THE REAL PRESENCE AND Spiritual OF CHRIST IN THE Blessed Sacrament PROVED Against the DOCTRINE of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  
By Jer. Taylor, D. D.  Oportuit enim certè ut non solùm anima per Spiritum Sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, verùmetiam ut rude, atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu, & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur. S. Cyril. in Joh. l. 4. c. 14. Literam sequi, & signa pro rebus accipere servilis infirmitatis est. S. August. l. 3. de doct. Christ. 
LONDON, Printed by James Flesher, for Richard Royston at Angel in Ivy-lane. 1654.   

To the R. R. D. WARNER L. B. R.  
Right Reverend Father,  
I Am against my Resolution and proper disposition by the overruling power of the divine providence which wisely disposes all things, accidentally engaged in the Question of Transubstantiation, which hath already so many times passed by the Fire and under the Saw of Contention: that it might seem, nothing could remain which had not been already considered, and sifted to the bran. I had been by chance engaged in a conference with a person of another persuasion, the man not unlearned nor unwary, but much more confident than I perceived the strength of his argument could warrant; and yet he had some few of the best which their Schools did furnish out and ordinarily minister to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Emissaries and ministers of temptation to our people. I than began to consider whether there we not much more in the secret of the Question which might not have persuaded him more fiercely than I could than see cause for, or others at lest, from whom upon the strength of education he might have derived his confidence; and searching into all the secrets of it, I found infinite reason to reprove the boldness of those men, who in the sum of affairs and upon examination will be found to think men damned, if they will not speak nonsense, and disbelieve their eyes and ears, and defy their own reason, and recede from antiquity, and believe them in whatsoever they dream, or list to obtrude upon the world who hath been too long credulous, or it could never have suffered such a proposition to be believed by so many men against all the demonstration in the world. And certainly, it is no small matter of wonder, that those men of the Roman Church should pretend learning, and yet rest their new articles of faith upon propositions against all learning; that they should engage their scholars to read and believe Aristotle, and yet destroy his philosophy, and reason by their article; that they should think all the world fools but themselves, and yet talk and preach such things which if mwn had spoken before this new device arose, they would have been thought mad. But if these men had by chance or interest fallen upon the other opinion which we maintain against them, they would have filled the world with declamations against the impossible propositions and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their adversaries; They would have called us dunces, idiots, men without souls, without philosophy, without Sense, without Reason, without Logic, destroyers of the very first notions of mankind. But now that they are engaged upon the impossible side, they proceed with a prodigious boldness, and seem to wonder that mankind does not receive from them all their first principles and credit the wildness and new notions of their Cataphysicks (for Metaphysics it is not) their affirmatives and negatives are neither natural, nor above, nor besides nature, but against it in those first principles which are primely credible. For that I may use S. Augustine's words: Nemo enim huic evidentiae contradicet, nisi quem plus defensare delectat quod sentit, quàm quid sentiendum sit invenìre. But I see it is possible for a man to believe any thing that he hath a mind to; and this to me seems to have been permitted to reprove the vanity of man's imagination, and the confidence of opinion, to make us humble, apt to learn, inquisitive, and charitable: for if it be possible for so great a company of men of all sorts and capacities to believe such impossible things and to wonder that others do not eandem insaniam insanire, it will concern the wisest man alive, to be inquisitive in the articles of his fierce persuasion, to be diligent in his search, modest in his sentences, to prejudge no man, to reprove the adversaries with meekness, and a spirit conscious of human weakness and aptness to be abused. But if we remember that Pere Coton Confessor to Henry the iv of France was want to say, that he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand and his King at his feet, meaning him at confession, and the other in effigy of the Crucifix or in the Host, we may well perceive that they are not such fools but they will consider the advantages that come to their persons and calling, if they can be supposed to make, with pronouncing four words, bread to become God. Upon the reputation of this great thing the Priests were exempt from from secular Jurisdiction, and violence, in the Council in Dalmatia held by the Legates of Pope Innocent the third A. D. 1199. Can. 5. upon this account Pope Vrban the second in a Council which he held at Rome (1097) against the Emperor Henry the fourth, took from secular Princes the investiture of Benefices, and advanced the Clergy above Kings, because their hands created God their Creator, as Simeon Dunelmensis reports Lib. 2. Chron. apud Vigner. Hist. Eccles. And the same horrible words are used in the famous book called Stella Clericorum: where the Priest is called the creator of his Creator; and thence also infers his privilege and immunity from being condemned. I will not with any envy and reproach object to them that saying of a Bohemian Priest against which John Hus wrote a book on purpose, that before the Priest said his first Mass, he was but the son of God, but afterwards he was the Father of God, and the Creator of his body; It was a rude kind of blasphemy, but not much more than that which their severest men do say, and were never corrected by their expurgatory indices, and is to be seen in Biel on Canon of the Mass, Lection. 4. and Pere dè Bessè in his Royal Priesthood; l. 1. c. 3. where the Priest upon the stock of his power is advanced above Angels, and the blessed Virgin herself; which is the biggest expression which they can device, unless they advance him above God himself. The consequent of this is a double honour, that is, an honour and maintenance in such a manner as may serve the design of ambition, and fill the belly of covetousness.  
This was enough to make them willing to introduce it, and (as to them) the wonder ceases, but it is strange the world could receive it; For though men might be willing to believe a thing that would make for their profit and reputation, yet that they should entertain it to their prejudice, as the other part must do, that at so great a price, and with so great a diminution of their rights, they should suffer themselves to be cozened of their reason, is the stranger thing of the two. But to this also, there were many concurrent causes; For, 1. This doctrine entered upon the world in the most barbarous, most ignorant, and most vicious ages of the world; for we know when it began, by what steps and progressions it prevailed, and by what instruments. It began in the ninth age, and in the tenth was suckled with little arguments and imperfect plead, in the eleventh it grew up with illusions and pretence of miracles, and was christened and confirmed in the twelfth, and afterwards lived upon blood, and craft, and violence; But when it was disputed by Paschasius Ratbert the Deacon in the 9th Century, the first collateral device by which they attempted to set up their fancy was to device miracles, which we found done accordingly in the same Paschasius telling a tale of Plegilus seeing upon the altar a babe like that which was pictured in the arms of Simeon: in Joannes Diaconus telling a story of something in the days of S. Gregory the great, but never told by any before him, viz. in the year 873, that is 270 years after the death of S. Gregory; and extracted from the Archives of Rome or Italy out of England, where it seems they could better tell what so long before done at Rome, by Damianus in the year 1060 who tells two more; by Guitmond writing against Berengarius out of the Vitae P P. by Lanfranck, who served his end upon the report of strange apparitions, and from him Alexander of Hales also tells a pretty tale. For they than observed that the common people did not only than believe all reports of miracles, but desired them passionately, and with them would swallow any thing; But how vainly and falsely the world was than abused, we need no greater witness than the learned bishop of the Canaries, Melchier Canus. And yet even one of these authors, though possible apt enough to credit or report any such fine device, for the promotion of his new opinion, yet it is vehemently suspected, that even the tale which was reported out of Paschasius, was a long time after his death thrust in by some Monk in a place to which it relates not, and which without that tale would be more united and more coherent: and yet if this and the other miracles pretended, had not been illusions or directly fabulous, it had made very much against the present doctrine of the Roman Church, for they represent the body in such manner as by their explications it is not, and it cannot be: they represent it broken, a finger or a piece of flesh or bloody or bleeding, or in the form of an infant; and than when it is in the species of bread; for if as they say Christ's body is present not longer than the form of bread remained, how can it be Christ's body in the miracle, when the species being gone it is not longer a Sacrament? But the dull inventors of miracles in those ages, considered nothing of this; the article itself was than gross and rude, and so were the instruments of probation. I noted this, not only to show at what door so incredible a persuasion entered, but that the zeal of prevailing in it hath so blinded the refiners of it in this age, that they still urge these miracles for proof, when if they do any thing at all, they reprove the present doctrine.  
But besides this device, they enticed the people forward by institution of the solemn feast of Corpus Christi day, entertained their fancies by solemn and pompous processions and rewarded their worshippings and attendances on the blessed Sacrament with indulgences granted by Pope Vrban the 4th inserted in the Clementines and enlarged by John the 22d and Martin the 5th, and for their worshipping of the consecrated water they had authentic precedents, even the example of Bonaventure's Lamb, S. Francis his Mule, S. Anthony of Padoa's Ass; and if these things were not enough to persuade the People to all this matter, they must needs have weak hearts, and hard heads; and because they met with opponents at all hands, they proceeded to a more vigorous way of arguing: they armed legions against their adversaries, they confuted at one time in the Town of Beziers 60000 persons, and in one battle disputed so prosperously and acutely, that they killed about 10000 men that were Sacramentaries: and this Bellarmine gives as an instance of the marks of his Church; This way of arguing was used in almost all the countries of Christendom, till by Crusadoes massacres and battles, burn and the constant Carnificia, and butchery of the inquisition, which is the main prop of the Papacy, and does more than Tu●es Petrus, they prevailed far and near; and men durst not oppose the evidence whereby they fought. And now the wonder is out, it is not strange that the article hath been so readily entertained. But in the Greek Churches it could not prevail, as appears not only in Cyrils book of late, dogmatically affirming the article in our sense, but in the answer of Cardinal Humbert to Nicetas who maintained the receiving the holy Sacrament does break the fast, which it could not do if it were not, when it seems, bread and wine, as well as what we believe it to be, the body and blood of Christ.  
