all of these obscurities were first through an incessant agitatiō of the mind discouered by our Catholike n Catholike Schoole-men For these and such like are handled and discussed by S. Thomas Aquinas The Maister of the Sentences Scotus Suarez Vasquez and diuers others School-men for the more exact search of the truth and after most fully answered by them so as these short currents of doubts from thence receaued their stops from whence they first did spring But now our Aduersaries for it is the misfortune of learning euer to be wounded by her owne hand are not ashamed euen to turne the edges of those Arguments first propounded and answered by Catholike Deuines vpon vs who maintayne the said faith which those Doctours did By which course of proceeding we may easily discouer how barren dry our Sectaries are for they bring little or nothing of themselues to impugne our faith heerin but only Eccho forth what they haue heard our learned Catholikes afore speak yet do they Eccho after a strange manner for they do not repeate the last words as in nature and reason they should but this were for their disaduantage since they containe the answers and solutions but only the firster part thereof wherin do lye the obiections The other point wherof the Reader is to take notice is this That most of the former difficulties especially of the two latter Passages or Chapters do consist in the repugnancy which they beare to the outward Sense and therfore seeing that these are chiefly insisted vpon and more more reinforced by our Aduersaries we may heere truly say that no small part of a Sacramentaries Faith lyes in his eye Thus howsoeuer such rapt Spiritualists will at other times vaunt of their hidden reuelations from God concerning the secrets of their Profession yet you shall euer find them euen in the midst of these their aerie high-towring Illuminations to looke downe vpon Sense and naturall Reason though Reason teacheth vs not to rely vpon Reason in things transcending Reason bearing thēselues herein not much vnlike to your great vnprofitable Kites which though they fly high yet they haue their Eye still fixed vpon the earth THE PROTESTANTS DIFFICVLTY OF A Body being in diuers Places answered from two more difficult Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation CHAP. VI. NOvv after we haue dissected as it were point after point such difficulties in the Blessed Sacrament wherein the very synewes and strength of our Aduersaries cause doe chiefly lye We are further heere to aduertise the Reader that through the consideration of many Dogmaticall a Dogmaticall Assertions A third Example besides those two chiefe Mysteries afore specified may be the wonderfull difficulty of Creation or Annihilation which to Heathen Philosophers may seeme to imply a Contradiction for to say that Something may be made of Nothing which is Creation and that Something may be turned into Nothing which is Annihilation may be thought to say that Something is Nothing and Nothing Something And doubtlesse it cannot be apprehended by Mans vnderstanding that a Thing should now exist which afore was Nothing and in like sort that Something should be turned into Nothing except this Nothing be Something A fourth Example may be the Resurrection of the Dead Now the difficulty in this Mysterie is how one and the same Indiuiduum or particuler Body should be twice made for if it be twice then is it with a double action and if with a double action how comes it to passe that it is not two seeing that the Effect depends on the Action vt eius Terminus Furthermore this Mystery is made more incomprehensible by reason of the Anthropophagi or Cannibals who feeding vpon Mans flesh neuerthelesse both their owne bodies and the bodies of those others vpon whom they feed and whose flesh is turned into the flesh and substance of the Canniballs shall rise at the day of the resurrection most distinct and seuerall Bodyes where we see that one Body is turned into the substance of another and yet hereafter that very said substance is to rise vp most different and distinct Bodies A fifth Example may be taken from the Paynes of the damned where the soules and the Diuells are tormented and punished with corporall fire for if the burning of the fire doth not otherwise torment a thing then dissolueudo continuum then how can it afflict an Indiuisible Substance as the Soule of Man or a Spirit is of which Point see Augustine lib. 21. de Ciuit. Die cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. A sixt is the Obseruation how a Spirit can be detayned and holden by a Body for it seemeth no lesse difficult to be vnderstood how a Spirit should be holden by a Body that it passeth not wheresoeuer it would then that a Body should not be detayned and hindered by another Body but that it may freely passe through any solide bodyes as if they were no Bodies at all Now the firster part of this difficulty appeareth in the former example of the Diuells who being incorporall Substances are detayned with Hell fire so as that they cannot passe whither they would which point may be also exemplified by our Soule which being an immateriall Substance is deteyned and holden by our Body A seauenth may be taken from the Examples out of the Scriptures where we read that the Fire by Gods Power did suspend it faculty of heating Dan. 3 And that Christ and S. Peter by the same Power did walke vpon the waters Matth. 