the Virginall parts For thus hereof doe the Fathers write to wit Hierome in Apolog. pro libris contra Iouinianum Gregorie Nazianzen in Tragoedia Christus Patiens Augustinus epist 3. ad Volusianum Ambrose lib. de instit Virginum c. 7. A point so generally belieued by the ancient Fathers that Iouinian is for the denyall thereof registred for an Heretike by Ambrose epist 80. 81. In like sort we read Iohn 20. that Christ came to his disciples Ianuis clausis which action howsoeuer our Aduersaries seeme to elude yet doe the Fathers generally acknowledge the Wonder herein to be that the Body of our Lord did then penetrate another solide and firme body thus Hierome epist ad Pamachium de erroribus Ioannis Constantinop Epiphanius haeres 64. Ambrose in cap. vlt. Lucae as also Chrysostome and August vpon this place Againe another is of our Sauiours rising out of the graue the monument or doore thereof being shut In which point also the Fathers put the former like Miracle to wit that a true naturall body should passe through the graue it still remayning shut See hereof August serm 138. de Temporâ— Hierome epist ad Hebidiam quaest 6. Chrysostome Homil. de S. Ioaâ—â—â—â— Baptista Iustinus quaest 117. besides diuerâ— others Assertions in Christian Religion whereof some are set downe in the Marginall References besides others reserued to their peculiar Chapters and of other irrefragable Positions in Philosophy we may fully perceaue that Mans vnderstanding is too short a scantling to measure out Gods power For diuers such Passages there are other Conclusions in Nature whereunto all Christians giue an absolute assent and yet their proofes cannot be deduced from the grounds of Naturall Reason so true it is that perfection in knowledge is not in this life the portion of Man I will insist in some particulers so shall our Aduersaries see that they haue reason either to admit the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist or else with the deniall thereof to deny the said Articles of Christian Faith and other Philosophicall Demonstrations First then may be presented to vs that Cardinall-Mistery of the Trinity which is indeed the basis and foundation whereupon the edifice or structure of Christian Religion is builded Heere now our Faith teacheth vs for by the Eagle wings thereof only we do mount so high our Sense and naturall Reason fluttering ouer neere the ground that there is one peculiar nature in three different Persons so as to patterne this to that in the Eucharist we find an Vnity or as I may tearme it an Indiuiduality of Nature and a diuersity of Persons sortable to the Vnity of a Body multiplicity of places Now heere we are to know that euery one of these three Persons is identified really and formally with this nature the strictest Vnion that can be conceaued whereas the Body is only externally conioyned with the place so much is the difficulty of a Body enioying at once diuers locall Circumscriptions surpassed by this dogmaticall Point of one nature being in seuerall Persons without any distraction or multiplication thereof Now secondly if we looke into that other chiefe Point of the Incarnation whereby the Deity of God appeared in the frailty of Mans nature as the SuÌ„ne shines in a pudled water we shal be oppressed euen with store of difficulties presented to vs therin I will not insist in euery particuler therof therfore I will passe ouer how in this astonishing doctrine of Christianity Christ being borne in Time was yet begor before all Time and but newly borne was full growne lying weakly in a Cradle yet able to dissolue with his finger the whole frame of this world ignorant in some sense of the end of the world yet knew all things dyed in the raigne of Tiberius yet slaine from the beginning of the world Finally his Soule separated from his Body by death yet could not dye since death ouer him had no power These and the b And the like To wit how in the Mysterie of the Incarnation God separateth from the Humanity of Christ his manner of subsistence inseâ—ting it in his Diuinity A point which hardly can be vnderstood without presuming some change in God of which he is in no sort capable Now it is no more incident to an Accident to inhere in a Subiect then it is naturall to a Substance to subsist by it selfe if therfore God can effect that a Substance shall not subsist by it selfe as heere it doth not why should not he be able to preserue an Accident without iâ— Subiect like I say I will pretermit will chiefly rest as most pertinent to this place in this one Point to wit how one Hypostasis or Person is in two Natures for whatsoeuer our Aduersaries can alledge for impugning of a Body to be in seuerall places the same is heere found with all aggrauating circumstances Will they obiect that the Places are really diuers and farre distant one froÌ„ another But heere the Natures are more different and dislike the one being Diuine and the other Humane Or will they say that the vnion of the Body and the place is so strait as that it hindereth why the said Body should be in another place But heere the Vnion betweene the Person and the Nature is far greater since that former is meerly accidentary and extrinsecall this intrinsecall and substantiall And which is more heere the Person or Hypostasis is identified and made the same really and formally with it diuine Nature and yee is vnited most inwardly with the Humane Nature If therfore one Person may be in two different and vnlike Natures being vnited most intrinsecally with either of them and yet neyther this Person deuided nor the Natures confounded much more may a naturall Body be in diuers places whose possessing of them is meere extrinsecall without either diuision of the Body or confusion of places Thus we see how our Aduersaries confessing the greater difficulty cannot be induced to belieue the lesser such blind c Blind Guydes Matth. â—â— Guides they are who straine out a Gnat swallow a Camell Now if they were pressed to falue all doubts in this Article by Naturall ReasoÌ„ I am sure how learned soeuer they are they would confesse a great Impossibility therin since God as Man is scarce able to penetrate the Mysteries of Man as God Then by the same Reason they are to reject in any other dogmaticall Point whatsoeuer these first Conceptions and secret breathings of Atheisme How by what meanes Wherunto to answere only by the Light of Reason and to deny whatsoeuer cannot be made good therby is to shew himselfe more conuersant in the Naturall Philosophers Catechisme then in his Creatours sacred Writings so prudently therfore it was said of our Father d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen Orat. 1. de Theologia signifying as much as Ne anxiè 〈◊〉 modum rei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus much of this Paire or Twins of
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
sunt sub vmbra culminis mei We are your Subiects and therefore stand obliged to acknovvledge the strictest Band of Allegiance due either by the Lavv of Nature by the Lavv of God or by the example of any Christian Subiects tovvards their Princes euer since our Redemption till the fall of that most vnhappy and Apostating Monke Let not then the perpetrated crymes of some fevv so diuert the beames of your Gracious Clemency from vs all as that the PunishmeÌ„t due only vnto them like the Effect of another Originall Sinne should propagate and extend it selfe vpon the vvhole Body and Posterity of Catholikes but rather reiecting all the subtile Machinations vvyse follyes of our Politick Aduersaryes vvhich vve trust that finally God vvill frustrate haue a frequent remembrance of that saying Superexalt at Misericor dia iudiciuÌ„ Iustitiae tuae in vvhich vvords your Highnes may thinke that the Apostle Iames preacheth to King Iames. BVT NOW as fearing to become ouer tedious for vvhich reason as also out of an humble ReuereÌ„ce I do forbeare hereafter in this Treatise to direct further speaches to your Highnes I heere vvill cease casting my selfe at your Maiestyes feet as lovv as Humility and Loyalty can prostrate themselues and praying to the Almighty to preserue you in a Blessed Gouerment ouer vs many many yeares and after the Period of this life to graunt your Highnes the Honour and Happines in being another Dauid by enioyning tvvo Ierusalems Your Maiesties most Loyall humble Subiect R. N. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GOOD Christian Reader Heere I present thee with a small Treatise of a large Subiect it being one of the chiefest Questions of Christian Religion coÌ„trouerted at this day betweene the Catholike and the Caluinist It is written with intention to confirme thy Iudgment in so weighty a Point being already rectified to reforme it being erroneous and therfore I expect a retaliation charitably to entertaine my charitable meaning If this little worke the yong Samuel proceeding from the long barren wombe of my Braine may become profitable to any one I haue my desire As for the censures which will passe therof I presage they will be as various as Mens iudgments are various but heerin I am indifferent for how meane soeuer it is as it is and of all the Elements I least pryze the Ayre Yet heere by the way I must aduertise my ignoraÌ„t Protestant Reader for to the more Learned this is needlesse who euer dislikes what is not so courteous as to come within the reach of his narrow head-peece that I do looke that he should charge these poore Leaues especially the first Part heerof with mayne Contrarieties and Contradictions Yet if his Pryde would vouchsafe to remember or rather to learne that all true Contradictions do euer consist in one and the same reference of Circumstances and that such seeming heere are reconciled by different Respects explicated in the marginal Annotations he might well rest satisfied Wherfore I do heere premonish all such but particulerly them who eyther by Pen or Tongue are become publike Patrones of the Sacramentarian Nouelty not maliciously to insist alone in the said naked appearing Repugnances concealing their Illustrations tragically by this means amplifying the strange supposed Paradoxes forsooth defended by vs Catholikes heerin Which if they shall attempt by diuorcing the one from the other now after this conuenient forwarning they are to be reputed but as Men conscious of their owne bad Cause and willing fraudulently to abuse the weake Iudgments of their followers I haue deuided this Treatise into two Parts In the first I proue that it is possible for the existence of any thing euer presupposeth a possibility of the same existence that the sacred Body and Bloud of our Sauiour may truly really be contayned vnder the formes of Bread Wine