And now in prosecution of their strange improbable success they proceed to persuade all People that they are fools, and do not know the measures of sense, nor understand the words of Scripture, nor can tell when any of the Fathers speak affirmatively or negatively; and after many attempts made by divers unprosperously enough (as the thing did constrain and urge them) a great wit Cardinal Perron hath undertaken the Qu. and hath spun his thread so fine and twisted it so intricately, and adorned it so sprucely with language and sophisms, that although he cannot resist the evidence of truth, yet he is too subtle for most men's discerning; and though he hath been contested by potent adversaries, and wise men, in a better cause than his own, yet he will always make his reader believe that he prevails; which puts me in mind of what Thucydides told Archidamus the King of Sparta as king him whether he or Pericles were the better wrestler? he told him that when he threw Pericles on his back he would with fine words persuade the people that he was not down at all, and so he got the better. So does he; and is to all considering men a great argument of the danger that articles of religion are in, and consequently men's persuasions, and final interest, when they fall into the hands of a witty man and a sophister, and one who is resolved to prevail by all means. But truth is stronger than wit, and can endure when the other cannot, and I hope, it will appear so in this Qu. which although it is managed by weak hands, that is, by mine, yet to all impartial persons it must be certain and prevailing upon the stock of his own sincerity and derivation from God.  
And now (R. R.) though this Qu. hath so often been disputed and some things so often said, yet I was willing to bring it once more upon the stage, hoping to add some clearness to it, and by fitting it with a good instrument, and clear conveyance, and representment, by saying something new, and very many which are not generally known, and less generally noted; and I thought there was a present necessity of it, because the Emissaries of the Church of Rome are busy now to disturb the peace of consciences by troubling the persecuted, and injecting scruples into the infortunate, who suspect every thing, and being weary of all, are most ready to change from the present. They have got a trick to ask, where is our Church now! what is become of your articles, of your religion? We cannot answer them as they can be answered; for nothing satisfies them, but being prosperous, and that we cannot pretend to, but upon the accounts of the Cross, and so we may indeed rejoice and be exceeding glad, because we hope that great is our reward in heaven. But although they are pleased to use an argument that like Ionas Gourd or Asparagus is in season only at some times, yet we according to the nature of truth, inquire after the truth of their religion upon the account of proper and theological objections; Our Church may be a beloved Church and dear to God though she be persecuted when theirs is in an evil condition by obtruding upon the Christian world articles of religion against all that which aught to be the instruments of credibility and persuasion, by distorting and abusing the Sacraments, by making error to be an art, and that a man must be witty to make himself capable of being abused, by outfacing all sense and reason, by damning their brethrens for not making their understanding servile and sottish, by burning them they can get, and cursing them that they cannot get, by doing so much violence to their own reasons, and forcing themselves to believe that no man ever spoke against their new device, by making a prodigious error to be necessary to salvation, as if they were Lords of the Faith of Christendom.  
But these men are grown to that strange triumphal gaiety upon their joy that the Church of England as they think is destroyed, that they tread upon her grave which themselves have digged for her who lives and pities them; and they wonder that any man should speak in her behalf, and suppose men do it out of spite and indignation, and call the duty of her sons who are by persecution made more confident, pious, and zealous in defending those truths for which she suffers on all hands, by the name of anger, and suspect it of malicious, vile purposes, I wondered when I saw something of this folly in one that was her son once, but is run away from her sorrow, and disinherited himself because she was not able to give him a temporal portion, and thinks he hath found out reasons enough to departed from the miserable. I will not trouble him or so much as name him, because if his words are as noted as they are public every good man will scorn them, if they be private I am not willing to publish his shame, but leave him to consideration and repentance; But for our dear afflicted Mother she is under the portion of a child, in the state of discipline, her government indeed hindered, but her worshippings the same, the articles as true and those of the Church of Rome as false as ever, of which I hope the following book will be one great instance. But I wish that all tempted persons would consider the illogical deductions by which these men would impose upon their consciences; If the Church of England be destroyed, than Transubstantiation is true; which indeed had concluded well if that article had been only pretended false, because the Church of England was prosperous. But put case the Turk should invade Italy, and set up the Alcoran in S. Peter's Church, would it be endured that we should conclude, that Rome was Antichristian because her temporal glory is defaced? The Apostle in this case argued otherwise; The Church of the Jews was cut of for their sins; be not highminded o ye Gentiles, but fear jest he also cut thee of; it was counsel given to the Romans. But though (blessed be God) our afflictions are great, yet we can, and do enjoy the same religion as the good Christians in the first three hundred years did theirs; we can serve God in our houses, and sometimes in Churches; and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations, cannot be shaken by the convulsions of war and the changes of state. But they who make our afflictions an objection against us, unless they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted, might do weil to remember, that if they ever fall into trouble they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable; for by pretending, religion is destroyed when it is persecuted they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution: However, let our Church be where it pleases God it shall, it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil doctrine, false and dangerous and I know not any Church in Christendom which hath any article more impossible or apt to tender the Communion dangerous, than this in the Church of Rome: and since they command us to believe all or will accept none, I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others. I have now given account of the reasons of my present engagement; and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to you, I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it; because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude, are such which although they aught to be made public, yet I know not whether your humility will permit it: for you had rather oblige others than be noted by them. Your predecessor in the See of Rochester, who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead, did publicly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this book, and yet he was more moderate and better tempered than the rest: but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors, it is not improper that to you should be offered the opportunities of owning that which is the belief and honour of that See, since the religion was reform. But jest it be thought that this is an excuse, rather than a reason of my address to you, I must crave pardon of your humility, and serve the end of glorification of God in it, by acknowledging publicly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations of that grace which is the Crown of Marytyrdome: expending the remains of your lessened fortunes, and increasing charity, upon your brethrens who are dear to you not only by the band of the same Ministry, but the fellowship of the same sufferings. But indeed the cause in which these papers are engaged, is such that it aught to be owned by them that can best defend it; and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids, but by Spiritual; the diminution of your outward circumstances cannot tender you a person unfit to patronise this Book, because where I fail, your wisdom learning, and experience can supply, and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a public view: you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thankfulness and service of  
