to say, such (and this you will confesse with us) as admit not Contradiction in themselves: for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God, and Three Persons, because the Essence of the Godhead is common to each person: or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person, and two natures; no more than to say, that in one man there is one person, and two essentiall parts, one his Body, the other his Spirit: or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created, might be restored to life, more than to beleeve that one graine of Corne dying, might revive againe: or in the Creation to beleeve that something may be made of nothing, than to say that a blinde man was made to see. As for the last Obiection, saying that s Eternity is the instant of Duration, it is an atheologicall Paradoxe: for Eter∣nitie is Duration it selfe, without beginning, or ending; which is conceived without Contradiction.

In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considera∣ble than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought, whilest they are constrained, for avoiding of Contradi∣ctions in things subiect to the determination of Sence, to pose us with spirituall Mysteries, which are Obiects onely of Faith, by reason of the Infinitenes of their properties; and therefore may well exceede the reach of mans wit, and apprehension, without any preiudice unto Truth, by contradiction: as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes, and never any more to discerne any sensible things, by sensible meanes. By which manner of rea∣soning Page  185 all the Arguments used by the Apostles against Infidels, for proofe of the Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ's Body; all the Reasons of Fathers against Heretiques, in distinguishing of the Pro∣perties of the divine and humane nature of Christ in himselfe, and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits by Cir∣cumscription, and Spirits from God by Determination in one place; and lastly your owne Consequences of many confessed Impossibili∣ties concerning Place, (as the Impossibility that God should be con∣tained in Place, as for one Body having Quantity to be incapable of a Place, and the like) are all vtterly made voyd. For to what end were any of these, if your Pretences have in them any shaddow of Trueth?

SECT. I.

IF (as you have said) the Body of Christ is, or may be at one time in so many places, then may it be in mo•, and consequently every-where at one instant. This Consequence your ancient Schoole-men taught, and your Iesuite a Valentia doth seeme to avow, say∣ing, What hindreth that a Body may be [Vbi{que}] every where at once, not by it's naturall power, but by the omnipotencie of God? So he. This we say is to make a finite infinite; and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses, who have iudged it b Hereticall, to say, that the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once; because then he may be in infinite. So they. And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught? To say (c saith he) that the Body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, is to ascribe an Immensity and infinitenes unto it (namely, that) which is proper unto God. So hee, and so also your other Doctors, to whom the Evidence of Truth commandeth us to assent.

For what greater Heresie can there be against that Article of our Faith, concerning the Deity, and Godhead of Christ begotten, not made, than to beleeve that there can be a made God? for so doubt∣les doe they (whosoever they bee) that thinke a finite Body may be made Infinite.

SECT. II.

STill you maintaine the Reall and Corporall presence of Christ his Body in so many places, as there are consecrated Hoasts at one time in the whole world, be they ten thousand times ten Mil∣lions of Millions, or how many soever: which, say we, is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite. For Aquinas (as your e Ie∣suite witnesseth) held it Hereticall, to affirme One Body to be eve∣ry where, because this is a Divine property, by which the Fathers did sufficiently prove the God-head of the Holy Ghost, (namely) Au∣gustine, Fulgentius, Ambrose, and Basil. So he.

But how did the Fathers prove this, thinke you? it were good, that where your owne Authours be silent, we heard some of them∣selves speake. f Fulgentius his reason is, Because the Spirit of God dwelleth wholly in all the faithfull separated in divers places. g Basil thus: The Angell, that was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philip, nor was he then in Heaven, when he was with Za∣chary at the Altar: But the Holy Ghost was together with the Pro∣phet Daniel in Babylon, with Ieremy in the Dungeon, and with E∣zekiel Page  187 in Chobar. h Ambrose thus: Because the Apostles could not all be every where, Christ severed them, giving them all the Holy Ghost, which was inseparable in them: none therefore can doubt but it is a Divine Essence. i Augustine confuteth an Arian Bishop, thus: You that prayse the holy Spirit, in sanctifying his faithfull wheresoe∣ver they are, how can you deny him to be God? k Didymus of Ale∣xandria (whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master, for the understanding of Scripture) thus: The Holy Ghost (seeing it is in many places at once) may not be thought to be a Creature. Lastly upon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria maketh the same Conclu∣sion: l The Spirit of God is no Creature (saith hee) because things created are in one place, but of the Spirit of God it is written, Whither shall I goe from thy presence? So these holy Fathers, every one Ga∣tholique, without exception.