14. and the like Now if God can effect that that which is naturally hoate shall no◠heate and that which is naturally ponderous and heauie shall not descend downwards hauing no hinderance by the same reason is he able to make that a true body may want also circumscription of place For the reason why through diuine power that which is hoat shall not heate nor a thing ponderous shall not descend towards the Center is in that Causa est prior Effectu the cause is before it effect and therefore not depending on the effect may by God be separated from the same but the like reason is found in Magnitude which is the Cause and to fill or possesse a place which is the effect arising from the said cause and therefor later in nature then it Besides Grauitas or Ponderosity is not only the cause why a heauy body doth descend being out of it naturall place but it is also the cause thereof euen in that kind of Cause to wit in genere causae formalis in which Magnitude is the cause why a Body doth possesse a place An eight may be deduced from other Examples in Scripture whereby is proued that diuers bodies may possesse one and the same place and consequently that a Body may want all circumscription of place Hereof are no few Examples borrowed from our Sauiour himselfe as that of his Natiuitie where our Sauiour did proceed out of the wombe of the Blessed Virgin without any breach of
and rely in any sort of the Passiue Power of the Subiect since in this kind of producing there was no preexistent subiect at all much lesse any Passiue power thereof Fourthly they further proceed and affirme that God can doe all things which can by any meanes exist agreeably to that of our Sauiour Omnia f Omnia tibi Marc. 14. tibi possibilia sunt Now all that may exist which in it owne nature implyeth a Being only and not a Not-being And from hence proceedeth that common Axiome of Deuines That euery thing is possible to God to be done which implieth not a contradiction Now what implyeth a contradiction is impossible to be done And the reason heerof is in that what implyeth a contradiction supposeth a Being and a Not-being of a thing and all this at one time and therfore if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose Being should consist in a Not-being Now only that which hath no Being cannot be effected by God since euery thing that is ought in some sort to be like to him of whome it is Besides to make that which is not and hath no Being is not to make but rather a Not-making to the which not any Power but an Impotency belongeth which Impotency can in no sort be assigned to his Diuine Maiesty who only is weak in not being able to be weake Thus is his mighty Arme shortened in deficiency but extended in strength since to him it is more easy to do then not to do And thus we teach that he is not able to make Nothing who yet of Nothing made all things And therfore answerably hereto because God is not capable of any defect we say God cānot dye because Death is formally non Ens besides that true Diuinity is impatible By the same reason we affirme that God cannot sinne since the power required to Sinne is only a want of Power though powerfully raigning in Man So free is he from all such weaknesse since he sheweth himselfe most Omnipotent in being herein not Omnipotent And thus much of these foure points which are as it were foure graduall steps wherby Mans Vnderstanding may climbe vp to see how far Gods Power may extend it selfe or so many high Turrets from whence our soule ouerlooking the low and beaten paths of Nature may with an inward reflexe view the boundlesse and vast heights of Gods infinite Might and Puissance The vse wherof is that the Reader may make application of this doctrine to the difficulties of the Blessed Sacrament and so see if any of them according to the former rules may imply any Impossibility or noe For though we graunt that many things therin do transcend the created course of Nature yet neuerthelesse God who is Natures Nature is able at his pleasure to disioint the setled frame therof and therfore heere appeareth the great Indignity which these Idolaters of Nature I mean the Sectaries of this Tyme who impugne the doctrine of the Eucharist namely because it is repugnant to naturall Reason do offer vnto God in seeking to confine his force within the narrow lymits of Nature as if the precincts therof were the Herculean Pillar beyond which his Omnipotency which is only bounded within a boundlesse compasse cannot passe So apt these Men are to breath out blasphemies against him through whome they breath to speake in dishonour of him in whome they speake THE FIRST PASSAGE OF THE MYSTERIES AND other difficulties of the Eucharist CHAP. III. BVT now at the last to come to those great difficulties which present themselues in the Blessed Sacrament I will touch them in these three Passages following which shal be accompanied with their Marginal References conteyning the explication and vnfolding of them Which Obscurities euen for the more aduantage to our Sectaryes I haue set downe in seeming Contradictions that being thus deliuered in the fullest shew of Impossibilityes if they can be solued then no doubt but being more neerly not so litteraly weighed they may the more easely be reconcyled But now since in an erring and mistaking Eye they may appeare meere Repugnances I haue thought good therefore once more this second tyme to forwarne our Aduersaryes for their former sleights with other Mens labours do presage their like dealing heerin if full preuention and caution be not made afore that they do not diuulge to their followers lesse capable of such nice speculations the bare difficultyes alone as here they lye