R. R. Your most affectionate and endeared servant in the Lord Jesus JER. TAYLOR.   

The Contents.  

SECT. I. State of the Question. Page 1  
SECT. II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture. p. 22  
SECT. III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint John's Gospel. p. 28  
SECT. iv Of the words of Institution. p. 65  
SECT. V Hoc, This. p. 78  
SECT. VI Est corpus meum. p. 107  
SECT. VII. Considerations of the manner and circumstances and annexes of the Institution. p. 124  
SECT. VIII. Of the arguments of the Romanists from Scripture. p. 140  
SECT. IX. Arguments from other Scriptures, proving Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, to be only Spiritual, not Natural. p. 146  
SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense. p. 163  
SECT. XI. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason. p. 189  
SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church. p. 264  
SECT. XIII. Of adoration of the Sacrament. p. 333    

A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament.  

SECT. I. State of the Question.  
THe tree of Knowledge became the tree of Death to us, and the tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention. The holy symbols of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration, and an union of Christian societies to God, and with one another; and the evil taking it, disunites us from God; and the evil understanding it, divides us from each other. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet if men would but do reason, there were in all religion no article which might more easily excuse us from meddling with questions about it, than this of the holy Sacrament. For as the man in Phadrus, that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak, Answered, it was hidden under his Cloak: meaning that he would not have hidden it, but that he intended it should be secret: so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask, what, or how it is? Mysterium est; it is a Sacrament, and a Mystery: by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces; by the creatures it brings us to God; by the body it ministers to the spirit. And that things of this nature are undiscernible secrets, we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us, how the materìal fire of hell should torment an immaterial soul, and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit, and how a Sacrament should nourish a body, and make it sure of the resurrection.  
It was happy with Christendom, when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and intercourse; that is, to believe the thing hearty, and not to inquire curiously; and there was peace in this article for almost a thousand years together, and yet that Transubstantiation was not determined, I hope to make very evident; In synaxitransubstantiationem serò definivit ecclesia; diù satis erat credere, sive sub pane consecrato, sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi, so said the great Erasmus. 
1 Cor. c. 7.  It was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation; for a long time together it did suffice to believe, that the true body of Christ was present, whether under the consecrated bread or any other way: so the thing was believed, the manner was not stood upon. And it is a famous saying of Durandus, Verbum audimus, 
Neand. synops. Chron. pa. 203.  motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. We hear the Word, we perceive the Motion, we know not the Manner, but we believe the presence: and Ferus, 
In Mat. 26 Biblioth. Sixt. Senensis l. 4. tit. Johannes Ferus.  of whom Sixtus Senensis affirms that he was vir nobilitèr doctus, pius & eruditus, hath these words: Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi, quid opus est disputare, num panis substantia maneat, vel non? When it is certain that Christ's body is there, what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no? 
Tonstal de Eucharist. l. 1. pa. 46.  and therefore Cuthbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture, concerning the manner. De modo quo id fieret satius erat curiosum quemque relinquere suae conjecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum. Before the Lateran council, it was free for every one to opine as they please, and it were better it were so now. 