SECT. I.

THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament, which we with the Fathers, especially a Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole, as well in a part of Bread consecrated, as in the whole loafe; even as the Image of the King may be as per∣fect in a penny, as in a shilling. But neither hee, nor any Father e∣ver said that a little Hoast (which boast you call Christ) is equall with a great Hoast; No, for the Fathers in the Councell of * Nice absolutely denyed this: nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast, as your Fathers of * Trent have taught, because no such part can resemble Totum Christum, whole Christ Sacramentally, which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment; thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules, which is the Body of Christ. So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall, and materiall Presence of Christs Body, which we further impugne.

SECT. II.

THe Body of Christ (as we professe) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts, an head exposed to pricking with thornes, a face to buffers, a backe to scourges, eyes to visible nod∣dings and mockings, eares to blasphemies, hands and feet to pier∣cing with nayles. This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ, and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacra∣ment, in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts, distinct one from another. Two of your b Cardi∣nals Page  189 doe both answere that Quantity, magnitude, proportion, and ex∣tension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sa∣crament: or else (saith one) If the Nose should stand where the Eye is, and the Eye where the Nose is, it should be a confused Monster. So they. So necessary it is; even in your owne faith, that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts, distinct one from another.

SECT. III.

THe Canons of that c Councell of Trent decreed, as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation, to beleeve, That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast; whereby is meant (saith your d Iesuite) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast. So he. But we demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts, which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body? You distinguish, that the e Bo∣dy of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe; but in respect of the Place, or of the formes of Bread, under which it is, the whole Body is without distinction in eve∣ry least Part and indivisible Point thereof.

SECT. IV.

ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your lear∣ned, and Ancient Schoolemen, who (as your a Iesuite testifieth) Thought it impossible, that a Body that hath extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites (as ancient) unto b Durand, and c Occham. Now what greater iniury can there be, than, after that it was lawfull for a thousand, and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to professe (with your ancient Schoole-men) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast; to impose upon men's consciences, as an Article of Faith, so fond and so palpable a figment. That which seemed to the above-named Durand, and Occham such an O∣pinion, whence (as they thought) it must needes follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confounded with the legges: which (as your Cardinall Alan truly said) were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether * monstrous.

SECT. V.

THe reason, which your * Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary, that Christ his Body should have in it selfe (ac∣cording to the nature of a Body, distinct parts of head and eyes, and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule, hee taketh from Magnitude, which is an Extension of parts into their proportio∣nable length, bredth, and depth: this (saith he) is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition, in it selfe; but not so (saith he) in regard of the place.

SECT. VI.

IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine, doubtlesse Saint Augustine (who is so devout in his fervent Meditations Page  192 upon this holy mystery) would not have oppugned it, as he did, when unto that Question of Volusianus (whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin) he answered, d That every body, be it greater or lesse, wheresoever it is, must needs fill that space wherein it is, so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof. So hee: which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent, for here is expresse mention of Relation to place and space.