concealing their Explications drawne from Philosophy and Diuinity and so traducing vs though most falsly as mantayners of most euident and irreconciliable contradictoryes but that they would vouchsafe withall to take notice of their Marginall illustrations and so either to relate them both together or to passe them ouer togeather since this deportment is best sorting to the candor integrity of an ingenuous and well-meaning Aduersary And first if we looke into the stupendious and miraculous Conuersion made therein we shall discouer these points following We shall find it to be a a A Change This Conuersion is not wrought by any assumption of Bread to the Person of the VVord Nor by any locall and simple vnion of the Bread with the Body Nor by any partiall change of the Bread into the Body but is an entire and whole conuersion of the Substance of Bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ Change of one thing into another and yet contrary to all other conuersions whatsoeuer nothing of that thus altered b Remayning In all naturall Conuersions the Materia prima of the thing conuerted remaineth vnder both the Termini of the Conuersion and by the Conuersion this Materia prima is inuested only with a new essentiall forme so when water is turned into ayre the Materia prima of water remaineth and is not altered but only taketh the forme of ayre But heere the Materia prima of Bread and wyne doth not remaine and therefore the Councell of Trent teacheth that the Conuersion is made of the whole substance of Bread and wyne meaning thereby both of the matter and forme thereof remaining nor any other thing c Produced of new In naturall Conuersions that into which any thing is changed is produced of new for the Terminus ad quem not afore existing but only by vertue of the change must be of necessity produced of new and this Conuersion is called by Philosophers Conuersio productiua But heere in the Eucharist the Body of Christ preexisting afore the Conuersion though not vnder the species or forme of Bread doth cause that the Conuersion heere maketh not that the Body of Christ should simply begin to be but only that it should begin of new to be vnder the forme of Bread produced of new and therefore we may truly say the Bread was but is not is Nothing and yet d Not annihilated Because as it is aboue said the Materia prima of bread remaineth not the Bread is nothing and yet
the bread is not annihilated for Annihilation is an action which terminateth and endeth in Nothing but this action in the Eucharist by the which the bread ceaseth to be doth not terminate in nothing but in something to witt in the body of Christ not annihilated A Change which is caused by a e Successiue The words of Consecration are the cause of this conuersion and therefore this conuersion is not made without a true successiue pronouncing of the said words Successiue pronouncing of seuerall words and yet wrought in an f Instant Though all the words successiuely pronounced doe worke this Conuersion yet the said words haue no perfect signification and consequently causeth not the change till the last instant wherein the last word is pronounced for in that last instant and not before the effect of the words doe really and truly exist â—hat is the Conuersion of Bread into the Body of Christ and of the wine into his Bloud The like difficulty we find in the words of Baptisme which produce no effect till the last Instant Now heere it is to be obserued that though the signification of the words and the Conuersion be perfected together in one instant yet in order of Nature they reciprocally precede and follow one the other for as the truth of this Proposition This is my Body depends à rei essentia of the essence or being of the thing touched in this Proposition so the Conuersion doth precede the signification of the words but as those words are the Cause of the Conuersion so the words precede the Conuersion instant A Change wherein the Priest may be said of Bread g To make In a sober construction the Priest may be said to make the Body of Christ in that by his only and no lay persons pronouncing of the wordes of Consecration the bread is really turned into the Body of Christ and in this sense the Ancient Fathers doe most frequently teach that the Priest maketh the Body of Christ See Cyprian l. 1. epist 2. 9. lib. 3. epist 25. Athanasius 2. Apolog contra Arianos Basil l. â— de Baptisin c. S. Chrysostome l. 3. 6. de Sacerdotio Hierome lib. contra Luciferianos Now though the Fathers in this their peculiar sense were accustomed to write so in regard that none could consecrate but a Priest yet if we will speake in precise termes the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ because Christs Body being afore the Priest by his words doth not produce it of new but only causeth it to be vnder those externall formes of Bread and wine vnder which afore it was not to make the Body of Christ yet the Priest maketh not the Body of Christ A Change wherein the Body being made h Of Bread The Body of Christ may be said to be made of Bread because the Bread is truly and really conuerted into his Body though the Body doth truly exist before any such Conuersion And in this sense diuers ancient Fathers doe write that the Body of Christ is made of Bread Cyprian saith Serm. de Coena Domini Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei factus est caro Gaudentius tract 2. de Exodo Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum facit S. Augustine in his Sermon cited by S. Bede vpon