Cyrill in Joh. l. 4. c. 13.  But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty; not that he would have the manner determined, but not so much as thought upon. Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes, nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus, illud [Quomodo] aut cogitemus aut proferamus. For if we go about to think it or understand it, we loose ourlabour. Quomodo enim id fiat, ne in ment intelligere, nec linguâ dicere possumus, sed silentio & firmâ fide id suscipimus: we can perceive the thing by faith, but cannot express it in words, 
Epist. 77.  nor understand it with our mind, said S. Bernard. Oportet igitur (it is at last after the steps of the former progress come to be a duty) nos in sumptionibus Divinorum mysteriorum, indubitatam retinere fidem, & non quaerere quo pacto. The sum is this; The manner was defined but very lately; there is no need at all to dispute it; no advantages by it, and therefore it were better it were left at liberty, to every man to think as he please; for so it was in the Church for above a thousand years together; and yet it were better men would not at all trouble themselves concerning it, for it is a thing impossible to be understood; and therefore it is not fit to be inquired after. This was their sense: and I suppose we do in no sense prevaricate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying, the presence of Christ is real and spiritual; because this account does still leave the article in his deepest mystery: not only because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernible and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things, but also because the word spiritual is so general a term, and the operations so various and many by which the Spirit of God brings his purposes to pass, and does his work upon the soul, that we are in this specific term very far from limiting the article to a minute and special manner. Our word of spiritual presence is particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner; we say it is not this, but it is to be understood figuratively, that is, not naturally, but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things; which how they operate or are effected, we know no more than we know how a Cherubin sings or thinks, or by what private conveyances a lost notion returns suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason. Christ is present spiritually, that is by effect and blessing; which in true speaking is rather the consequent of his presence, than the formality. For though we are taught and feel that, yet this we profess we cannot understand; and therefore curiously inquire not. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Justin Martyr, it is a manifest argument of infidelity to inquire concerning the things of God, How, or after what manner? And in this it was that many of the Fathers of the Church laid their hands upon their mouths, and revered the mystery, but like the remains of the sacrifice, they burned it; that is, as themselves expound the allegory, it was to be adored by Faith, and not to be discussed with reason; knowing that, as Solomon said, Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ. He that pries too far into the Majesty, shall be confounded with the Glory.  
So far it was very well; and if error or interest had not unravelled the secret, and looked too far into the Sanctuary, where they could see nothing but a cloud of fire, Majesty and Secrecy indiscriminately mixed together, we had kneeled before the same Altars, and adored the same mystery, and communicated in the same rites, to this day. For in the thing itself there is no difference amongst wise and sober persons, nor ever was till the manner became an article, and declared or supposed to be of the substance of the thing. But now the state of the question is this.  
The doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protestants in this article is: That after the Minister of the holy mysteries hath rightly prayed, and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine, the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a Sacramental, that is, in a spiritual, real manner: so that all that worthily communicate, do by faith receive Christ really, effectually, to all the purposes of his passion: The wicked receive not Christ, but the bore symbols only; but yet to their hurt, 
* Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cujus sunt sacramenta violatur, S. Hieron. in 1 Mala.  because the offer of Christ is rejected, and they pollute the blood of the Covenant, by using it as an unholy thing. The result of which doctrine is this: It is bread, and it is Christ's body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are; each as they can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and wine as they can; and to the same real purposes, to which they are designed; and Christ does as really nourish and fanctifie the soul, as the elements do the body. It is here as in the other Sacrament; for as, there, natural water becomes the laver of regeneration; so, here, bread and wine become the body, and blood of Christ; but there and here too, the first substance is changed by grace, but remains the same in nature.  
That this is the doctrine of the Church of England, is apparent in the Church Catechism; affirming the inward part or thing signified by the consecrated bread and wine to be [The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord's Supper;] and the benefit of it to be, the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine: and the same is repeated severally in the exhortation, and in the prayer of the address before the consecration, in the Canon of our Communion; verily and indeed is reipsâ, that's really enough; that's our sense of the real presence; and Calvin affirms as much, saying, 
Lively 4. Inst. c. 7. §. 32.  In the Supper Christ Jesus, viz. his body and blood, is truly given under the signs of bread and wine. 
De Missae Sacrific.  And Gregory de Valentiâ gives this account of the doctrine of the Protestants, that although Christ be corporally in heaven, yet is he received of the faithful communicants in this Sacrament truly, both spiritually by the mouth of the mind, through a most near conjunction of Christ with the soul of the receiver by faith, and also sacramentally with the bodily mouth etc. And which is the greatest testimony of all, we who best know our own minds, declare it to be so.  
Now that the spiritual is also a real presence, and that they are hugely consistent, is easily credible to them that believe that the gifts of the holy Ghost are real graces, and a Spirit is a proper substance: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are amongst the Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, intelligible things, or things discerned by the mind of a man are more truly and really such, and of a more excellent substance and reality, than things only sensible. And therefore when things spiritual are signified by materials, the thing under the figure is called true, and the material part is opposed to it, as less true or real. The examples of this are not infrequent in Scripture [The Tabernacle] into which the high Priest entered, was a type or figure of heaven. Heaven itself is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the true Tabernacle, 
Heb. 8.2.  and yet the other was the material part. And when they are joined together, that is, when a thing is expressed by a figure [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, True] is spoken of such things though they are spoken figuratively: 
1 Joh. 2. ●.  Christ the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world; He is also the true vine, 
Joh. 15.1. Joh. 6.55. 6.32.  and verè cibus truly or really meat, and Panis verus è coelo the true bread from Heaven; and spiritual goods are called the true richeses: 
Luk. 16.12  and in the same Analogy, the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true, real, and effective; the other can be but the image and shadow of it, something in order to this: for if it were in the Sacrament naturally or corporeally, it could be but in order to this spiritual, celestial and effective presence, as appears beyond exception in this; that the faithful and pious communicants receive the ultimate end of his presence, 
Concil. Trident. sess. 4. sub Julio 3. 1551. Can. 8.  that is, spiritual blessings; The wicked (who by the affirmation of the Roman Doctors do receive Christ's body and blood in the natural and corporal manner) fall short of that for which this is given, that is, of the blessings and benefits.  