And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility, that the whole Bo∣dy of Christ is in every part of the Hoast, you have obiected the Ex∣ample of Man's Soule, which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body: S. Augustine (as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour) pre-occupateth, saying, a The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body. And againe the same holy Father, seeking to finde out some Similitude, whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of place, in the end saith, that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof: and hee doth instance in Wisedome, which (saith hee) is as great in a little man as in a great man; but denyeth that Quan∣tity hath any such Priviledge, for speaking of Quantity and Magni∣tude, In all such Quantity, or magnitude (saith hee) there is lesse in the part, then there is in the whole. And by this same Maxime (con∣cerning whole in respect of Place) hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood, by which you haue confounded them. And yet againe else-where (as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted, or rather derided) hee will further have you not to be so Childish, as not to know, that b The little finger is lesse than the whole hand, and one finger is lesse than two, and that one finger is one where, and the other another where. Vpon which where, and where, being notes of distinct places, we may aske, where are your Disputers now? Nay yet further∣more, passing from grosser Bodies, hee saith as much of Ayre, yea, and of the most subtil of subtils, the light of the Sunne; one part where∣of (saith hee) commeth in at one Window, another at another window, yet so, that the lesse passeth through the lesse, and the greater through the greater.

Moreover, if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast, he would never haue condemned the Eutychian Heretique for beleeving c The Body of Christ to have beene brought into such a subtilty, that is cannot be felt. But a greater subtilty there cannot be, than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point. Shew vs this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in Page  193 the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred years after Christ, and then shall we conceive better of your Cause. And lest you may talke (as you vse) of one body penetrating another, wee say unto you, as Damascen said vnto his Reader, that d This is impossible, but that either the one or the other must be divided a∣sunder.

SECT. VII.

IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to obiect the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the dores being shut; his comming out of the grave, when it was covered with a stone; his birth from his mother, her wombe being shut; besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the Eye of a needle, spoken of by Christ; all Mi∣raculous indeed, as we, with many holy * Fathers, doe willingly Confesse. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores, Stone, and wombe, and consequently confuteth all this, which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a body, in respect of space, or place. So you. Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake, in noting each of these to have beene the Acts, and workes of Omnipotencie, but yet without any penetration of Di∣mensions at all, or yet Alteration of the iust proportion of Christs body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your e Durand as incredible, as unto us.

The principall Testimony which is insisted upon, concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores, is the saying of Chryso∣stome, viz. f Christ's Body was thinne, or small, changed from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] that is, it's Thicknes, impalpable unto mortall mans hand, but onely by divine permission and dispensation. So hee. And this is alleadged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacra∣ment, voyd of Palpabilitie: never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperbole's, wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chry∣sostome, even in the point in question: who else-where speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein * Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene; whereas every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the Contrary. For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Doore, should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe? The Fathers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested a∣gainst this; whose Resolution is, that g The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable: but you will aske then, how could it passe through either Stones, or Doores, without penetration of Di∣mensions, or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe? Wee Page  194 answere, the divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage, the Thicknes of his Body continuing the same. We have Ierome for the first part teaching. h The Creature (saith hee) yeelded to the Creatour: and ancient i Iustine, for the second, say∣ing that The passage of Christ through the Doores was, by his Divine power, above nature, in his vnaltred Body; which Body consisteth of thick parts. Hee proceedeth, shewing how; even as was his walking upon the Water, by divine power working upon the water, with∣out any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Pe∣ter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water.

Each of which sayings of the Fathers, professing a Body of Christ palpable, whether Thinne with Chrysostome, or Thicke with Iustine, doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole, and whole in every least part of the Hoast, as unpalpable to man as you have said it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtilty, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian He∣retiques, who (as your k Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the ayre, and as the winde im∣palpable; as did also the l Eunomians, and were therefore condem∣ned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great.

Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when we answer, that Christ in his Birth o∣pened the wombe of his Mother, although without violation of her sacred vessell, wee are therefore presently branded by your m Dis∣puters with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spi∣rits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie. Which obiecti∣on nothing but personall malice could make, or Impudency de∣fend, as the Obiecters themselves well knew, one of them con∣fessing, that divers Fathers in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the wombe shall be holy un∣to the Lord; did teach that n Christ alone did properly open the wombe of a woman, who onely found it shut▪ He o reckoneth for this opi∣nion these holy Fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nys∣sen, Epiphanius, Hierome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So hee. A faire company of fellow Heretiques with Protestants, wee trowe: to whom the same Iesuite ioyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti, & Catholici. Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresie, maintained the Miracle, and defended the Integritie of Page  195 that sanctified wombe of the Blessed Virgin, (to witt) that the Vir∣ginall cell might be said to open it selfe, which was shut in respect of other women (who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the birth) being preserued from all hurtfull violence, either from with∣in or from without; which could not be without a Miracle.