and that though the effecting therof doth transcend Nature yet doth it not ouerthrow Nature This labour I am forced to vndertak◠〈◊〉 regard of our Aduersaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—oâ—â—â—station with God heerin for they maintayne in their Wrytings with great estuation and heat of dispute like a Raging waues Iudae Epist raging waues of the sea foaming out their owne shame that to be at once in diuers places or to want all circumscription of place besides many other difficulties occurring in the Catholike doctrine of the Eucharist are against the nature of a true Body and therfore caÌ„not be accomplished by God In which point they partake ouer neere with the ancient Philosophers though perhaps with their greater offence towards God then it was in those Heathens since in such cases that saying houldeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Falsa fides infidelitate peior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason why the Sacramentaryes do belieue the words of Christ in the doctrine of the Eucharist so little is because they belieue their Sense therin so much for they are resolued that their outward sense shall heere euen prescribe Lawes to their faith whatsoeuer may seeme to be incoÌ„patible therwith as the forme the colour the tast c. the maintayning therof to be reputed as an exploded Errour In which kind of proceeding they appeare in my conceipt to deale more niggardly with the faith of Christ then euer the c Donatists August de Vnitate Ecclesiae Donatists did with the Church of Christ since they though banishing the Church out of all the other partes of the World yet were content to allot to it the whole Countrey of Africke wheras these labour to withdraw our faith heerin from all the chiefe Powers of our Mind and to confine it within the narrow compasse of the ball of the Eye or the end of the tongue So far off is the Soule immersed in Sense from apprehending truly this high and reuerend Mystery The second Part heerof iustifying his Maiesties learned Iudgment heerin deliuereth the diuine Authorities of both the Testaments for confirmation of the Reall Presence it contayneth the Prophesies of the ancient Rabbyns therof it reporteth the Myracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same it discouereth the weaknesse of such testimonyes as are out of the Scripture obiected to the coÌ„trary finally it displayeth the innouation and first appearance of the Sacramentarian Doctrine But because our Aduersaries do vse diuers circulations and inflexions to and fro for they most strangely detort the holy Scripture and insolently reiect the other proofes therfore to draw them to a more particuler fight I haue reduced the issue of this point to the iudgments of the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church in whose * In whose wrytings See hereof the later end of the Marginall References of the first Chapter of the Second Part at the letter q Wrytings many of the Sacramentaries seeme to haue good confidence and from whose Censures they cannot iustly appeale since it is said Non d Non te praetereat
is made of the Bread into the Body but a Consubstantiall coexistency of both which opinion though resting only in the manner of the Conclusion we repute no lesse then Heresy since in points doctrinall once s Definitiuely For the Generall Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius the third defined for an Article of Faith the doctrine of Transubstantiation though this doctrine was generally belieued afore in the first Chapter of the Decrees of that Councell He therfore that reiecteth the authority of a lawfull Councell reiecteth the authority of Gods Church and consequently his Errour though resting but in the manner or circumstance of any question cannot be small since in such his Errour is included his greater Errour in thinking that a true and lawfull Generall Councell may definitiuely and sententially erre definitiuely true or false who erreth litle erreth much We also dissent from the Sacramentaries who relying altogeather vpon their sense herein like Labans sheep led mainly by their Eye do inforce an impossibility of our Doctrine whereas Faith assureth vs that the Body of Christ is heere really exhibited And therefore we teach that the vnderstanding which is in this place the Eye to the Eye though borrowing all knowledge from Sense euen in knowledge heere controles Sense and secureth vs that his Sacred Body and Bloud through the vertue of his owne speaches is heere really present though through the dignity thereof veyled ouer from our sight and yet not veyled ouer with any thing since they are not t Are not things The Philosophers do teach that Substantiae only are truly and perfectly Entia And that Accidentia are only Analogicè Entia being in their owne nature imperfect And thus in this sense the Accidents of Bread and Wine vnder which the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour lye may be truly tearmed Non Entia things but formes vnder which it lieth Thus against the Sacramentaries we hold it most cleare that heere to peruert Christs words is to impugne Christs power THE SECOND PASSAGE CHAP. IIII. BVT let vs passe on to the difficulties of another nature We find that Christs Body by force of those operatiue words is in diuers places Churches at one and the same time for though Christ be incircumscriptibly in the Sacrament yet we teach that as a Body by Gods power may want all a VVant all Circumscription See the explication of this difficulty hereafter in the next Passage at the letter D Circumscription so by the same power it may haue diuers b Diuers Circumscriptions A Body may by Gods Power haue at one time diuers Circumscriptions which is to haue seuerall places extensiuely And the reason hereof is because that only implies a contradiction and consequently as we touched afore cannot be done by God which impugnes the very essence of a thing so as it doth presuppose a Being and a Not-Being of the said thing But to be in place or in diuers places at once is extrinsecall and accidentary and not of the Essence but what is extrinsecall or Accidentary is posterius and later then the thing it selfe and consequently by Gods Omnipotency may be deuided from the nature and essence thereof The proofe of this doctrine is also deduced from the example of our Sauiour who neuer leauing Heauen appeared to S. Paul vpon the Earth as we read Act. c. 9. 22. That it was not any voice which spake to him made by Gods Power or the ministery of the Angells only as some doe answere but our Sauiour himselfe appeareth both because mention being made hereof in diuers places of the Actes it euer toucheth Pauls seeing of Christ in his owne Person So we read Act. c. 22. That Ananias put Paul in remembrance of his seeing of Christ In like sort c. 26. Christ himselfe saith That he appeared to him thereby to make him a witnesse of the things which he saw but he could not be a witnesse thereof especially of the Resurrection except he had truly and really seene the very Body of Christ And answerably hereto we read that S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. after he had reckoned diuers who had seene our Sauiour after his Resurrection concludeth in the end with these words Nouissimè tamquam abortiuo visus est mihi which saying of his had beene false except he had seene Christ himselfe seeing that the rest numbred by S. Paul had seene him in his owne true and naturall Body Neither can it be said as some others would haue it that S. Paul saw Christ as he was in Heauen and not heere vpon the Earth or in some neere place of the aire and this for diuers reasons First because those that were with Paul did heare a voyce and saw a great light Act. 9. 22. but the Eares and Eyes of his Companions could not penetrate so farre as Heauen Secondly because the light which appeared to S. Paul himselfe was so great as it almost stroke him dead for the time which could not haue had in likelyhood such force if it had come so farre as from Heauen Thirdly if S. Paul had seene Christ only in Heauen it might haue beene obiected to him that he was no true witnesse of his Resurrection and that what he had said to haue seene was only in imagination and a strong apprehension of the Mind Now our Aduersaries cannot heere obiect that if our Sauiour did appeare heere vpon the Earth or in the Ayre truly and really to S. Paul that notwithstanding he was not circumscriptible in that place for the time in that he is only circumscriptible as he is in heauen This vrgeth nothing For for a Body to be circumscriptible in a place it is not required that it should not be circumscriptible in no place also but only it is required that it should be truly commensured with that place so as the Termini of the Place and the Body be answerable the one to the other Circumscriptions much more then may it be at once in diuers places Sacramentally since c Vnity of Essence The essentiall vnity of a thing dependes not of the vnity of Place seeing a thing is one before it hath one place so as to be in place is but subsequent and accessory to the nature of any body but it dependes of the internall principles of the said thing Vnity of Essence and Nature is not dissolued by diuersity of place Hence is it that it may be neere d Neere to the Earth The same Body in seuerall places may be neere to the ground and far of from the ground Neither doth this imply any contradiction for seeing that when a Body is in diuers places and the relation is terminated to diuers places it therefore necessarliy followeth that this diuerse relation is multiplied for it is to be vnderstood that those contrary relations are in one and the same subiect per diuersa fundamenta to wit in a different respect of seuerall places which diuersity of respect taketh away all