So that (as saint Paul said) He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, But he is a Jew which is one inwardly, 
Rom. 2.28  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's the real Jew, and the true circumcision that which is of the heart, and in the spirit; and in this sense it is that Nathanael is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Joh. 1.47.  really and truly an Israelite: so we may say of the blessed Sacrament, Christ is more truly and really present in spiritual presence, than in corporal, in the heavenly effect, than in the natural being; this if it were at all, can be but the less perfect, and therefore we are to the most real purposes, and in the proper sense of Scripture the more real defenders of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament; for the spiritual sense is the most real, and most true, and most agreeable to the Analogy and style of Scripture, and right reason, and common manner of speaking. For every degree of excellency is a degree of being, of reality, and truth: and therefore spiritual things, being more excellent than corporal and natural, have the advantage both in truth and reality. And this is fully the sense of the Christians who use the Egyptian Liturgy. Sanctifica nos Domine noster, sicut sanctificasti has oblationes propositas, sed fecisti illas non sictas, (that's for real,) & quicquid apparet est mysterium tuum spiritale, (that's for spiritual.) To all which I add the testimony of Bellarmine concerning Saint Austin, Apud Augustinum saepissimè, 
Lively 1. Eucha. c. 14. § respondeo apud.  illud solum dici tale, & verè tale, quod habet effectum suum conjunctum: res enim ex fructu aestimatur: itaque illos dicit verè comedere corpus Christi, qui utiliter comedunt: They only truly eat Christ's body that eat it with effect; for than a thing is really or truly such, when it is not to no purpose; when it hath his effect. And in his eleventh Book against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 7. he shows, that in Scripture the words are often so taken, as to signify, not the substance, but the and effect of a thing. So when it is said, Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, that is, corruption shall not inherit: and in the resurrection our bodies are said to be spiritual, that is, not in substance, but in effect and operation: and in the same manner, he often speaks concerning the blessed Sacrament; and Clemens Romanus affirms expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is to drink the blood of Jesus, to partake of the Lords immortality.  
This may suffice for the word [real] which the English Papists much use, but as appears with less reason than the Sons of the Church of England: and when the real presence is denied, the word real is taken for Natural; and does not signify transcendenter, or in his just and most proper signification. But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question: which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the article of Trent; 
Decretum de SS. Euchar. Sacra. Can. 1.  Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantiâ suâ nobis adest, In substance, but after a sacramental manner: which words if they might be understood in the sense in which the Protestants use them, that is, really, truly, without fiction or the help of fancy, but in rei veritate, so, as Philo calls spiritual things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most necessary, useful and material substances, it might become an instrument of an united confession; And this is the manner of speaking which S. Bernard used in his Sermon of S. Martin, where he affirms, in sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed spiritualitèr, non carnalitèr; In the Sacrament is given us the true substance of Christ's body or flesh, but not carnally, but spiritually; that is, not to our mouths, but to our hearts, not to be chewed by teeth, but to be eaten by faith. But they mean it otherwise, as I shall demonstrate by and by. In the mean time it is remarkable that Bellarmine when he is stating this question, seems to say the same thing, for which he quotes the words of S. Bernard now mentioned; 
L 1. Euchar. c. 2. Reg. 3.  for he says, that Christ's body is there truly, substantially, really; but not corporally; Nay you may say spiritually: and now a man would think we had him sure; but his nature is labile and slippery, you are never the nearer for this; for first he says, it is not safe to use the word spiritually, nor yet safe to say, he is not there corporally, jest it be understood not of the manner of his presence, but to the exclusion of the nature. For he intends not (for all these fine words) that Christ's body is present spiritually, as the word is used in Scripture, and in all common notices of usual speaking; but spiritually, with him signifies after the manner of spirits, which, besides that it is a cozening the world in the manner of expression, is also a direct folly and contradiction, that a body should be substantially present, that is, with the nature of a body, naturally, and yet be not as a body but as a spirit, with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body. In vain therefore it is that he denies the carnal manner, and admits a spiritual, and ever after requires that we believe a carnal presence, even in the very manner. But this caution and exactness in the use of the word [spiritual] is therefore carefully to be observed, jest the contention of both parties should seem trifling and to be for nothing. We say that Christ's body is in the Sacrament really, but spiritually. They say it is there really, but spiritually. For so Bellarmine is bold to say, that the word may be allowed in this question. Where now is the difference? Here, by [spiritually] they mean present after the manner of a spirit; by [spiritually] we mean, present to our spirits only; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith, or spiritual susception; but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossible and implies a contradiction; a body not after the manner of a body, a body like a spirit; a body without a body; and a sacrifice of body and blood, without blood: corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus. They say that Christ's body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross, but not after the manner of all or any body, but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place. That's their spiritually. But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand, Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful, by blessing and grace; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence.  
