he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
theÌ„ al there is noe one that standeth sure either to himselfe or to his fellowes it must needes bee iudged the weaknesse of the cause which they maintaine Conâ—ut resp Whitak rat 9. sol 601. that cause them thus to stumble Dureus the Iesuite comming to handle this matter against D Whitakers saith If Christ testified that which hee gaue to his disciples was his body assuredly it could not be bread from whence it necessarily commeth to passe that the bread which Christ took into his haÌ„ds was changed into his body by the force and vertue of his diuine wordes â—oc totam nimirum quam manicus tenebat substantiaÌ„ demonstrans est corpus meum Accipitâ— inquit Christus comedite Take saith Christ eate Quid tandem what then This shewing al that substance which he had in his hands is my body Why how now Dureus why walke you in these cloudes why doe you not tell vs what substance that was which Christ had in his handes Bread or noe bread the bodie or noe bodie That which Christ tooke he gaue although you deny it saying panem in manus accepisse fatcor Dureus rat 2. fol. 94. dedissenego That Christ tooke bread in his hands I confesse that he gaue bread I denie but was not the bread which he took that substance which you saie he shewed hauing it in his hands it cannot be otherwise for the words of chang as you saie this is my bodie not come yet If Dureus aunswere as hee will that he spake not of the bread which he tooke let him yet resolue vs what inbstance that was which he had in his han des shewed his disciples when he said Take eate this is my body Fecistis probèi incertior sum mulâ—o quaÌ„ dudum Teren in Phor. act 2. scen 3. Si verò quenquam illud ad huc moueat quomodo pro. nomina in sacramentalibus verbis possint demonstra re corpns sanguinem quae adhuc non suÌ„t cum ca efferuÌ„tur aut quomodonoÌ„ plane in dicent paneÌ„ vinum quae reuera tum ex istunt-Legat c. AlleÌ„ de sac Euch. l. 1. f. 42â— Bellar. de sacr Euc. l i c. ii f. 83 This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body according to Thomas It doth not demonstrate the bread precisly Sic tamen vt demonstratio proprie ad species pertineat Sed in obliquo hoc modo Ibid fol. 85. Ibid. fol. 88 This Ens this thinge or this substance If he resolue not this he resolueth not our doubt but leaueth vs more vncertaine theÌ„ before for this is it that troubleth vs how the word this can demonstrate the body and blood which are not there when the word is spoken not demonstrate point the bread wine which certainly are there then as saith D. Allen And if the bread wine be there then euen when the wordes this is my body are spoken then are they there both at the breaking and giuing as they vtterly woulde denie Sâ—…ll Bellarmine the mouth of their senate conclude the coÌ„trouersie yes say they we al agree Heare him theÌ„ a maÌ„ of a polished wit Although saith hee the Catholikes doe agree in the thinge yet doe they not agree in the manner of explaining what the worde this should demonstrate Two famous opinions there are amongst them one that the pronoune this should demonstrate the body which opinion he refuseth as not consonant to the truth howsoeuer Allen and Saunders as you heard before did so teach The other is of Thomas Aquinas others verie manie whoe haue followed him that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the bread precisely nor the bodie but a substance in common which is vnder those formes yet so that the demonstration appertaineth properly to the formes but not that the fence be This that is these formes are my body but thus on this sort this is my body that is vnder these formes is my bodie So that the word This doth not demonstrate the bread nor the body of Christ but that which is coÌ„tained vnder those forms Therfore we doe not say saith he this that is this substance or as Scotus this Ens but This that is the substance contained vnder these formes Here in Bellarmine you haue al that art or falshood can deuise to darken the truth with all Doth anie man yet conceaue by them what the word This poiuteth vnto but for very shame he wold saie it pointed to the bread he denieth it but in part he saith it doth not preciselie point the bread therfore I say he doth not precisely denie it His fellowes before him wil in noe sort haue it so But hee vtterly denieth that it pointeth to the body yet is he more out then they when hee saith the demonstration this doth properly belonge to the formes and yet the sence must not bee These formes are my body But not withstanding his deniall it must be so if he saiâ— true For if you referre the word this to the bread the sence wil be This bread is my body This body is my body Theâ—… formes are my body 〈◊〉 bread it my bodie therfore they denie it If it be referred to the body the sense must be this bodie is my bodie which Bellarmine denieth And what should let but if he saie it pointeth to the formes it should bee These formes are my body But he wil haue it thus That which is contained vnder these formes is my bodie And what with him them too is contained vnder those formes but the body of