Furthermore hearken to the answere of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall finde your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers; for your fore-named a Iesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom hee himselfe approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, speake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereti∣call Marcionites, who denyed that Christ had any true Body; because that els the said Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall, and onely imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the iudgement of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Phantasticall. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be added to the rest, who in an Epistle calm∣ly, and as it were in a coole blood, teacheth that b Christ is the only he, who by his birth opened his Mothers wombe, and left it shut & sealed up againe. And maketh bold to tearme them vnlearned, that thinke the contrary: who living above a thousand yeares agoe, is therefore so much the more competent a witnes of the Catholike truth.

As for the entrance of the * Camell, (which is said of Christ) to passe through the eye of a needle: the subtilty of your Obiection is not so needle-sharpe, but that it may be easily blunted, for Christ spake by way of comparison, and implyed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility, Thus; as it is simply Impossible for a Camell (be it Rope, or be it Beast) to passe through the eye of a Needle, retaining the same dimension and property: so is it Impossible for a Rich-man, so long as he hath on him a great Bunch or grossnes of confidence in his riches, and wordly affections, to enter into the Kingdome of God. Although otherwise, as it is possible for God, by his miracu∣lous power so to contract the Camell, that it may passe through the Needles eye; so is it as possible by his omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling Bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man, that hee, being truely mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himselfe, and at length enter into the King∣dome of Heaven.

SECT. I.

NOne will thinke we need to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church; the Absurdities which we have al∣ready heard professed therein, under the testifications of your own Disputers, having beene so marvailously and palpably absurd, as hath beene shewen. Among which wee may reckon this, that followeth, as not the least prodigious Conse∣quence of your Romish Corporall Presence (to wit)

SECT. II.

CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane na∣ture of Christ, after the Resurrection, but that he was able na∣turally of himselfe, as hee was man, to performe the perfect Acts, which other men can, who are of right constitution of Body, and of sound understanding; such as are the functions of Iudgement, and reason, and of appetite, sence, & motion, according to the liberty of his own will. This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike. But your now Romane faith is to beleeve, as followeth in the conclusi∣ons set down by your Iesuite Suarez, a without (as he saith) the contra∣diction Page  197 of any Divine in your Church. First, that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe. And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto; whilst be∣leeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast, you shut him vp in a Boxe, where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion, as any other unconsecrated Bread; which being put toge∣ther with it lyeth so long, untill they both equally waxe mouldy, putrifye, and ingender wormes. Secondly, that Christ in himselfe, as being in this Sacrament, hath no naturall faculty of sence, nor abili∣ty (without a miracle) to heare or see, &c. Thirdly, That he is voyd of all sensible appetite. Lastly, that (without some miraculous power) he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present, nor yet remember any notions past. So he.

SECT. III.

HAve you any Text, yea or yet pretext either of Scripture, or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception? Certainly Scripture telleth us, that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense, and Agility; and his soule in Iudgement, and Capacity. Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years af∣ter Christ, who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame▪ or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most abso∣lute perfection: we say no one Father, or Teacher of the Evangeli∣call Truth once fancied this unchristian, and false faith. You must therefore derive this from him, whom Christ calleth the Father of lies. VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation.

SECT. IV.