That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter, which I found that Melanchthon used; saying, corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare; which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius, who was able than to teach him, and most men in that question; but the expression may become warrantable, and consonant to our doctrine; and means no more than really and without fiction, or beyond a figure: like that of Saint Paul, 
Col. 2.9.  [in Christ] dwelleth the fullness of the God head bodily: upon which S. Austin says, 
Col. 2.17.  In ipso inhabitat plenitudo Divinitatis corpor alitèr, quia in Templo habitaver at umbr alitèr; and in Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ, that is, the substance, the reality, the correlative of the type and figure, the thing signified: and among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies solidare, to make firm, real and consistent, but among the Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or body signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every thing that is produced from nothing, saith Phavorinus; that is, every thing that is real extra non ens, that hath a proper being; so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily, understand that we do it really, by the ministry of our bodies receiving him unto our souls. And thus we affirm Christ's body to be present in the Sacrament: not only in type or figure, but in blessing and real effect; that is, more than in the types of the Law; the shadows were of the Law, 
Col. 2.17.  but the body is of Christ. And besides this; the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only understood a corporal sign. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his third Catechism, says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a Dove, that is, in a type or representment of a Doves body, (for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose) and so he 
* Dial de incar. unig.  again uses the word; Jesus Christ as a man did inspire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles; where by [corporally] it is plain he means [by a corporal or material sign or symbol, viz. by breathing upon them and saying, Receive ye the holy Ghost.] Ineither of these senses if the word be taken, it may indifferently be used in this question.  
I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question, for these two reasons. 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words, they are equivocal; and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometimes are pretended as instruments of union, but indeed effect it not; but sometimes displease both parties, while each suspects the word in a wrong sense. And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question; particularly that of Poissy, where it was propounded in these words, Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè, reipsâ, substantialitèr, seu in substantiâ verumcorpus, & sanguinem Christi spirituali & ineffabili modo esse, exhiberi, sumi à fidelibus communicantibus. Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed, 
Eccles. hist, Eccles. Gallic. l. 4. p. 604, 605. & Comment. de statu relig. & reip. sub Carolo 9 A. D. 1561. & Thuanum, hist. l. 28. ad eundum annum.  and Espensaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists undertook to propound it to their parties. But both rejected it: for though the words were not disliked, yet they suspected each others sense. But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words, they are made useful in the explicating the question. 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sense, and are owned publicly in our doctrine, and manner of speaking, it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers which use the same expressions: for if by virtue of those words, really, subst antially, corporally, verily, and indeed, and Christ's body and blood, the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation, they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too, for we use the same words; and therefore those authorities must signify nothing against us, unless these words can be proved in them to signify more than our sense of them does import: and by this truth many, very many of their pretences are evacuated.  
One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes; that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon, that it be inquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's body, to be really in the Sacrament, we mean, that body, that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer, I know none else that he had, or hath: There is but one body of Christ natural and glorified; but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner 
* See Bp. Ridley's answer to Curtops first argument in his disp. at Oxford Fox Martyrol. p. 1451. vet. edit. : and so it is in the Sacrament; we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken, and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood of Christ; but though it is the same which we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner: And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that which was crucified, 
Vide insra Sect. 12.  to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as S. Hierom 
* Dupliciter verò sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur, spiritualis illa, atque Divina, de quâ ipse dixit, Caro mea verè est cibus etc. vel caro & sanguis, quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanceâ: In Epist. Ephes. c. 1. , as Clemens Alexandrinus expressly affirm; the meaning is easy, they intent that it is not eaten in a natural sense, and than calling it corpus spirituale, the word spiritual is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner, though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition, and the opposite member of a distinction. That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we do eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating: and this I noted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is certain and easy: And thus far is the sense of our doctrine in this Article.  
On the other side, the Church of Rome uses the same words we do, but wholly to other purposes, affirming, 1. That after the words of consecration, on the Altar, there is no bread; in the Chalice there is no wine. 2. 
Concil. Trid. decretum de SS. Euchar. Sacram.  That the accidents, that is, the colour, the shape, the bigness, the weight, the smell, the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain; but neither in the bread, nor in the body of Christ, but by themselves, that is, so that there is whiteness, and nothing white; sweetness, and nothing sweet, etc. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine, there is brought the natural body of Christ, and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant, good and bad, worthy and unworthy. 5. That this is conveniently, properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation, that is, a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christ's natural body, of the whole substance of the wine into his blood. In the process of which doctrine, 
Can. 8. Anathematis.  they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter, supposing the spiritual manducation, though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver, not to be sacramental and real.  
So that now the question is not, Whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood, or no? For it is granted on all sides: but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative? or, whether it be natural and bodily? Nor is it, whether Christ be really taken, but whether he be taken in a spiritual, or in a natural manner? We say the conversion is figurative, my sterious, and Sacramental; they say it is proper, natural, and corporal: we affirm that Christ is really taken by faith, by the Spirit, to all real effects of his passion; they say, he is taken by the mouth, and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient, though done also in the Sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus. This thing I will try by Scripture, by Reason, by Sense, and by Tradition.   