contradiction in the thing it selfe to the Earth and remote from the same moued and not moued remaining vpon the Altar and receaued by the Communicant and all at one and the same time And yet if the same Body supposing it were patible be in one place wounded it would also be found e Remaine wounded For those things which are receaued in the Body it selfe be they eyther Actions or Qualities are not multiplied And the reason hereof is because the Body is but one and not many or diuers And being but one it can but haue vnum esse Substantiale though diuers esse Localia as the School-men do speake who therupon teach that all those relations and actions which are terminated ad Loca to the diuersity of places are multiplied because they follow and depend vpon esse Locale but such Actions or Qualities as are receaued within the body placed are not multiplied because they follow esse Substantiale wounded in another for Nature keeps her certaine bounds euen in transgressing her bounds Thus answerably hereto we teach that it may be in a place where afore it was not and yet neither through any Locall f Locall Motion The Body of Christ is in a place where before it was not and this neither by any Locall Motion or new Generation of it but by a true Conuersion of the Bread into the Body not much vnlike vnto the new being of the Soule in the Matter or Substance which is added to Mans Body by nutrition where we see the Soule to be in that part not by any Locall Motion nor Generation of the Soule but only by informing that part newly adioyned to the Body which afore it did not informe motion for it neuer leaueth Heauen nor by any Generation for afore it was It is not g Not continued The Body of our Sauiour as it is in the hands of the Priest cannot be said to be continued with the same Body as it is in Heauen nor yet to be deuided from the same seeing those things only which are many and diuers whether they be Tota or Partes are capable of continuation or diuision Now Christs Body as it is in Heauen and in the Priests hands is not two seuerall entire things neither seuerall parts therof but only one whole and entire Body And though there be a great distance of place and interposition of many other Bodies betweene Christs Body in Heauen and vpon the Altar this only proueth that those places to wit Heauen and the Earth are discontinued and deuided one from the other and that Christs Body is deuided from it selfe in respect of such diuersitie of place but not in respect of it proper substance continued with the same Body being in another place nor yet discontinued or deuided from the same and yet neither is the Body multiplied or doubled nor the places confounded Briefly it is heere vpon Earth yet it leaueth not h Heauen According to that in Actes c. 3. Oportet illum Coelum suscipere vsque ad tempus restitutionis omnium And yet our Aduersaries do idly cauill in charging vs that we force Christ to leaue Heauen by this doctrine of Transubstantiation And when we reply that we teach that Christ neuer leaueth Heauen but is both in Heauen and vpon the Altar then they ignorantly obiect that for a Body to be in Heauen and vpon the Altar at one time is a meere contradiction and consequently impossible But this is grosse Ignorance for for to be in Heauen and not in Heauen or vpon the earth and not vpon the earth at one and the same time is a flat contradiction and consequently cannot be performed by God But to be in Heauen and vpon the earth at one time is no more a Contradiction then the soule to be at once both in the Head and the foote Heauen and euen then it enioyeth a perfect i Neernesse to it selfe Because as it is said aboue it is one and the same Body as it is in Heauen and vpon the Altar and consequently in substance and quantity cannot be deuided or separated from it selfe notwithstanding any distance of place neernesse to it self in so great a distance Thus through it being in such distance diuersity of places it seemeth to k To transcend If to be in a place were of the essence of a Body as we haue proued afore that it was not then the being of a body in diuers distant places may seeme to increase the quantity of the said body Furthermore the Body of Christ being vnder the formes of many consecrated hoasts doth no more increase in quantity then the soule being first in a child and after dilating it selfe through the Body being growne greater can be said to be greater then afore it was transcend and through it being contained vnder a small hoast to lessen it owne naturall and true Quantity and yet is the Quantity l One and the same Quantitie cannot be separated from a true naturall body and therfore seeing Christs Body as it is in Heauen and vpon the Altar is but one so must it quantity be one and the same euer one and the same Furthermore we see that this sacred body by force of Consecration inioyeth the Being in diuers places which it obtaineth not by vertue of Hyposticall and inseparable vnion with the Diuinity which is in all places For though by this vnion the Diuinity and Humanity is made but one Person and this Person being an m An indiuiduall Substance This indiuision of Substance is not so meant that where one part of the Person is there should be another for this is most false but the Person is so called because it is one subsistng thing not deuided in it selfe in respect of it subsistence yet deuided from all other things Indiuiduall Substance the Humanity where it is doth euer n Accompany the Diuinity For where the Humanity is there is the Diuinity as is aboue proued yet followeth it not that where the Diuinity is there is the Humanity also accompany the Diuinity which is in all places yet we teach not that the Humanity is in all places Neither may it be inferred hereupon that the Word is somewhere Man somewhere o Somewhere not Man Though the Word may be somewhere where the Humanity is not notwithstanding there the Word is Man because the Word existing there doth support the Humanity as proper to it selfe though existing in another place not Man Thus we reiect that phantasie of Luthers Vbiquity as ouerthrowing many Mysteries p Ouerthrowing many Mysteries For it is impossible that Christs Body being in all places should be truely conceaued in the wombe of our Blessed Lady or that it was borne and dyed or did arise againe or ascended vp to Heauen for if his Body be in all places then it was in the Virgins wombe after his birth so also it was in the graue both before his death after his
a signe is signification therfore in all such Propositions by the Verbe Est iâ— vnderstood the essence of the same signe Now then seing in those said former examples and propositions one signe doth predicate of another for words are nothing else but signes it followeth that the Verbe Est is taken for Significat and yet without any Trope therin Touching the word CORPVS in which word most of our Aduersaries do choose rather to place the figure then in the former Verbe Est Now that this word Corpus cannot signifie figuraâ— Corporis as our Aduersaries pretend is most euident And first this is proued out of the words following to wit Quod pro vobis dâ—tur in Greeke being for the word datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also out of these other following touching the Cup Qui pro vobis effunditur in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these two Greeke Participles being put in the Nominatiue case ought to be ioyned with a Substantiue of the same case therfore they are to be ioyned in construction with that which â—â— called Corpus and Sanguis and not with any words put in other cases as Corporis and Sanguinis Therfore either the true Body Bloud is in the Eucharist or his Body by way of representation and signification only to wit the Bread and Wine were giuen for vs and shed for vs which is absurd to affirme Secondly the same is proued from the former obseruations touching the Pronowne Hoc for seeing that this Pronowne doth not demonstrate Bread there is nothing left of which these wordâ— â—igâ—â—â— Corporis should predicate except they will say that the tâ—ue and naturall Body of Christ is a signe and figure of it selfe Lastly the Body of Christ wheresoeuer it is read in Scripture is eyther taken for his Mysticall Body to wit the Church or for his true and naturall Body but for a signe and figure of his body we neuer find it to be taken Therfore the Construction of the Sacramentaries giuen of the words of the Institution is most forced without any example or president of that kind throughout the whole Scripture But the more euideÌ„tly to proue that the words of the Institution caÌ„not be taken figuratiuely I do further present besides what hath bene already alledged to the Reader these few ensuing Obseruations First that this Pronowne Hoc designing some particuler thing prâ—uents all Figuratiue constructions And therfore we find that in other acknowledged Metaphoricall speaches of Christ touching himselfe the Pronowne Hoc is wanting as in these Ego sum Ostium Ego sum Vitâ— c. Secondly In all Metaphoricall speaches that are vsed by way of Explication it is not accustomed that one thing do predicate or be affirmed of another thing except the Praedicatum be some such thing in the which the propriety according to the which the similitude of the Metaphor is chiefly intended is more knowne and euident then it is in the other thing of the which the said Metaphor is affirmed And this is the reason that in Metaphoricall Propositions one thing doth predicate of another for the most part in genere or in specie at least But no such obseruation is heere found in the words of the Institution For heere according to our Aduersaries the Body and Bloud of Christ are affirmed of Bread and Wine and yet the vertue of nourishing which they heere assigne to be the ground of the supposed figuratiue speach is lesse euident and knowne in the Body and Bloud of Christ then in the Bread and Wine which before his pronouncing of the words Christ did hould in his hands Thirdly It is to be obserued that in the words of the Institution the Body and Bloud of Christ do not expresly predicate or are affirmed of Bread and Wine but only they do predicate of a word signifying some thing but with confusion and vncertainty to wit of the Pronowne Hoc And yet in other metaphoricall speaches euer a thing which is of one nature doth predicate of another thing of a different nature as Christus erat petra c. Fourthly we are heere to note the words following to wit quod pro vobis datur qui pro vobis effunditur c. Which are added to demonstrate the truth and propriety of the precedent Affirmation But in all Metaphoricall Affirmations nothing for the most part is wont to beadded but what doth more clearly expresse the propriety of that thing from the similitude wherof the Metaphor is drawne Thus one may say Caesar was a Lion by reason of his courage fortitude which later words are added to expresse more cleerly the nature of the Metaphor But now if the addition of words following doth not explicate the similitude of a Metaphor but absolutely doth shew the truth of the thing therin affirmed then doth such an Addition manifest withall the Propriety of the precedent affirmation as in these words That Christ suffered vpon the Crosse who was borne of a Virgin where we find that the later words not expressing any similitude of a Metaphor do intimate a Propriety and literall acception of the former words concerning Christ In like sort we say that those words Quod pro vobis tradetur Qui pro vobis fundetur c. VVhich stalbe diliuered for you c. and VVhich shall be shed for you c. do not import and signify any vertue of nourishing which they should haue done if the Propositions to which they are adioyned had bene Metaphoricall but they do signify that Christs Body and Bloud were the pryce of our Redemption which point hath no necessary coniunction with the vertue and faculty of nourishing And thus much in further explication of the word of the Institution est Corpus meum Hic est Sanguis meus c. A text in respect of a i A Sacrament instituted heerin Sacraments are accustomed to be instituted by God in most plaine words least otherwise we should erre in the vse thereof as appeareth by the Examples of the old Law and of Baptisme Sacrament instituted herein of a Testament k A Testament left therby That the Eucharist conteyneth in it selfe a Testament appeareth out of those words of Luke 22. Hic est Calix nouum Testamentum in meo Sanguine But nothing is accustomed to be expressed in more plaine and litterall words then a VVill or Testament that thereby may be preuented all occasion of contention as touching the Will of the Testator And this appeareth by the example of the old Testament which being instituted in Exod. 24. is there explicated in most proper and familiar words The like course we see performed in the making of the Testaments of men left therby and of a Precept l A Precept or Law That there is a Diuine Precept in the Institution of the Eucharist appeareth out of those words Accipite Edite hoc facite But the words of Lawes and Precepts ought to be most perspicuous and cleere since