VVHat is this, which we have heard? Christ his humanity▪ after his Resurrection, not to have so much Capacity, as a Child? which is (as he is here) to vnderstand or imagine any thing done? not thè power of a Moale, or Mouse; which is to heare, or see? not the faculty of a little Aut, so as to move it selfe? as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body, & humane nature of Christ: which being once * sowen in infirmity, is, (as the Scripture saith) since risen in power. Doe you heare? In power, saith the spirit of God, shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie, in the Body of every Christian: and you have turned power into infirmitie, even in Christ himselfe, whom you have now trans∣formed into an * Idoll having eyes, and seeth not, eares, and heareth not, feete, and walketh not, heart, and imagineth not: and yet this you professe to adore, as the person of the Sonne of God. O the strength of Satanicall Delusion!

SECT. V.

REmember your * former generall Principle, which wee ac∣knowledged to be sound and true, viz. All such Actions, and Qualities, which are reall in any Body without any relation to place, cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places, wherein a Body is supposed to be. As for Example: The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar, and hot in another, wounded, and whole, in ioy, and griefe, dead, and alive at the same time. The reason. These are im∣possible (say you) because of Contradiction: for, that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties, it is repugnant to the under∣standing of man. So you; which is an infallible Truth, when the Modus, or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe, and not to any thing else: it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one, the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan, and sound and in health at Rome, in the same instant.

SECT. I.

BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point, wee are willing to heare your a Master Brerely his preface in your defence: The carnall man (saith hee) is not for all this satisfied, but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd, and undecent indignities: Calvin saying, That he reiected them as unwor∣thy Page  199 of the Maiestie of Christ, And Doctor Willet saith: That they are unseemely, and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Bo∣dy of Christ. So he, at once relating, and reiecting their opinions.

SECT. II.

ALl Christian Creeds tell us, that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God, that is, in perfection of glory. But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines; d That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine, wheresoever, untill they be corrupted. And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession. Insomuch, that the Body of Christ is moved, wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved, be it into the dirt, or into the Dunghill. Se∣condly, that according to your e Romish Decrees, and publique Missals, the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communi∣cant; yea, and you have f Cases about the vomiting of it, whether vpon weaknes of g S•omacke, or of h Drunkennes. Next that it is devoured of Mice, and blowne away with wind, for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your * Missals. VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate, that is undige∣sted by reason of mans infirmity, to descend raw through the Body into the Draught (which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine:) you falling into this speculation, tell us concerning the Egestion, that it is held i Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case. So you: affirming this to be but onely Probable, whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread, so long as it is uncorrupt (which is your k generall Tenet) they Page  200 must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infir∣mity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege. For if (as you do also say) the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a * Dunghill, why may you not as wickedly beleeve, that it may passe into the Draught?

SECT. III.

HOly Writ teacheth us, that there is as great difference be∣tweene the humiliation of Christ, when he was on earth, and his now Exaltation in glory, in Heauen, as there is betweene Shame, and Glory, it being now * [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] A Body of Glo∣ry. Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning, de∣vouring, regorging, yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill, and the like, are such execrable speeches, as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them, thinking that we have heard, in these, the scoffes, reproaches, and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion, rather than the opinion of any, that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Chri∣stians.

If this had beene the ancient Faith, some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion, by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Iudgement therein: from whose diuerse and copi∣ous Volumes neither doe you alleage, nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up, or Mice eating, or so much as the winde blow∣ing away the Body of Christ; much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of. But contrariwise l Origen and * Cyrill, distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread, which is the Reall Body of Christ, and the Bread Sacramentall, say That not that Body, but this Bread goeth into the Draught. Which to affirme of Christs Body, were an Assertion abhominable.

SECT. IV.

IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd, but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it: the like may be said of our Romish Opposites, whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise, as in the most particulars, so for the point now in Question. And al∣though Page  201 many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it, yet have two among you (as it were putting on Vizards on their faces) come in with two fanaticall m Answeres. Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body, whilest he was in the world: n Many (saith your Cardinall) can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe, fallen to the earth, burnt, or eaten of beasts: as though we doe not read, that Christ was in∣cluded in the wombe of the Virgin, lay upon the earth, and might with∣out any miracle have beene eaten of beasts, why may not such things now happen unto him, but [sine laesione] without any hurt at all? So he.