Christ Bread they saie there is none so according to Bellarmine the sense wil be This body vnder these formes is my bodie or otherwise to tel vs directly what it was that was contained vnder those formes In the chapter next beefore reciting out of S. Bellar de euch sacra l. 1. c. 10. fol. 69. Allen de Euc. sac l. 1. c. 15. Rhem an not Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. Refertur ad materiam quae erat in manibus Luc. 9. Marc. 8 Luc. vlt. Resolue me in this and I will yeild the whol Markes Gospel the order of the EvaÌ„gelists he saith it cannot bee doubred but Christ hauing taken the bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples but as the breaking and giuing is referred to the matter which was in his handes so his blessing too should bee referred thither which was to the bread We grant him if so that wil pleasure him that Christ blessed the bread and that Christ neuer vsed to blesse or giue thanks but at some notable memorable worke as at the multiplying of the loaues in the Gospel and blessing of his disciples is read here in the institution of the supper But did Bellarmine euer read that the blessing of any creature sensible or insensible was the changing transubstantiation of the substance of it so that it was not the same substance after
haue an other An other they wil not say they haue then must they needs iterate Christs which indeed as he saith is blasphemous to thinke on And againe he would inferre out of Lumbard Ibid. 148. b. that the same most precious body and blood is offered daily that once suffered was once shed And yet in the next page he saith Ibid. 149. b. The Catholike doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christs most precious body blood to bee an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the Crosse Ibid. 149. b. Of the vertue of the sacrifice of the Masse and of Christs on the Crosse Gard. Ibid fol. 149. b. Christs sacrifice on the Crosse was is propitiatory but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice sheweth it also before the eâ—es of the faithfull and refresheth the effectual memory of it What should any cockle doe amongst this corne why should he presently insert that the catholike doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in Esseâ—c that was offered on the Crosse once Come to the comparison betweene the sacrifice of the Masse and that of the Crosse of the strenght vertue force of the one and of the other they knowe not what to say The offering on the crosse saith he was is propitiatorie satisfactory for our redemption remission of sinnes Note well Ibid 150. a. The masse is propitiatory also so they make 2. propitiatory sacrifices which can noe more staÌ„d together theÌ„ if they should make 2 almighties wherby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is giuen dispenced in the sacrament of Baptisme The daily offering meaning the Masse is propitiatory also but that it is not in that degree of propitiation for to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstanding that signifieth not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christs most precious body blood the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory satisfactory for all the world And yet not ten lines after in the same page he saith that the act of the Preist done according to Gods commandement must needes be propitiatory prouoke Gods fauour and ought to bee trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God Tantae molis er at RomanaÌ„ coÌ„dere genteÌ„ Here any man may see what a businesse hard worke it is to patch these popish doctrines together what absurdities they fal into therby One while hee saith that the act of the Preist must needes bee a sacrifice propitiatory And now to haue an vnderstanding for the same hee is driuen to a very shamfull shift that he must either say cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christ or else that the action of the Preist is noe otherwise satisfactory then al other Christian mens workes be for so he averreth that all good workes good thoughts and good me ditations may bee called sacrifices and the same bee called sacrifices propitiatory also D. Allen hauing shewed by some reasons that both the sacrifice of Christ at his last supper and that on the crosse stand well together De euch sacrif l 2. c. 10. f. 544 Quam hodie cuiuslibet sacerdotis sacruÌ„ in ecclesia and are in their natures very commodious addeth but it is saluo meliori indicio according to his own opinioÌ„ that that sacrifice which Christ himselfe offered at his last supper had not any other effect or greater strength then the Masse of euery Preist performed in the Church now hath wherby without quesion is confirmed the action of the Preist or else Gardiners staggering is in vaine And yet me thinketh Ibid. post c. 23. fol. 596. Allen himselfe stumbleth at this againe when he would haue the sacrifice of the masse to be held not an absolute and independent sacrifice but to be referred as all the Iewish sacrifices were to the only fountaine of sacrifices the death of Christ why should it not be absolute independent since you say that