therof remayning or superfluously redouÌ„ding So maist thou suppose the Mysteries heere to be consumed by the substance of the body Gaudentius tract 2. de Exod. Ipse Naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium Corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino Sanguinem suum He who is the Creatour and Lord of all Natures who bringeth forth Bread out of the earth and againe who of the bread maketh his proper Body for he is able and he promised to do it and who made wine of water and of wine his owne Bloud And after againe O altitudo diuitiarum c. O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and knowledge of God! Doe not thinke that terrestriall which is made heauenly by him which passeth into it and made it his owne Body and Bloud And finally Non infringamus os illud c. Let vs not breake that most solide and firme bone This is my Body This is my Bloud Now what remayneth in the sense of any one which he cannot conceaue by this exposition let it be consumed and burnt away with the ardour heate of faith Epiphanius in Ancora to circa medium Videmus quod accepit Saluator c. We do see what our Sauiour tooke into his hands as the Euangelist noteth that he did rise from Supper that he did take these things and when he had giuen thankes he said This is mine and This and This. And we do see that it is not equall nor like to the proportion or Image in flesh to the inuisible Deity to the lineaments of MeÌ„bers for this is of a round forme and insensible according to Power And he would through grace say Hoc meum est Hoc Hoc And yet euery one belieueth his speach for who belieueth not to be his very true Body doth fall from grace and saluation Now when he heere saith that it is to be belieued though it be repugnant to sense this must needs be vnderstood of the Body it selfe and not of the signification therof since the sense rather helpeth then hindreth why we should belieue the SacrameÌ„t And when he saith that we ought to belieue that it is ipsum verum Corpus the true Body hereby are excluded all Tropes and Figures S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catechetica c. 37. Quamobrem rectè etiam nunc Dei verbo c. Wherfore we now truly belieue euen by the word of God that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the word of God c. That these things which are seene to wit bread and wine are changed into that Body of oar Lord is to be attributed to the vertue of Benediction S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 4. Tu fortè dicis Panis meus c. Perhaps thou sayest My bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the words of Consecration but after Consecration is finished of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Though our Aduersaries doe answer this place by reiecting this booke as not written by S. Ambrose yet is it cited vnder his name by Lanfrancus Guitmundus and others who liued aboue fiue hundred yeares since In like sort in his booke de mysterijs init c. 9. he thus writeth Fortè dicas Aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quòd Christi Corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non esse hoc quod Natura formauit sed quod Benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m Naturae quia Benedictione etiam Natura ipsa mutatur Virgam tenebat Moyses proiecit eam facta est serpens c. Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Nam Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur c. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Heliae vt ignem de Caelo deponâ—râ—t non valebit Christi Sermo vt species mutet Elementorum De totius mundi operibus legisti Quia ipse dixit facta sunt ipse mandauit creat a sunt Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare Naturas Perhaps thou mayst say I see another thing how prouest thou to me that I take the body of Christ And this remaineth yet for vs to proue What then or how great examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature formed but what benediction hath consecrated And that there is greater force of Benediction then of Nature for euen Nature it selfe is changed by Benediction Moyses houlding a wand in his hand did cast it from him and it became a serpent c. Now if Mans Benediction or blessing be of such force as that it can chang Nature what do we say of that diuine CoÌ„secration where the very words of our Lord our Sauiour doe worke for this Sacrament which thou takest is made by the speach of Christ And if the speach of Elias was of such power as to draw fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ be of force to chang the formes of the Elements Thou hast read of the workes of the whole world Because he spake the word they are made he commanded and they are created Therefore the words of Christ which of nothing could make that which was not can they not chang those things which are into that which afore they were not for it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures to things then to chang Natures So cleare and euident is S. Ambrose in these places for a true and reall chang in the Sacrament of the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 4. Aquam aliquando mutauit in Vinum c. our Lord did once by his sole will in Cana of Galilee turne water into Wyne which is neere to Bloud and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wyne into bloud Wherefore with all assurednesse let vs take the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of Bread is giuen to thee his Body and vnder the forme of Wine is giuen his Bloud The same Father in the same Booke also saith thus Ne ergo consideres tamquam nudum panem nudum vinum corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba Quamuis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet neâ— ex gustu rem iudices c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Et vinum quod
whose Body and Bloud it is they would belieue no otherwise but that our Lord appeared only in that forme to the fight of men and that kind of liquour only flowed from his wounded side Heere we are to note that these Infants could not belieue that those things which they there did see were the Body and Bloud of Christ only by way of signification but truly and properly For of themselues they could not vnderstand these Tropes neither can it be said that these children had a false faith for it is said they belieued so Authoritate grauisima Againe lib. 2. contra litteras Petiliani c. 37. Aliud est Pascha quod Iudaei de oue celebrant aliud quod nos in Corpore sanguine Domini accipimus There is one Pascha which they yet celebrate of the Lamb but that is another which we receaue in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. But if he should speake of our Lords Body in signe only his words were false because the Paschall Lamb was in signification the Body of Christ as well as the Bread as is proued aboue He also in epist 86. ad Casulanum where reprehending one Vrbicus for teaching that the Law was so turned into the Ghospell as that a sheep should giue place to Bread and Bloud to the Cup thus writeth Dicit cessisse pani pecus c. Vrbicus sayth that sheepe did giue place to Bread as being ignorant that euen then Panes Propositionis the breads of Proposition were wont to be placed vpon the Table of the Lord and that now himselfe taketh part of the body of the immaculate Lambe in lyke sort he sayth that Bloud did giue place to the Cup not remembring that himselfe now taketh Bloud in the Cup. And then a litle after S. Augustine subioyneth Quanto ergo melius c. How much better and more agreeingly might Vrbicus haue sayd that those ancient things did so passe away so became new in Christ that the Altar should giue place to the Altar the sword to the sword fire to fire bread to bread sheep to sheep bloud to bloud But heere Vrbicus according to the sentence of our Aduersaries did not erre for if we respect the signe or representation only Christ was no lesse in the Sheep of the Old Law then now in Bread and his Bloud no lesse in that Bloud then in our Wyne And therefore in our Aduersaries iudgements the sheep did truly giue place to Bread and Bloud to Wyne S. Hierome in Comment Psal 109. Quomodo Melchisedech c. Euen as Melchisedech being King of Salem offered vp Bread and Wyne so thou offerest vp thy Body and Bloud being true bread and true Bloud This our Melchisedech hath deliuered to vs these Mysteryes which now we enioy for it is he who sayd Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum c. In this place the body and bloud of Christ is cleerely opposed to the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech And his Body and Bloud is heere called True Bread and True Bloud to wit in regard of the effect which is to nourish our Soules but not in respect of Nature for if we respect the Nature of Bread the Bread of Melchisedech was true Bread He also in Comment c. 1. Epist ad Titum Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis c. There is as great difference betweene Panes Propositionis the Shew-Bread and the Body of Christ as there is betweene the Image and the Truth betweene the Examples of Truths and those Truths which are prefigured by the Examples Where we are to note that in this place Hierome entreateth particulerly of the Eucharist Now if in the Eucharist be the Truth which was figured per panes Propositionis then there is not in the Eucharist materiall Bread signifying the Body of Christ but the true Body it selfe for the body of Christ euen in the iudgement of all was that Truth which was prefigured by those Breads S. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in 1. ad Cor. compares the Magi with vs saying to this effect that the Magi had this body in the Manger but we haue it vpon the Altar They had it only in the armes of a woman but we in the hands of a Priest they only saw the simple body of Christ but we see the same Body but withall doe know his power and vertue Thus in this Antithesis doth S. Chrysostome conclude that we haue his body in a more worthy sort then the Magi had it which he could not affirme truly if we haue his Body only in signe and representation And Homil. 51. in Matth. Adeamus Christum c. Let euery one of vs which are sicke come to Christ for if those which only touched the edge of his garment were all perfectly recouered how much more shall we be strengthened if we shall haue him whole in vs Heere he cānot speake of Christ as in signe only in that there is not so great a vertue of the signe of Christ as was of the hemme of his garment Likewise Homil. 24. in priorem epist ad Corinth he saith Dum in hac vita sumus vt terra nobis Caelum sit facit hoc mysteriam Ascende igitur ad Caeli port as diligenter attende imò non Caeli sed Caeli Caelorum tunc quod dicimus intueberis Etenim quod summo honore dignam est id tibi in terra ostendam Nam quemadmodum in Regijs non parietes non tectum aureum sed Regium Corpus in Throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est ita quoque in Caelis regium Corpus quod nunc in Terra videndum tibi proponitur neque enim Angelos neque Archangelos non Caelos non Caelos Caelorum sed ipsum horum omnium Dominum ostendo Whilest we heere liue this Mysterie maketh that the Earth becommeth Heauen to vs. Therfore ascend to the gates of Heauen yea not only of Heauen but of the highest Heauen and obserue diligently and then thou shalt behould what we heere say for what is worthy of chiefest honour that I will shew thee heere vpon the earth For euen as in Princes Courts not the walls nor the Chamber or Cloth of Estate but the Body of the Prince sitting in his Throne is the chiefest thing there euē so is the like of that Princely Body in Heauen which is heere vpon the earth set forth to thee to behould for heere I do not shew thee the Angells nor Archangells not the Heauens nor the highest Heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these But there is none but he had rather see the Angells and Archangells then Bread and Wine representing onely Christ And also Chrysostome in the same place maketh another comparison in these words following Si puer Regius c. If the Princes Child clothed in Purple and crowned with the Diademe should be carryed by thee wouldest thou not casting away all other things vpon the ground take him into thy armes But now heere when thou
takest not the Sonne of any Prince being but a Man but the only begotten Sonne of God art thou not affraid and doest not thou cast from thee the care of all secular things But if Chrysostome did heere speake of Christ only in Signe and representation the comparison should haue bene made only between the Image or Picture of the Kings Sonne and not with the Sonne himselfe And Homil. ad Neophytos Sicut Regnantium statuae c. Euen as the Statuaes or Images of Princes haue bene accustomed to succour such as haue fled to them for Sanctuary and this not because they are made of brasse but in that they doe beare the Image of the Prince euen so that bloud did free meaning that Bloud of the Lamb in the old Testament which was sprinkled vpon the Posts to free the Israelites from the striking Angell not because it was bloud but because it did figure out the comming of this Bloud But now if the Enemy shall see not the bloud of the Type cast vpon the postes or walles but the bloud of Truth shining in the mouthes of the faithfull he will much more withdraw himselfe from hence For if the Angell gaue place to the Example how much more will the Enemy be terrified if he shall behould the Truth it self In which place we see that Chrysostome placeth the truth of the Bloud not in the mind but in the mouths of the Faithfull And Homil. 51. in Matth. O quet modo dicunt c. O how many doe now say I would see the forme of Christ and his fauour I would see his vestments and euen his shooes Now thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him Where he meaneth that we see feele and eate Christ truly and really vnder those formes of Bread and Wine which are properly seene and touched Againe he saith in the same place that there was neuer Shepheard who fed his shep with his owne flesh as Christ did and that diuers Mothers are to be found who deliuer ouer their Infants to others to be noursed contrary to the procedings of our Sauiour which comparisons can haue no fitting proportion if we eate the Body of Christ only in Figure and signe Lastly to omit for breuities sake diuers others of his similitudes he thus writeth Hom. 2. ad Pop. Antiochenum Helias melotem c. Helias did leaue to his disciple his vestement but the Sonne of God ascending to Heauen did leaue his flesh But Helias by leauing it was disuested thereof whereas Christ leauing his flesh to vs yet ascending to Heauen there also hath it So frequent is this holy Father in Comparisons and Similitudes all brought in to shew the excellency of that thing which we receaue in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which if it were not the body and bloud of Christ then were these comparisons most cold and disproportionable Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo teacheth that the Iewes had not all one Paschal Lambe but diuers in that euery family did kill it peculiar Lambe but that among the Christians one and the same Lambe to wit the body and bloud of Christ is offered vp and eaten in all the Churches Which words signify that the body of Christ is not offered vp only in representation since in that sense the Iewes had one and the same Lambe in that all their Lambs did signify one Lamb to wit Christ S. Basil l. 2. de Baptismo c. 2. thus writeth Si tales minae c. If such threats be ordayned against those who come rashly to such holy things as are sanctified by Man what shall we say of him who is temerarious and rash towards such and so great a Mysterie For by how much Christ is greater then the Temple according to the voyce of our Lord by so much it is more greiuous and terrible rashly to touch the body of Christ in impurity of soule then to approach to Rammes or Bull◠c. But this saying of S. Basil cannot be true except the body of Christ be really in the Eucharist For betweene Christ and the Rammes sacrificed by the Iewes the difference is infinite but betweene those Rammes signifying Christ and bread figuring our Sauiour the difference is but small S. Ambrose lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. teacheth that a more excellent meate is giuen to vs in the Eucharist then euer the Manna was to the Iewes The like he hath l. 4 de Sacramentis c. 3. 4. 5. But Manna was both for substance and signification as is proued afore better then bread only representing the body of Christ Againe lib. 6. de Sacramentis c. 1. Sicut verus est Filius Dei c. Euen as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true Sonne of God not as Men are his Sonnes by grace but as a Sonne of the Substance of the Father so it is true Flesh euen as himselfe said which we take Out of which sentence it followeth that as Christ is truly and really the Sonne of God So is that which we take in the Eucharist the true body and bloud of Christ Againe lib. de Mysterijs initiandis c. 9. he proueth the same from the mysterie of the Incarnation in these words Liquet quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo generauit hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Quid hic queris Naturae ordinem in Christi corpore cùm praeter naturā sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus ex Virgine It is manifest that a Virgin brought forth a Sonne beyond the course of Nature And this Body which we make proceedeth from the Virgin Why doest thou heere expect the course of Nature since our Lord Iesus is borne of a Virgin aboue nature But if the Bread did only signify our Sauiours Body in the Eucharist this proofe of S. Ambrose had bene superfluous S. Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitate speaking of the Truth of the Body and Bloud in the Eucharist thus concludeth An hoc veritas non est c. What is not this Truth Let it not be a truth to those who deny Christ Iesus to be true God Thus Hilarius heere proueth the Mysterie of the Eucharist by the Mysterie of the Trinity S. Athanasius as he is cited by Theodoret in 2. Dialog thus writeth Corpus est cui dicit c. It is a Body to whom it was said Sede à dextris meis of which Body the Diuells with all the wicked Powers as also the Iewes and Grecians were Enemies by meanes of which Body Christ was both the High Priest and an Apostle and this Body is specified in that Mysterie which is deliuered to vs when himselfe said This is my Body which is deliuered for you and the bloud of the New Testament not of the Old which is shed for you But Diuinity hath neither a Body nor Bloud Heere he proueth that Christ hath a true Body in that Christ as an High Priest gaue his Body to vs in those wordes Hoc est Corpus meum but if