Ioyne with this the Determination of your o Schoole; That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still, although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs. But Master Brerely more cunningly, that he might not disguise your opinions, but also make Protestants odious, (if it might be) for their exceptions against them, doth readily tell us, that Pagans, Iewes, and Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion, as against Christ his Incarnation, and his Crucifying. So he. Both which Answeres are but meere tergi∣versations, by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ: That, then in the state of his humiliation, with This, which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory. Wee therefore reioyne, as followeth.

Your Disputers have so answered, as if Christ his Incarnation in the wombe of a Virgin, his Conversation upon earth, and his Pas∣sion upon the Crosse were not obiects of Indignity, notwithstanding the Spirit of God, hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities, Thus: * Who being in the forme of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God, yet [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] made himselfe of no reputation, but tooke upon him the forme of a ser∣vant (such was his Incarnation) and became obedient to death, even (spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof) The [shamefull] death of the Crosse. Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace, and mercy, or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man, as it is written * God so lo∣ved the world, that he sent his Sonne, (namely to suffer) that who∣soever should believe in him should not perish, but have life everla∣sting. How could your Answerers but know, that it was not the ob∣servation of the indignities, which Christ suffered, that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans, Iewes, and Heretikes: but their faith∣lessenesse in taking such scandall thereat, as to deprive themselves, by their Infidelitie, of all hope of life by Christ crucified. Hearken furthermore.

SECT. V.

THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this world, and his now present Condition at the right hand of God, is as extreamely disproportionable as is * Mor∣tality, and Immortality, Shame and Glory, Misery and Blessednes, Earth and Heaven; that being his state of humiliation, and this contrariwise of his exaltation, as all Christians know, and professe. And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries, yet may Morall and Spirituall a∣basements be offered unto Christ, as well in the Opinion, as in the Practice of men. Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Ca∣pernaites concerning Christ, whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally: for the Practice you may set before you the Co∣rinthians, who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him, and were made guilty of high Prophanation a∣gainst the glorious Body of Christ. And what else soundeth that Relative iniury against Christ, by murthering his Saints on earth, complained off by his voice from Heaven; * Saul, Saul, why persecu∣test thou me?

Your Cardinall, in answere to the Obiection of Indignity offe∣red to Christ, by putting him in a Boxe, and of being Eaten with Wormes, and the like; opposed (as you have heard) saying, Why may not such things now happen unto him but [sine laesione] that is, without any hurt? Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis, that is, hurt of the Body; yet should there be thereby, in the opinion of men, laesio dignitatis, that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity, which is set forth in Scripture, and which our Article of faith, concerning his Bo∣dily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven, teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie. This your Aquinas well saw, when in regard of Indignity he iudged it a An hainous wicked∣nesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe, appearing in his proper forme. And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme, more than when that one, and the same Person is imprisoned, whether open faced, or covered, whe∣ther in the day, or in the night, it mattereth not much, for still the same person is shut up in Prison? Againe, if that these Circumstan∣ces now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity, why doe Page  203 your Iesuites, in a point of Opinion, deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant, because of the * Indignity against his Maiestie.

Come we to the point of Practice. Let this be our lesson; when there is Reverence in the use of a thing, then there may be Irreve∣rence, and Indignity in the abuse thereof. But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven, and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence. The first, least some part of the Hoast (which you beleeve to be the body of Christ) should hang on the Priest's Beard; the second, least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split. But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice, Wormes, and sometimes (as your owne * stories have related) kept close in a Dunghill? One word more. If these seeme not sufficiently indigne, because there is not Laesio corporis; Hurt of the Body (this being your onely E∣vasion) what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves, who as he is in this Sacrament, Is (you say) without power of motion of sense, and of understanding? Why, my Masters, can there be Lamenesse, Blindnesse, Deafenesse, and Impotencie it selfe, without Hurt of the same partie so maymed? &c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill.

SECT. I.