Christs sacrifice at his last supper had noe greater effect then that of your masse done by the Preist that of your masse being the same in essence with that of the Crosse what blasphemy is it in Allen to coÌ„pare it with those sacrifices of the Iewes râ—ferre it to the fountaine that is to it selfe Againe is it any maruaile if Gardiner shew himselfe vnconstant in these kinde of questions Mirum vero impudenter mulier si facit meretrix Ter. in And. act 4. seen 4 Gard. ib. 151. b 152. a. The pure sacrifice of the Church saith he is there offered for the effect of the increase of life in vs as it was offered on the crosse to atcheiue life vnto vs. And yet in the verie next page out of Cyrill he wold haue the sacrifice of the Church to be vinificum a sacrifice giuing life And yet he addeth which is more wouÌ„derful that that caÌ„ be only said of the very body blood of Christ so that one where he deuideth our redeÌ„ption betweene the Preists sacrifice Christs Intollerable blasphemy the one to giue life the other to increase our life that is noe lesse then flat blasphemy For al Christians doe beleiue that the sacrifice made on the crosse doth both giue vs life also increase continue the same the Priests oblation doth neither of both for our redemption eternall saluation standeth not only in giueing vs life but in continuing the same for euer as Christ said that hee came not only to giue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therin Iohn 10. Gal. 2. And S. Paule saith the life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who loued me gaue himselfe for me And therfore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ the other by the oblation of the Preist then deuide we our salvation betweene Christ the Preist shal haue our saluation redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the Preist as we haue by that of the Crosse done by Christ himselfe If any man rescue him by saying he referreth vinificuÌ„ that sacrifice gyuing life to the body blood of Christ whether on the Crosse or sacrificed in the masse then ouerthroweth he his owne distinction made before of giuing and increasing life maketh the masse an independent and absolute sacrifice which Allen wil none of Thus haue you a breife of what Gardiner hath said touching the sacrifice of the masse where you see he runneth too fro so astonied amased as if hee were at his wits end knewe not what to say For one while the Preist maketh a sacrifice propitiatory an other while he doth not now hee giueth life now hee giueth none nowe is Christ the ful sauiour satisfactioÌ„ now the Preist hath halfe
that it was before if he cannot proue this he commeth short of his purpose to take needlesse paines to proue a thing not denied For both he al others of his side when they speake of blessing of the bread meane only a turning change of one substance into an other such a change as blessing nether can or euer did work yet Bellarmine must remember that in the institution of the supper the breaking followeth after the blessing so that here is a doubt what is brokeÌ„ bread there is none the Body of Christ I say must not be brokeÌ„ which consideratioÌ„ maketh Bellarmine salue himselfe an other waie by saying To be broken agreeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Bellar. de mis l. 1. c. 12. f. 699. To be brokeÌ„ a. greeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread Allen de Euch. sacra l. 1. c. 15. c 16. Bell. de sac euch l. 1 c. 10. Rhem. annot Mat. 26 v. 26. parag 7. what need hee saie in the forme of bread why the body of Christ is not there but vnder the forme of bread therfore by him there is as very a breaking of the body of Christ as there is a verie presence a preseÌ„ce vnder the forme of bread a breaking in the forme of bread D. Allen in two seuerall chapters goeth about to proue First that Christ did blesse or Eucharishze the bread wine that with certaine words next that those wordes Hoc est corpus meum this is my body are the words of Consecration that those two are both one first froÌ„ the nature of the worde benedicere to blesse he discourseth wonderfully both in Greeke Latine of the strength vertue of it Fol. 291 Quanquam totam ceremo niam ordinem non narrent nec plura verba quibus ea seu â—ucharistiâ— seu Eulogia facta est Ver bonè an sola voluntatâ— aut impositione manuum fol. 294. Luc. vlt. the vse it hath in holy scripture in the Doctors yet hath not brought any one example neere his purpose For how can he say that that blessing vsed by our sauiour was the blessing of the creatures elemeÌ„ts an actiue blessing a powerful blessing seeing he confesseth himselfe that the Evangelists doe not recite any order of the blessing nor expresse any more wordes that belongeth therto but only the words blessing giuing thaukes and also doubteth whether Christ did blesse by auie words or by his intent and will or by laying on of hands For we read not saith he what Christ did or said in the blessing of the things Notwithstanding this hee is so far in loue with his owne conceipt of blessing by certaine words that he bring eth the bread for an example which Christ blessed at Emaus when the two disciples knewe him which saith he is taken of many of the ancients to bee the Eucharist although the Evangelist recite no wordes in forme how it was done No words of consecration mentioned so that we may see whatsoeuer he is disposed to proue be there scripture or be there none all is one with him he wil aduenture to perswade what liketh him best Allen eodem lib post c. 45. fol. 480. And yet the same maÌ„ a farre of in an other part of the same booke speaking of the same matter as hauing forgotten himselfe saith That the text of S. Luke cap. vlt. and all the order of the narration doth shew that the whole action was like to the consecrating of the Eucharist Now it is the Eucharist hee tooke saith the Evangelist bread he blessed it he brake the bread and reached it vnto them If this action here done be like to the order of consecration vsed at the Eucharist then there may be consecration without addition of This is my body which hee professeth to proue to bee al one or to be the words of blessing it selfe yea without receauing at al for there is no commaund of eating Allen trauerseth here this example to proue the coÌ„munion in one kinde lawfull for the lay people But I would not wish D. Allen or any papist of them al to liue by the losse for although they thinke to gaine by the practise of Christ there in drawing it to confirme their defaulking of one part of the sacrameÌ„t from the lay people because there is no mention made of the wine yet will they lose by it if the exaÌ„ple were stronge enough for one kinde because there is no mention of any consecration where no consecration is there is no reall presence and so they shall lose Transubstantiation all And can it bee the Eucharist without these But howsoeuer D. Allen woulde haue vs beleeue that it is the opinion of many of the ancients and of great druines that that is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist yet Bellarmine who is more freer of his report saith De sacraÌ„ ieuc l. 4. c. 24. f. 563. that touching that place there be two opinions amongst the Catholikes themselues The one is of Iohn of Louaine others that it was the Eucharist the other of Iansenius that it was not the Eucharist both these great men with that side But to returne to D. Allen from whom I haue a little digressed to follow him in his Blessing ConsecratioÌ„ Allen vt ante de euch c. 15. fol. 294. Qua re credeÌ„ dum est Christum benedicendo panem verbo aliquo vsum fuisse non solo tactu aut virtute euÌ„ sanctificasse Et cum eodeÌ„ verbo quo benedixit consecrasse putetur ab antiquitate pene ab om nibus theologis licet pauci quidam negeÌ„t cumque hic vt saepe docuimus coÌ„secrare materiam sit conficere sacramentum sequi tur idem illud verbum benedictionis esse formam huius sacramenti vt idem sit beney dicere vti verbis consecrationis seu applicare verba consecrationis ad elemeÌ„ ta proposita To blesse to consecrate is al one He commendeth this opinion with great reasons yet he refuseth it Ibid. 295. 1. He tooke bread 2. He blessed 3. He brake gaue 4. This in my body Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. saith the order should be Wherfore saith hee it is to be beleeued that Christ by blessing the bread vsed some word that he did not sanctifie it only by touching it or by his power And since it is iudged by antiquitie almost by all diuines although some few denie it that Christ consecrated by the same word wherby he blessed that to consecrate the matter is to make the sacrameÌ„t it followeth that that same worde that is the blessing is the forme of this sacrament insomuch that it is al one to blesse to vse the words of consecration or to apply the words of consecration to the elements set before
euch l. 2. c. 10. f. 183. Step. Gard. f. 21. b. that the reall body of Christ is on that holie table put and laid the better to signifie the reall presence Put and laid as all men knowe according to the natural signification require scituation of place and bodily description How doth hee not fill a place when he is put laid there Stephan Gardiner is as far at odds with his owne reason in this matter as D. Harding WheÌ„ we acknowledge by faith saith hee Christs body present although we saie it is present truly really substantially yet we saie our senses be not priuie to that presence ne the maner of it but by instruction of faith and therfore we say Christs body is not locally present nor by maner of quantitie but in visibly and in no sensible maner but marueilously in a sacrament mysterie truly and in such a spirituall maner as wee cannot define determine and yet by faith we knowe his body present the parts of which be in themselues distinct one from an other in their owne substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of vs. What Mr. did Gardiner follow in this Christs body is not locally present and yet hath distinction of parts Christs bodie hath distinction of parts and yet not by circumscription of severall places to be comprehended of vs. Thomas of Aquine denieth this The determinate distance of parts in a natural bodie P. 3. q. 76. art 3. ad 2. Distance of parts