not adoring Now heere it cannot be replyed that the meaning of this Father is that the faithfull doe eate the Body of Christ existing only in Heauē with the mouth of faith because the Faithfull do only adore it This is false for euen according to the iudgment of S. Augustine the wicked do adore the Body of Christ and eate his Body from the Altar For epist 120. ad Honoratum c. 27. where speaking of the wicked he saith Adducti sunt ad Mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine cius sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur quia non imitantur Finally S. Augustine l. 50. Homil. 26. warneth most earnestly that Men should be carefull that no part of the Hoast should fall vpon the ground Chrysostome homil 3. in epist ad Ephes Et tu ad saluturem hanc hostiam c. And thou art ready to come to this healthfull hoast which euen the Angells do behold with feare And Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs Agnus Dei immolatur c. The Lamb of God is offered vp in Sacrifice The Seraphims are present couering their faces with wings But how phantastical and imaginary a conceipt were it to thinke that these places can be applyed to Bread and Wine signifying only the Body and Bloud of Christ Againe Homil. 60. ad Populum Antiochenum he saith Cogita quali sis insignitus honore c. Bethinke thy selfe with what honour thou art heere graced what Table thou enioyest We feed of that and are vnited therewith the which the Angells beholding are afraid and dare not looke vpon the same in regard of the illustrious splendor thereof And in the like sort Homil. 61. Huic supernae potestates c. The higher powers doe asist and waite hercupon because they behold the vertue of the things there placed more then we doe and doe admire the inaccesible splendour and lightnesse thereof And that these places of this Father are to be taken literally appeareth out of another place of his wrytings to wit l. 6. de Sacerdotio in these words Ego verò commemorantem quemdam audiui c. I did ouer heare one reporting who tould that a certayne old and venerable Man to whom many Mysteryes had afore bene reuealed was vouchsafed by God to be made worthy of a Vision and that during this tyme viz. of celebrating the sacrifice of the Altar he did see whole multitudes of Angells to descend suddenly downe as much as the sight of Man could endure being clothed with shyning vestements and standing round about the Altar and bowing downe their heads in such sort as if one should behould shoulders bearing thēselues in the presence of their King Thus farre S. Chrysostome The truth of which narration I do not so much vrge since I presume our Aduersaries will esteme it as fabulous but I vrge that S. Chrysostome thought it to be true since otherwise he would neuer haue recorded it and consequently that he belieued that Angells were truly and really present at the Altar during the tyme of the celebration of the Eucharist In like sort Homil. 41. in priorem ad Corinth Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus aut accedimus pro istis Agnum illum iacentem peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes We do not in vayne celebrate the memory of the dead at the Diuine Mysteries neither doe we in vayne approach beseeching that Lambe there lying for them taking away the sinnes of the World which wordes imply manifestly that the Eucharist was in his tyme inuoked The same Father Homil. 60. ad Pop. Antiochenum Non sufficit c. He could not be contented to become Man to be beaten in the meane while with wands but he doth bring vs into one masse as I may say with himselfe Neither fide solùm sed reipsa by faith only but in very deed he hath made vs his Body In which place we find the very distinction inuented by our Aduersaries to be excluded by S. Chrysostome In like manner Homil. 61. ad Popul Antiochenum he affirmeth that Christs Flesh by meanes of this Sacrament is mingled with ours not only by Charity but reipsa in very deed See him also Homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth where he saith that we are so vnited to the Body of Christ by the Eucharist as his Body was vnited to the word by the Incarnation to wit truly and really and not figuratiuely but all these sayings of Chrysostome were very idle if we receaued Christ only in a signe and by representation S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae Sororis eius thus writeth Ad altare cum fide procumbit cum qui superillud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans She viz. Gorgonia did prostrate herselfe before the Altar with faith praying to him with great clamour who is worshipped vpon the said Altar But Gorgoma prayed not to Bread or Wine Which action of hers as she acknowledging therby the true presence of Christs Body and Bloud vpon the Altar is much reprehended by Peter Martyr l. contra Gardinerum obiect 38. saying that she was not well instructed in Christian Religion so far different was his iudgment from the iudgment of S. Gregory heerin but of this place more heerafter S. Gregory Nyssene Orat. Catechetica c. 36. 37. among other things thus writeth Quemadmodum parum fermenti c. Euen as a little Leauen doth make the whole masse like to it selfe so that body which is made immortall by God entring into our Body doth transferre and change it into it selfe And after Fidelium corporibus c. That Body is ioyned with the bodyes of the faithfull that by that coniunction with the Immortall Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality S. Ambrose l. 1. in Lucam expounding those words Apparuit ill◠Angelus thus writeth Non dubites assistere Angelum quando Christus assistit Christus immolatur Do not doubt but that an Angell is there present when Christ is there present when Christ is sacrificed The same Father l. 3. de Spiritu sancto c. 12. expounding those wordes of the Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum cius thus writeth Itaque per scabellum terra c. Therfore by the Footstoole the Earth is vnderstood by the earth the Flesh of Christ which we now do adore in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before Where he saith that the Flesh of Christ being vnited with the Word is adored by vs in the Mysteries that is in the Eucharist S. Cyril of Ierusalem thus writeth Sic Christophori erimus id est Christum ferentes c. So shall we be Christophori that is Men bearing Christ when we shall receaue his Body and Bloud into our Members and as S. Peter saith We shall be made Partakers of the diuine Nature S. Hilarius l. 8. de Trinitate Sienim verè verbum c. For if the Word be
of Sequeles and will tye my selfe only to such their sayings wherein we find the Eucharist to be called Sacrificium Victima c. or where the words Immolare Offerre and the like are said of the Eucharist or finally where the word Altare is expressely mentioned which word euen by the confession of Doctour d Doctor Reynolds viz. in his Conference with M. Hart. pag. 552. Reynolds necessarily implyeth a true Sacrifice Which point being once cleared we shall thereby more easily discouer the malice of our Sectaryes against Gods Church since they labour to wound her in the Maister-veyne of Christian Religion by depriuing her of the most auayleable healthfull Oblation of Christs Body and Bloud left for the better expiating of Mans sinnes Which Mysterie of our Catholike Faith these new Brethren are loth to acknowledge in that besides other Reasons it comprehendeth as being a Sacrifice no small difficulties For it is a Sacrifice remitting our Sinnes where no Bloud e No Blould is shed Christs Bloud was to be shed in a bloudy manner but once in that he was but once to dye according to that Heb. 9. Christ was offered once to take away the sinnes of many And from his Passion the Sacrifice of the Eucharist receaues it vertue and force And therefore in this sense Sins may be said to be remitted in the Eucharist by sheding of bloud Besides Christs bloud is truly shed though in an vnbloudy manner in the Sacrifice of the Masse through the worth wherof our Sinns are remitted is shed and yet without f VVithout shedding of bloud Heb c. 9. shedding of Bloud there is no remission or if bloud be heere shed yet in an incruent and vnbloudy manner Where what is heere sacrificed remaines g Remaynes inconsâ—mptible Christs Body in the Sacrifice of the Masse remaines inconsumptible in that it being glorified is impatible and not capable of any such alteration or change And yet his Body as it is a Sacrifice may be said in some sense to be consumptible in that by the reason of the receauing and eating of it it ceaseth to be vnder the formes of Bread and Wyne and consequently ceaseth to be that to wit to lye vnder those formes which afore it was Now that there should be a Transmutation and chang of the thing sacrificed is apparent in that it is one particle in the definition of a true Sacrifice as also the same appeareth by the example of all the Sacrifices in the Old Law in consumptible and yet euery such true Litation necessarily implyes a consumption and destroying of the thing sacrificed Where Innocency assayles Iniquity and to preuent the punishment of God for the sinne of Man both God h God and Man In that Christs Body is vpon the Altar and that his Humanity is neuer more to be seuered from his Diuinity therfore it followeth that his Diuinity is there present with his Humanity as in the first Tract is fully demonstrated Man are vpon the Altar Where the holy thing was but once to be immolated i Once to be immolated To wit in a bloudy manner and this was performed but once viz. at the time of his Passion And yet he is often to be sacrificed in the Eucharist in that himselfe faith Hoc facite and yet was commaunded to be often immolated Where being a true Sacrifice is yet according to the k According to the Apostle Viz. 1. Cor. 11. in these words Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniâ—t Apostle a Commemoration of a true Sacrifice Where that which descended from l Descended from God to man The Eucharist as it is a Sacrament that is an externall signe of an inuisible Grace and refection which is conferred to vs whilest we take the Eucharist aright so it proceedeth from God as all Sacraments doe but as the Body of Christ is there sacrificed vp by the Priest so according to the nature of a Sacrifice it is offered by him to God God to Man is offered vp by Man to God Where the m The Creatour In that the Priest receauing the Body of Christ his body is there accompanied with the Diuinity of Christ as is said aboue Creator by meanes thereof vouchsafeth to be contayned within his Creature and the Supreme Agent within his Mynisteriall Agent Where as one Father saith n Idem est Conuiua c. S. Hierome Epist ad Hedibiam quast 2. Idem est Conuiua Conuiuium idem comedens qui comeditur And as another teacheth where one and the same body is borne vp by the hands of the said body Ferebatur o Perebatur Christus So writeth S. Augustine in Psal 33. concion 1. Christus in manibus suis So the hands became the Altar whereupon the Body was sacrificed Finally where the Priest is become the Sacrifice according to that Father Caro sacrificij nostri corpus est effectum Sacerdotis nostri But to leaue these subtilties Heere we are to aduertise the Reader that the Fathers teaching the Eucharist to comprehend in it selfe a true Sacrifice This their doctrine cannot be applyed to Bread and Wine First because the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine either in respect of the naturall Substances of the things themselues or their significations and representations is inferiour to the Sacrifice of the Old Law as appeareth aboue in the Figures of the Eucharist And secondly in that the Fathers do ascribe an infinite vertue to the Sacrifice heere made of the power wherof we haue entreated in the former precedent Chapter but no such imputatiue efficacy can with any probability be assigned especially now in the time of Grace to the sacrificing of a little Bread Wine Thus according to the Fathers what to a vulgar Eye heere seemes to be offered vp is not and what is seemes not And now to proceed to these their Testimonies First we read besides those few places already alleaged though ranged to some one of the former heads in regard of the particuler respect there specified in S. Leo serm 8. de Passione and in S. Cyril l. de Adoratione in spiritu veritate That the Body of our Sauiour is offered vp as a sacrifice in the Mysterie of the Eucharist S. Augustine l. 4. de Trinitate c. 14. Quid gratius offeri aut suscipi posset quà m Caro Sacrificij nostri Corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri What can be offered vp or accepted more thankfully then that the Flesh of our Sacrifice should become the Body of our Priest The same Father l. 2. quaest Euangel q. 3. shewing why Christ commaunded the Leprous Man to offer vp Sacrifice for his clensing thus writeth Quia nondum institutum erat c. Because as yet this Sacrifice being the Holy of Holies which is his Body was not as yet ordayned The said Father lib. de Ciuit. Dei 8. c. vlt. l. 22. c. 8. maketh frequent mention of Altars S. Chrysostome l. 6. De