THis (as it is delivered by your a Cardinall, taken out, as he saith, of the Vatican Library) standeth thus: Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread, and Cup which is set before us, but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table: The Lambe of God, which taketh away the sinnes of the World, offered unbloodily of the Priest. And we receiving truly his Body and Blood, let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection. For this Cause doe we receive not much, but little, that wee may understand this is not to satisfie, but to sancti∣fie. So the Canon.

SECT. II.

SCarce is there any one Romish Author, handling this Contro∣versie, who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice, for the countenancing of your Romish Masse. Contrarily Protestants (as they are set downe by our b Zanchy, and your c Bellarmine) in great numbers (among whom are Luther and Calvin) with ioynt consent approve of this Canon; one of them (Bucer by name) sub∣scribing unto it with his owne hand, in these words: So I thinke in the Lord, and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God. So they. The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines.

SECT. III.

THis (as is propounded by your Cardinall) standeth thus. d All (saith he) by the Lambe understand Christ as he is di∣stinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar. Next. But the Protestants thinke (saith he) that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar, but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith, as sitting at the right hand of God. But we all say (saith he) that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table (meaning the Altar below) yet so, that we see in it not so much the outward Sym∣bols, and Signes, as that which lyeth hid under them, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ. So hee. The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder, that is, betweene Heaven above, and Earth below. Let us set forward in our progresse, but with easie, and even paces; to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes, and rottennesse of your Obiections.

SECT. IV.

FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon. First is the no∣mination of Bread. Secondly, the mention of two Tables. Thirdly, the admonition to lift up our minds. Fourthly, the ex∣pression of the Reason thereof. Fiftly, the Confirmation of the same Reason.

First, That, which the Councell would that men be not too in∣tent unto, they call Bread after Consecration; for the Errour, which they would have avoyded, was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament (according to your Cardinals e Glosse) and then was it after Consecration, because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated; which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing: or else the Errour must have beene (as indeed it was) too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread, which must needs be so, because it was consecrated, and notwithstanding it being so consecrated, in the Canon it is called Bread. which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured, especially seeing that we find that your f Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church, for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes Page  206 of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words [This is my Body,] by you called the words of Consecration. Besides they so call them Bread and Wine, as they name them Symbols and Signes, which properly they could not be, untill after Conse∣cration.

Secondly, the g Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables, in respect of place; the one, as Here; being as much as to say, This Table: and the other opposed hereunto is instiled, That Table. And, of this Table Here, the Councell forbiddeth Chri∣stians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us: But con∣trarily, concerning That other Table, they command men to Lift up their minds aloft. And not thus onely, but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects. The Obiect of the First Table, Here, they name Bread, and the Cup; the obiects of sense: And the other obiect, opposed to this, is that on the other Table, expressed to be the Lambe of God, the obiect of our mindes.

Thirdly, the Admonition or Caution, which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread, is, not to be too intent to it: but touching the Lambe of Christ, they command us to lift up our mindes aloft; for so the word h [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] doth signifie, not to be used (we thinke) for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the mat∣ter before us, as your Cardinall fancieth: but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven, according to the Catholike fence of those words, * SVRSVM CORDA!

OVr next two proofes out of the Canon are these. First is their Reason of the former Caution: the Second, the Confirmati∣on of that Reason: both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe. Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us? It followeth; Because they are not ordained to satisfie our naturall man, namely, by a full eating and Drinking: but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body, and Blood of Christ, to the sanctifying of our soules: whereas your Church doth attribute to that, which you eate in this Sacra∣ment, a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch. But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence.