is in the true body of Christ but not in that bodie which is in the sacrament is in respect of the dimensiue quaÌ„titie such a distaÌ„ce of parts saith he is in the true body of Christ but according to that distance of parts he is not in this sacrament but he is there according to the manner of his substance Here besides the disagreemeÌ„t of Thomas from Gardiner Thomas hath framed such a Christ as indeed is no Christ hee hath nether quantitie nor proportion of body nor distance of parts yet he confesseth that his true body in heauen hath so and if his bodie in the sacrament haue not so then ether he ouerthroweth the truth of Christ body or else it will Ineuitably follow without any qualifications ifs or ands that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament Gardiner saith The body of Christ is there in no sensible maner as before AlleÌ„ saith Corpus Christs est sensibiliter in sacramentâ— The body of Christ is sensibly in the sacrament Allen vt ante fol. 435. Againe within three pages doth Gardiner contradict himselfe twise verie directly In the first he saith Christ in the sacrament giueth truly his flesh to bee eaten Fol. 87. b. the same which he tooke of the Virgin Next wee receane not in the sacrament Christs flesh that was crucified being so a visible mortall flesh but Christs flesh glorious incorruptible impassible a godly spirituall flesh And yet so constant is he in the very next page Fol. 89. a. he striueth to proue out of S. Ierome others that they doe not meane that we eate the flesh of Christ as be sitteth in heauen raigning Some Ioseph or Daniel must expound these dreames First wee receaue not the flesh that was crucified Lastly we receaue him not as hee sitteth in heauen raigning and is glorified So by this reckning nether first nor last doe we receaue him at al. De Euch. sac l. 1. c. 2 fol. 24. How can Bellarmine saie and saie trulie That the body of Christ hath his naturall maner of being in heauen but in the sacrament it hath not his naturall but sacramentall which we also say and yet that sacramentall maner to be expressed by the word substantially And againe to saie That whersoeuer the bodie of Christ is Ibid. l. 3. c. 7. f. 317. 320. there hee hath his forme humane shape scituation of parts order which he hath in heauen and that he is in the sacrament aswel as in heauen yet in the one to fill a place and haue distinction of parts And in the other to fil no place and yet haue his dimensions distinction of parts which is verie hard Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. fo 26. 27. A gaine he teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is veruÌ„ veale naturale animatum quantum coloratum c. A true bodie reall natural hauing life bigge or greate coloured yet we maie not saie that it is sensible visible to be touched stretched out although it be so in heauen Bellarmine in this controversie is like Turnus in the skirmish with Eneas petit aequor a Tornus he traverseth the field Virg. in AEnei l. 12. as though he would do much but incertos implicat orbes but his turnings and rounds fore-shewed his ill successe nam perfidus â—…sis frangitur in modiâ—que ardentem desâ—ritictu His treacherous sword brake and left him burning in rage in the heate of the conflict so doth Bellarmines owne wordes confute his cause Hath the body of Christ wheresoeuer it be his forme humane shape and scituation of parts and yet may we not saie it is extensum extended into place and yet may we say that he wanteth not his dimensions nor is without shape countenance in the Eucharist Nos non dicimus Christi corpus in Eucharistia dimeÌ„sionibus aut facie carere In sermone de sancto Martino twise cited by Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. fol. 27. l. 2. c. 11. f. 186. What should hold in the extensioÌ„ Allen alloweth the word sensibiliter sensibly Bellarmine refuseth it and so doth he corporally which Harding and some of the rest vseth Bellarmine holdeth the word spiritualliter spiritually as a man holdeth a wolfe by the eares where there is danger in holding him and danger in letting of him go Hee confesseth that S. Bernard vseth it and opposeth it to carnaliter carnally speaking of the sacrament tamen non videtur hac vox multum frequentaÌ„da yet that word saith he seemeth not much to be vsed because there is danger in it Thus must Bellarmines conceipt be the modell whereto our faith must be framed He saith further That the counsel of Trent expressed the maner of Christs presence in the sacrament by the word Realiter really Really substantially vsed by the Trent Counte opposed against the tearmes vsed by the Calvinists opposing it against the counterfeit terme of Calvin who will haue him so present that he be apprehended by faith and so S. Bernard saith also in the same place Bellarmine quoteth vnto vs And that they vse the word substantialiter substaÌ„tially against the Calvenists also who teach that the body of Christ according to the substance is only in heauen but I know not saith hee what vertue and power they deriue from thence to vs. Will they stande to this Strange it were they should sup vp their owne