the misbelieuing Infidels they vsed most secret and cautelous phrases speaking of the Eucharist as Sacramentum fidelium norunt Fideles So i Augustine Serm. 2. de verbis Apostol Augustine And Norunt qui mysterijs imbuti sunt So k Origen Homil. 13 in Exodum 9. in Leuiticum Origen They taught that in extremity of sicknes it was to be taken of euery Christian pro Viatico as appeareth out of the first Councell of l Councell of Nyce Canon 12. Nyce m Eusebius l. 6. c. 34. Eusebius and n Chrysostome l. 6. de Sacerdot Chrysostome Finally hither may be referred what the Fathers of the Primitiue Church do teach touching the sanctity of Temples Vestments Chalices and other religious Vessels all vsed in the celebration of the Eucharist All which things as o Hierome Ad Theophilum Alexand. Hierome saith propter consortium corporis sanguinis Domini magna veneratione coluntur And p Optatus l. 6. contya Parmenianum Optatus writeth that they being contaminata Sacrilegos faciunt And hence it riseth that it was obiected to the Arians by Athanasius that fregerunt mysticum Calicem which offence was acknowledged to be most heynous by the Councell of Alexandria as q Athanasius Apologia 2. Athanasius writeth To the same end to wit as tending to the facred function of consecrating the Eucharist may be referred what the Fathers haue written of the Dignity of Priesthood Of which point entreates r Nazianzen Apolog. 1. Oratione ad Iulianum Nazianzen s Chrysostome Lib. de Sacerdot Chrysostome and others as also of their vowed t Vowed Chastity Of which point do occur most frequent Authorityes in the wrytings of the Fathers Chastity principally directed for that purpose Now who shall weigh all these seuerall Obseruations accompanyed with the former heads set downe at large and all litterally and plainly expressed in the Fathers Writings and not any one of them sorting in nature to a bare Typicall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all most sutable agreeable to the worth of his true and reall being there how can he be otherwise perswaded then that those Doctours did iointly agree with vs in this high Article of faith Wherfore the determination of this matter to wit whether the Fathers were SacrameÌ„taries or Catholikes heerin I remit not so much to the censure of the Learned for this were to wrong their Iudgments in making a Point so euident the Obiect of their graue Resolutions as I referre it euen to the fyue Senses of the ignorant and illiterate OF THE DIVERS MANNERS of the Protestants Euasions to the Authorities of the Fathers CHAP. VIII ALTHOVGH in setting downe the Authorities of the Fathers in the precedent Chapters I haue illustrated most of theÌ„ with such short Animaduersions as best vnfould the true Sense of the said Authorities consequently preuent all such sleighty elusions as are vsed by our Aduersaries for the auoyding of the same Neuerthelesse I haue thought good heere to amasse togeather all their diuers kinds of Answeres being seuerally applyed in generall to the produced sayings of the former chief Heads for coÌ„monly to all Testimonies of one Nature they do appropriate one the same Answere Thus shall the discreet Reader haue at once a Synopsis or entire view of the Sacramentaries feeble euasions being full of tergiuersation and distrust Now then one Kind of their Answers if so I may terme it is to giue no answere at all for when they are pressed with such perspicuous and euident places of the Fathers as are in no sort to be obscured with any myst of words for the Sunne is sometimes so radiant as that it cannot be ouerclouded then in their Replyes to Catholike Bookes therin they are content not taking notice therof like men of good natures to suffer all such sentences quietly to passe by them in Gods name the Kings Thus we find most cleere passages of the Fathers set downe in Catholike Bookes yet neuer answered by Caluin Peter Martyr or others who haue vndertaken a refutation of the said Bookes but altogeather passed ouer as if no such places had bene obiected Such carefull Pylotes they are as willing to auoyd the most dangerous Rocks Which course of theirs I caÌ„not condemne as impoliticke since it is lesse disaduantagious silently to giue way to all such Assertions then by opposition to display openly the forces of the same for we see that the strength of the Wind is best discerned by finding resistance Of the many Authorities of the Fathers wherunto the Protestants to wit Caluin Peter Martyr c. giue no Answere at all I haue thought good to note these few viz. The Passion of S. Andrew Origen homil 13. in Exod. in â— 25. hom 5. in diuersa loca Euangelij Cyril Catech. 4. Mystagog Gregorie Nyssene Orat. Catechet c. 36. 37. EphreÌ„ lib. de natura Dei minimè scrutanda Gaudentius Tract 2. de Exodo Chrysostome Hâ—mil 83. in Matth. 51. in Matth. Homil. 21. in Acta Homil. de Eucharist in Encaenijs lib. 6. de Sacerdotio Proclus Constantinopolitanus lib. de Traditione diuinae Liturgiae besides many other Testimonies of these and other Fathers The first forme then of their Positiue Answers may be assigned to those Authorityes wherin the Fathers doe absolutely call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ as where they teach that we doe eate his Body and drinke his Bloud or that the Body and Bloud which we receauâ— in the Eucharist is our pryce the Pledge of our Saluation or the like To the Testimonyes of this Nature our Aduersaries do shape a double Answere For either they vnderstand those places of the True Body and Bloud of Christ as it is in Heauen and receaued by vs by faith or else of the signes thereof which we truly and really doe take in the Eucharist But if we doe obserue intensly and deliberately the circumstances of those Passages it will be euident that neither part of this Answere is in any sort satisfactory For first that the Fathers meaning is not that we take his Body as it is in Heauen by faith is proued in that you shall for the most part euer find that in such places they teach that we receaue it from the Altar or at the Priests hands and consequently not as it is in Heauen or that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is his Body and Bloud or finally you shall find there some other such like accession of Words as doe force the Place to be interpreted of his Body and Bloud as it is vnder the externall formes and not as it is in Heauen And as touching the second Branch of their former Euasion to wit that the said Testimonyes are not to be interpreted of the Bread and Wyne signifying and figuring his Body Bloud in which they say Christs Body is symbolically taken is no lesse manifest the reason whereof being this
resurrection as also in Heauen before his Ascensiō Againe these Mysteries could not be truly performed except the Body of Christ did truly really mooue from one place to another But Christs Body being in euery place cānot be said to moue from place to place for true Locall Motion of a Body cānot be conceaued without obteyning of a new place which afore it had not so many points of Christian Religion and of all true Philosophy Luthers Vbiquity impugneth of our Faith and retayning ouer much leauen of Eutyches his Heresie so easily will a Lutheran transplanted grow vp a perfect Eutychian And thus much of Luthers errour herein in this progressiue digression Now heere we are to note that the difficulties in this Passage sway much the iudgements of our sensible and materiall Christians for so I may well style them since they measure their faith by the Lesbian Square of their Sense And therefore in regard thereof I haue thought good in two or three subsequent Chapters seposed only to this end to exemplify the said difficulty of multiplicity of places in other points acknowledged and confessed by our Aduersaries Wherefore I could wish that when they doe looke vpon the Mysteries of Christian Religion they would shut the Eye of Sense and Naturall Reason since so they might no doubt by seeing the lesse be able to see the more and be like herein to that great Apostle who by loosing his Eyes obtained Light q Eutiches Heresy The Heresy of Eutiches besides other points was that the Flesh of Christ was not of the same nature with ours And that the VVord was not changed into true flesh but rather into an apparent only and seeming flesh So as the VVord rather counterfaited it selfe to be Man to be borne to haue died c. then that there was any such true performance of these things He further taught that because the Diuinity was in the Sunne the starres c. that therefore this apparent Body of the VVord was there also And hitherto doth Luthers Vbiquitie tend for how can Christs Body be a true and naturall Body if it be in all places THE THIRD PASSAGE CHAP. V. NOVV to ascend to the last Mount of difficulties in this miraculous Transelementation We are to obserue that though the Body of Christ be heere indued with Life yet it is not a Not obiectiuely sensible That is that the externall sense of another cannot apprehend it to haue life Now the Catholikes doe generally teach that in regard of the peculiar manner of the existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Adiectiues which include a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist though they may be said of it as it is in heauen The reason hereof being in that the Body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine without any reference respect or order ad Corpora circumstantia And therefore though his Body as it is in the Sacrament be a naturall and corporall substance indued with life sense and colour yet it is not there tangible sensible or visible c. because to be actually tangible sensible or visible implieth a reference ad Corpora circumstantia in whose senses and eyes the Body is so to appeare obiectiuely sensible though it be a true corporall Substance it is not tangible and though it be coloured it is not visible In b In like sort we teach Christs Body in the Eucharist hath eyes and eares because it is there a true and perfect body which it could not be except it were organized with those parts And yet those organs of Sense do not exercise in the Eucharist as they are in the Eucharist these facultyes as the Eye to see the eare to heare The reason hereof is that which was touched afore to wit that not only Adiectiues which haue relation ad Corpora circumstantia but also Verbes which imply a presence of his Body in the Eucharist with reference ad Corpora circumstantia do not predicate of his Body as it is in the Eucharist in regard of his spirituall and peculiar manner of existing there though they do predicate of it as it is in heauen Now to see to heare c beares a necessary reference ad Corpora circumstantia to wit to the externall obiect of the Eye and to the sound caused by some body c. Notwithstanding Christ in the Eucharist may be said to see to heare c. and this for a double reason First because it is there the said body which it is in heauen but his body in Heauen seeth heareth c. therefore his Body in the Sacrament doth see and heare though not quatenus est in Sacramento A second Reason may be in that as his body is in the Sacrament so it is accompanied with the Diuinity in the fruition whereof the Humanity seeth and heareth all things And in these two respectes the ancient Fathers according to that saying of S. Basil Verba Inuocationis c. quis Sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit c. 27. lib. de Sp. sancto as also the Priest in those words Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis did and doth daily pray vnto Christ as he is in the Eucharist as being most confident that he doth there heare him like sort we teach that it heere performing the operations of Sense and enioying the organs of Sense doth yet performe them without the help of those said organs We heere also find Quantity without c VVithout Diuision The Body of Christ as it is considered in it selfe hath a true quantity and consequently it is diuisible but yet in regard that it existeth in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit and not of a naturall body as being exempted from all extension of place for it is whole in euery part therefore it may in this sense be said that it is not diuisible Diuision Magnitude without d Magnitude without place Most of the difficulties in this Chapter are solued by knowing what is of the essence of Magnitude or Quantity and what not therefore I will insist the longer in setting downe the iudgements of the best learned herein The Philosophers then doe assigne three things to concurre to Magnitude of which the one euer causeth the other The First of these three is that euery Magnitude should haue an extension in it selfe and haue Partem extra Partem that is that one Part should not be confounded in it selfe with another Part and consequently an intrinsecall site and disposition of parts And this is of the very essence of euery Magnitude and cannot be separated from the same Thus we say that a Body is an extension in Longitude Latitude and Profunditie Superficies an extension in Longitude and Latitude A Line an extension in Longitude only So as extension euer presupposeth different parts of the body and consequently a Body cannot want extension The second thing agreeing
to euery Magnitude is to haue a commensuration or coextension with place that is an extrinsecall disposition and order of Parts according to Place And this second ariseth from the first and consequently as being later in nature then the first may by Gods Power be separated from the same yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Sphere which being a true Body hath true Magnitude and Partem extra Partem and yet it hath not any Coextension or Commensuration with place for it is in no Place In like sort if God before the Creation of the world had created a Man or a stone c. this Man or stone would haue had Partem extra Partem and yet without any coextension or commensuration with Place The third and last property of Magnitude is to extrude and driue away all other Magnitudes from that place which is made equall and commensurable to it selfe that is not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it Now as the second was later and proceded from the first so this third resulteth out of the second and is later then the same in nature So answerably hereto we see that the reason why one Magnitude doth not suffer another to be in the same place is because it doth possesse all the place it selfe But now seeing that the later depends on the firster and not the firster of the later therfore we do hould that Diuinâ potentiâ it may be effected that a Body may possesse and occupy a place and yet not expell another from the same And this is that which we call penetration of bodies so much â—mpugned by our Protestant Philosophers Now according to this doctrine which is deliuered by all our best Philosophers we hould that Christs Body in the Sacrament hath the true and whole Magnitude of his body But this Magnitude hath there only the first condition which is essentiall to euery Magnitude to wit to be extended in it selfe and by reason of that intrinsecall extension to haue Partem extra Partem but it hath not the second condition much lesse the third for it is not coextended with any place since though it haue true Quantity yet it is not coÌ„mensurable with any place but existeth whole in respect of all externall place in euery part And thus what is assigned in this Passage to our Sauiours Body in the Sacrament which seemes to be common to euery naturall body it is to be vnderstood according to the first condition of Magnitude of the extension of the body in it selfe and intrinsecall disposition of it parts without any reference to Place But what is heer denyed to the said body as it existeth in the Sacrament which is incident to euery other naturall body that is meant of it according to the second or third condition only in respect of externall extension of parts and outward commensuration with place which heere it wanteth And this may suffice for this Point where by the true application of it most if not all of the doubts of this Passage may be answered and therfore they will only need a short application hereof for their full Illustration Place a Body without e VVithout Circumscription viz. Externall Commenfuration of Place Circumscription Parts really f Really distinguished viz. Distinguished in respect of an intrinsecall disposition of parts in it selfe though confounded in regard of Place it being whole in this respect as also in respect of the outward sensible formes in euery Part. distinguished yet confounded and being g Remote They are separated and remote one from another in regard of the inward distinctions of Parts yet they touch one another because they want all Circumscription of place remote one from another yet touching one another So as we heere find Contiguity in h Contiguitie in distance viz. In the different respect of the inward site or disposition of parts and the outward coextension of place distance Confusion as I may say in distinction and a ioyning togeather in separation My meaning is that Christs Body though hauing Quantity yet doth heere exist as if it were without i VVithout Quantity Because it wanteth the second and third condition of Magnitude aboue mentioned which are incident to euery Body as it is naturally in place Quantity for the parts therof are receaued in the same place and yet doe not penetrate themselues In like sort his Body hath heere the true quantity and distinction of parts which it hath in Heauen and yet it is without being greater or lesser wholy contayned within the least part of a consecrated Hoast Thus we see that though a k Though a Spirit A Spirit cannot be extended in place because it hath not any extension of Parts at all therfore it is indiuisible for seeing to be extended in place is a formall effect proceeding from it formall cause of Extension in it selfe if therfore a Spirit should be extended in place we should admit the formall Effect without the formall Cause which cannot be since the formall Effect is later in nature then the Cause and cannot be without the Cause though the formall Cause may be without the Effect as we say heere that the inward Extension of Christs Body doth want by Gods power all extension of place Spirit euen by Gods Omnipotency caÌ„not be extended in place yet that a Body may want all such extension And thus answerably heereto we teach that this sacred Body is whole in euery part and yet hath a true distinction of Parts And so though the externall formes be broken or disparted in themselues yet the Body lying vnder them remaines in the least parcell therof entire and vndeuided as we see that when a looking-glasse is broken a mans whole face will appeare in euery parcell thereof Briefely we hould that in this stupendious Mysterie that Christs Body remaining a Body not a Spirit yet doth exist as a l Exist as a Spirit viz. As not hauing any Coextension with place no more then a Spirit Spirit and not as a Body so as we may well terme it in a sober construction a Body m Spiritualized Not that the Body by this meanes is become a Spirit for that is false Nor that still remaining a Body is withall a Spirit for that is impossible Nor that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist only Spiritually as the word Spiritually in our Aduersaries construction is opposed against the words Truly or Really But it may be said to be spiritualized because as it is often said it existeth in the Eucharist like a Spirit to wit without any extension of place but being in respect of all such extension whole in euery part spiritualized These loe alledged and at large in the marginall References solued are the chiefest Mysteries and difficulties which are produced in the doctrine of the Real Presence And heere I am to aduertise the Reader of two things the one that the most if not