the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith Non omnis Panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi so vsuall and obuious was this phrase with the ancient Fathers which is so harsh to the curious eares of our new Brethren of Bread a thing farre different from flesh is the very same which was made of the flesh of the Queene of Heauen A Change where by the force of Consecration the Body is without Bloud and yet euen then the Body is i Not without Bloud The reason hereof is because Christ is there whole vnder either of the externall formes in regard of the naturall vnion of his soule with his Body which vnion is neuer more to be dissolued since he is neuer more to die But if his Body should be without Bloud then should it be a dead Body and consequently himselfe were hereafter to die againe contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 6. Christus resurgens ex inortuis iam non moritur mors illi vltra non dominabitur not without Bloud In like sort by the same vertue the Humanity of Christ is only intended and yet k His Diuinity The Humanity of Christ is euer accompanied with the Diuinity and therfore his Humanity being in the Sacrament by force of Consecration his Diuinity is also there with it per concomitantiam as the Deuines do speake Now that where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity of Christ must be also is proued from this Principle of Faith to witt That Christ is one diuine Person subsisting in two natures and therefore wheresoeuer the Body of Christ is it can haue no other then a diuine subsistence which subsistence is the same in matter with the diuine Essence So as we see by force of the Hypostaticall vnion which is neuer to be dissolued where the Body of Christ is there the Diuinity is also his Diuinity which is euer l In all places If the Diuinity of God were not in all places then should it be circumscriptible or at least definitiue in place and consequently not Infinite then it were no true Diuinity in all places is * Heere of new In like sort all do grant that the Diuinity of Christ was in the wombe of the B. Virgin before her Conception and yet the Diuinity was there after another manner at the tyme of her Conception heere of new truly and really exhibited A Change where the Body of our Sauiour is present and yet m Represented It may be said to be represented First because the externall formes of Bread and wyne doe represent the Body of Christ as it dyed vpon the Crosse and the Bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse for the Eucharist is a commemoration of the Passion of Christ according to those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat And in this respect his Body may be said to be represented in the Eucharist because it is not there after the same manner as it was vpon the Crosse but only by similitude and in this sense Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium is to be vnderstood where he saith Secundum quemdam modum SacramentuÌ„ Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Secondly it is said to be represented or in figure because the externall formes of Bread and wyne are the signes of the Body and Bloud of Christ there present
of the needle should more or lesse tend downwards into the earth and vnder the Horizon but no such change of declination is obserued to be Fourthly because that whersoeuer any one do put the Pole of the Loadstone in respect of that Rocke yet it would follow that a Needle being placed in the same Paralell of this Pole yet distant farre from it should tend directly to the East and in other places of the same Paralell to the West but not at all to the North. But experience to the contrary hereto is made since in those places it euer tendeth towards the North. And thus much of this second opinion The third and last is of those who attribute this vertue of the Loadstone only to the Specifica intâ—rna forma therof wherby it selfe should euer bend one way or a needle touched therwith Euen as the earth out of it specificall nature forme tendeth towards the Center This Reason is assigned not because it can be demonstrated for it is meerly in speculation but only as for their last refuge in that all other supposed causes therof are found defectiue which though it be ouer generall and little better then Petitio princiâ—ij and not much more then to say The Loadstone tendeth towards the North because it tendeth towards the North yet it is otherwise euidently confuted And first seeing there is but one internall specificall forme of all Loadstones and seeing it is obserued that that very part of the Loadstone doth beare euer towards the North which was found to lye towards the North in the Mine or ground and that all Loadstones do not lye after one and the same manner in the Mine the veines or graine of seuerall Loadstones lying in the Myne seuerall wayes it therfore followeth that this peculiar direction towards the North cannot be assigned to the internall forme of the Loadstone Secondly the forme of the Loadstone as the formes of all other compounded bodyes doth proceed from the mixture of the Elements but we find this vertue or propension of mouing not to be in any of the Elements How then can they impart it to the Loadstone Thirdly if the forme should be the cause of it direction then should it in all probability be performed by the mediation of some vertue or quality of the forme Now all qualities caused by the mixture of Elements originally proceed à pain is qualitatibus and consequently they are sensible but this qualitie if there