To confirme their Reason, why the Sacrament was not ordai∣ned for the satisfying of the naturall man, they adde saying; For this cause we receive not much, but little: which one Clause most e∣vidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine; and not of the Body, and Blood of Christ. As your generall Romane Catechisme (if you have not already learned it) will now teach you to beleeve, saying that i Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament. And in∣deed Page  207 none ever said of the Eucharist, that he eat a little of Christ's Body, or a little Christ, but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more, sometime lesse. Nor this onely, but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that, whereof if much were taken (saith it) it might satiate the naturall man. So the Canon. But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfie the naturall man, you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals, * acknowled∣ging men Drunke with the Sacrament, even unto vomiting with the one part thereof; and also making mention of Men, and Mice be∣ing fed and nourished with the other. So then the naturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament; but with what therein? The Body and Blood of Christ? you abhorre to thinke that; with Acci∣dents? You may be ashamed to affirme it, as from the Iudgement of Antiquity, seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects: or of nourishing a substance by meere Accidents. Where∣fore untill you can prove some one of all these, give us leave to be∣leeve, that all were of the mind of that one k Father, who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall, or not-bodily thing to be food to a bodily substance. And so much the rather, because the Fathers have manifoldly * acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the substance of Bread. Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell, touching the Eucharist, was like as if one should say of Baptisme; We take not too much, but little, lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule, but for the clensing of the Flesh. None is so stupid as not to understand, by Much and Little, the substance of water.

And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice, you may fetch it from the Fathers in ano∣ther Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, Anno 693. who shew this Reason, why they l Take little portions of the Hoast (namely, say they) least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed, and over-charged; and least it may passe into the Draught, but that it may be nourishment for the soule. Hereby plain∣ly teaching, concerning the consecrated matter, that were it so much as could burthen the belly, it would through the superflui∣tie thereof goe into the Draught: whereas, if Lesse, it would serve as well, or better for a Sacramentall use, to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ. But you are not so farre bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much, which stuffeth, and after passeth into the Draught, to be Christ's Bodie; and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere * Accidents. For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance, through the Muchnesse thereof, either to satiate the naturall appetite, in feeding, or to over-charge the Belly by weight, in pressing it downe to the Draught. Never did any Father father such an Imagination. What can be, if this be not true reasoning, and consequently a full confu∣ration Page  208 of your Romane Faith. Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained, concerning the not seeking Christ, Here, on this Table, is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your As∣sertion by a five-fold force. First, by proofe of no Transubstan∣tiation of Bread; Secondly, no Corporall Presence of Christ's Bodie; Thirdly, no Corporall Coniunction with the Bodies of the Commu∣nicants; and (consequently) Fourthly, no proper Sacrifice thereof; And lastly, no Divine Adoration due unto it. Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avant.

SECT. V.

FIrst you m Obiect, that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table, mistaking what Table is meant; for the Canon specifying two Tables, one Here, which is of the Eucharist, and another That Table, namely in Heaven, saith that Christ is placed on That Table, according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven. Secondly, hee is said (say you) to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest; which cannot be done, as hee is in Heaven. The words of the Canon, truly resolved, doe cashiere this Obie∣ction, as thus: The Lambe of God set at that Table (namely in Hea∣ven) is sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here, to wit, on the Table below (representatively) as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew. And these two may easily consist, without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the high∣est Heavens; as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth. Thirdly, you alleage; Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ. As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall, that is Figu∣rative Receiving; and more especially (which * hath beene both proved, and confessed) a Reall, and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually, without any Corporall Coniunction.

But it is added (saith he) that These (namely, the Body and Blood of Christ) are Symbols of our Resurrection; which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ: otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules, onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby. So hee, that's to say, as successesly as in the former.

For the word, HAEC, These, (which are called Symbols of our Re∣surrection) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ, immediatly spoken of, and placed on the Table in Heaven (which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies: because, * If Christ be risen, then must they that are Christs also rise againe. Or else the word, These, may have relation to the Page  209 more remote (after the manner of the Greekes) to wit, Bread and Cup on the first Table, because (as immediately followeth) they are these whereof not much, but little is taken; as you have heard. Which other * Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection, without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniun∣ction with our Bodies, more than there is by the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme, which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection; as doth also your Iesuite m Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection. (But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke.) Lastly, how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, is plentifully resol∣ved in * the Sixt Booke.