be any such is insensible Fourthly the Loadstone being Corpus graue hath a propension euen from it forme to descend downward as we see it doth therfore it cannot receaue from the same forme any other kind of motion for so one and the same forme should affoard two different motions which is absurd to affirme Fiftly if the proper forme should thus moue it selfe then should the stone be a liuing creature for it is only peculiar to a liuing creature locally to moue it selfe Sixtly and lastly If there were no variation of the Loadstone turning it selfe towards the North the cause of this motion might with more probability be assigned to the forme of the stone but the variation thereof according to the diuersity of Countries is most diuers for in some places it hath no variation at all but directly tendeth to the Pole of the world in other partes to wit in all the Occidentall Maritime places of Europe and Africke from Norway to the Cape of Buona Speranza it bendeth more or lesse towards the East from the North Pole and in all the Orientall Maritime places of the North Parts of America from Terra Florida to Virginia nuoua Francia c. the Needle turneth it end towards the West from the Pole Now then seeing this irregularity and diuersity of variation is such and so great in so much that in some Countries the needle turneth from the Pole thirty degrees and in other Countries more or lesse Eastward or Westward how can it proceed from the internall and specificall forme of the Loadstone since the forme of euery body affoardes a certainty and immutability of that motion which it giueth thereto And heere now I will end All which I haue produced only to this purpose to shew that the cause of the motion of the Loadstone though the effect therof be subiect to each mans eye cannot possibly be apprehended by Man that it is Gods pleasure either to be the immediate cause thereof himselfe or at least resolued to conceale the same from vs. Now if Mans vnderstanding be not able to penetrate into the causes of things sensible materiall and of what we haue dayly triall can it be able in the mysterie of the Eucharist being a point supernaturall and altogeather remoued from sense to sound all the difficulties thereof Or shall it presume to confine Gods power within those limitts and bounds which shall be assigned as answerable to the weake proportion and measure of it selfe concluding thus Mans vnderstanding cannot conceaue how all those seeming impossibilityes in the Eucharist can be salued Therefore God cannot effect them An Illation fitting to proceed from an Atheist or an Heathen Philosopher not from a Christian Loadstone or a piece of Iron after it is but touched therwith should euer haue their ends turned one way The experience whereof in that it falleth vnder euery vulgar eye the reason most inexplicable I will therefore the more laboriously insist in the reference hereto appropriated in refuting all the most probable coniectures giuen thereof by the Learned which is not vndertaken impertinently out of any venditation or vaunt of reading for this were idle and a foule blot of a Schollers Pen but only to this end to manifest that all the Learning and wit of Man is not able to set downe any sufficient and satisfiable cause thereof and that consequently it is perhaps to be referred only to the immediate will and pleasure of God who as in this though experimentally subiect to ech Mans sense so much more in the Mystery of the Eucharist being a sublyme and supernaturall point of fayth is able to accomplish that which Mans capacity and iudgement is not able to conceaue or find the reason thereof And therefore I admonish my Reader that as heere the Needle before it be touched is ready to turne it selfe indifferently towards any quarter or part of the world but after still tends to one only coast euen so it should fall out in our Iudgment which though naturally without respect it may propend to any opinion in matters in Religion yet after it hath enioyed that Magneticall and Attractiue touch of the Churches Authority it ought then to direct it course only to that Faith how intricate and perplexed soeuer it seemes whereunto God by his said Church perswadeth THE DIFFICVLTIES OF A Body wanting Circumscription of Place AND Of an Accident without a Subiect are explained by the difficulties discouered in the Power of Seeing and in the Circumstances thereof CHAP.
represent him truly when he spake those former words in the Mount A second Point which we are to obserue in the state of this Question is That the Eucharist euen after Consecration is by the Scripture sometimes called Bread for so we find it termed by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Panis quem frangimus c. The Bread which we breake is it not the participation of the Body of Christ Now this appellatiō may be for a double reason First in that it is an accustomed Dialect of Scripture to call a thing by that name which afore it was or of which it is made as hertofore I haue shewed Thus we read Gen. 3. that Eue is called the Bone of Adam because she was made therof And Exod 7. the Serpents of Moyses are termed Wands because the Wands were turned into Serpents For this very reason we find that the Eucharist is somtimes called Bread by the Fathers which places our Aduersaries are not ashamed to obiect against vs. Examples heerof we haue in Origen l. 8. contra Celsum where he calles the Eucharist Panes oblatos Bread which are offered vp in Sacrifice where instantly after he shewes that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ therby distinguishing it from other bread In like sort the Eucharist is called by Irenaeus l. 4. contra Haeres c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meate or bread sanctified or made the Eucharist In this sense also the Eucharist is called bread by Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph Chrysostome also homil 24. in prior ad Cor calleth the Bread the Body of Christ meaning bread consecrated not common Bread Finally S. Augustine c. 19. l. de fide ad Petrum calles the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread Wine The second reason why the Eucharist may be called Bread by the Scripture is in regard of the similitude which it hath with bread I meane in nourishing the soule as the bread nourisheth the body And in this sense it is so called in Iohn 6. Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And by reason also of the said resemblance we find the Eucharist termed Bread by the Fathers for Dionysius Eccles hierarch c. 3. part 3. calles the Sacrament Diuine and Heauenly Bread for the same reason Tertullian l. 3. contra Marcion termes the Eucharist Bread to wit the bread of Life for there the Trope is that the Body of Christ is called Bread because it nourisheth like bread and not that the bread is there called the Body Betweene which two Propositions there is great difference since the first which is commonly vsed by the Fathers to wit the Body of Christ is Bread presupposeth a true being there of Christs Body but yet in regard of nourishing our soules with some resemblance of bread wheras the other Proposition to wit the bread is the Body of Christ neither hurteth nor aduantageth our cause since therto is only required that bread be in the Eucharist as far forth as belong to signification that is that the externall formes therof be there for by reason of the Accidences only the bread and wine do signify thus may Bread be said to be some where in respect of it Accidences only and not of it Substance though the body of Christ hath not any such relation of being I meane only in regard of it Accidences not of it Substance And heere we may see how our Sectaries dissent from the Fathers since they alluding to the nourishment therof doe figuratiuely call the body of Christ Bread wheras the other with reference only to a naked representation do figuratiuely call the Bread the Body of Christ And thus much of these two Reasons why the Scriptures and the Fathers doe sometimes call the Eucharist Bread or Wyne Whereunto I might adioyne a third cause in that the Scripture and consequently the Fathers doth often call things as they externally appeare to the Eye So the Scripture as aboue I shewed calles Angells which appeared in humane shape Men the Brasen Serpent a Serpent c. Wherefore the Eucharist may be tearmed Bread and Wyne either by the Scripture or the Fathers in that to the Eye it seemeth only as Bread and Wine To this point I thinke good to range this one Note touching the writings of the Fathers which is that some of the Fathers though most seldome do say that the substances of the externall Symboles doe remaine after Consecration Where they are to be vnderstood that they speake of the essence and nature of the Accidences and not of the substances of Bread and Wyne An example whereof we find in Theodoret Dialog 2. who there teacheth that the Mysticall signes after consecration do remaine in their former substances figure and forme Now this is meant of the nature of the accidences and not of the Substance of bread and wyne This is proued diuers wayes first because the two Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which Theodoret being a greeke Father heere vseth containe euery kind of essence and nature aswell of accidences as of substances Secondly because Theodoret doth expound himselfe in the words following saying that we see and touch the said colour and forme which words haue necessarily reference only to the outward Accidences Thirdly in that we Catholikes doe vrge this very place in proofe of the Reall Presence for heere Theodoret plainly saith that the Body of Christ is to be vnderstood to be belieued and adored in the Eucharist and therefore to be vnderstood belieued adored saith he because the bread of the Eucharist to wit the bread consecrated is truly that which is vnderstood belieued and adored The same exposition doth a Testimony alledged out of Gelasius admit lib. de duabus naturis which testimony we also produce in that it teacheth that the bread is changed into a diuine substance by the working of the Holy Ghost Thus we see that the Sacramentaries are not ashamed so needfull and begging of proofes is Heresy out of the least appearance of aduantage or naked sound of wordes to retort the very same sayings of the Fathers against vs in which we for the fortifying of our Catholike doctrine do vehemently insist Belike they thinke that the Fathers were irresolute in their faith or that their writings doe stand according to the Prospectiue of ech Mans humor so as the Sense may that way looke as euery Eye behoulding the words would haue it Heere now I will end this consideration of the Eucharist being called bread with a short animaduersion of our Aduersaries petulant frowardnes discouered herein who lighting vpon some few straying passages where the Eucharist is called Bread presently as if they had found another Sparta to enrich with their discourse they crie out in great prodigality of words that it is nothing but materiall bread and yet when in euery leafe or page of