SECT. II. Transubst antiation not war antable by Scripture.  
THe Scriptures pretended for it, are S. Joh. 6. and the words of institution; recorded by three Evangelists, and S. Paul. Concerning which, I shall first lay this prejudice; that by the confession of the Romanists themselves, men learned and famous in their generations, nor these places, nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution, and that the words, seclusà Ecclesiae authoritate, setting aside the decree of the Church, are not sufficient. This is reported by Suarez, 
Tom. 3. disp. 46. §. 3.  but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius 5 were left out of the Roman edition, and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit, He only of their side taught it; which is carelessly affirmed by the Jesuit; for, another Cardinal, 
Cap. 1. contr. captiv. Babylon.  Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher affirmed the same thing; for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew, he says; Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam. There are no words set down hear [viz. in the words of institution] by which it may be proved, that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal, 
In 4. Sent. q. 6. lit. f.  Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco, who though he likes the opinion, because it was than more common, that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration; yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scriptures, it does not follow evidently from Scripture.  
To these three Cardinals, I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen; Johannes Duns Scotus, who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome; affirms, 
Veritas Eucharistiae sine Transubstantiatione salvari potest. Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3.  non extare locum ullum Scripturae, tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere. There is no place of Scripture so express, that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation. And Bellarmine himself says, 
Bellarmin de Euch. l. 3 c. 23. Sect. Secundò dicir.  that it is not altogether improbable, since it is affirmed à doctissimis & acutissimis hominibus, by most learned and most acute men. The Bishop of Eureux, who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu, not being well pleased with Scotus in this question, said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian, Peter Lombard, Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him; Suppose that. But these testimonies are not few, and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since; and therefore we have the income of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law, the Master of the sentences and his Scholars, to be partly a warrant, and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus; who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture, 
Vide infra §. 11. n. 19  nor by the Fathers.  
The other schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel ●iel. 
Lect. 40. in Can. Missae  Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, an since conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantiâ & accidentibus panis, non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae. How the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread, the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining, is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible. Hither I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johannes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus, but that so much to the same Purpose is needless, and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party; as appears in Salmeron. 
Tom. 9 tractat. 16.  And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries, 
Loc. come. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2.  amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.  
If it be said, that the Church's determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they; it is granted: But did the Church ever interpret Scripture to signify Transubstantiation, and say that by the force of the words of Scripture it was to be believed? If she did not, than to say she is a better Interpreter, is to no purpose; for though the Church be a better Interpreter than they, yet they did not contradict each other; and their sense might be the sense of the Church. But if the Church before their time had expounded it against their sense, and they not submit to it, how do you reckon them Catholics, and not me? For it is certain if the Church expounding Scripture did declare it to signify Transubstantiation, they did not submit themselves and their writings to the Church. But if the Church had not in their times done it, and hath done it since, that is another consideration, and we are left to remember that till Cajetans' time, that is, till Luther's time, the Church had not declared that Scripture did prove Transubstantiation; and since that time we know who hath; but not the Church Catholic.  
And indeed it had been strange, if the Cardinals of Cambray, de Sancto vio and of Rochester, that Scotus and Biel should never have heard that the Church had declared that the words of Scripture did infer Transubstantiation. And it is observable that all these lived long after the article itself was said to be decreed in the Lateran; where if the article itself was declared, yet it was not declared as from Scripture; or if it was, they did not believe it. But it is an usual device amongst their writers to stifle their reason, or to secure themselves with a submitting to the authority of their Church, even against their argument: and if any one speaks a bold truth, he cannot escape the Inquisition unless he compliment the Church, and with a civility tell her that she knows better; which in plain English is no otherwise than the fellow that did penance for saying the Priest lay with his wife; he was forced to say, Tongue thou liest, though he was sure his eyen did not lie. And this is that which Scotus said; Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church is not evidently inferred from Scripture. This I say is a compliment, and was only to secure the Friar from the Inquisitors; or else was a direct stifling of his reason; for it contains in it a great error, or a worse danger; For if the article be not contained so in Scripture as that we are bound to believe it by his being there, than the Church must make a new article, or it must remain as it was; that is, obscure; and we uncompelled and still at liberty. For she cannot declare unless it be so; she declares what is, or what is not: If what is not, she declares a lie; if what is, than it is in Scripture before, and than we are compelled, that is, we aught to have believed it. If it be said it was there, but in itself obscurely; I answer, than so it is still; for if it was obscurely there, and not only quoad nos, or by defect on our part, she cannot say it is plain there; neither can she altar it, for if she sees it plain, than it was plain: if it be obscure, than she sees it obscurely; for she sees it as it is, or else she sees it not at all; and therefore must declare it to be so; that is, probably, obscurely, peradventure, but not evidently, compellingly, necessarily.  
So that if according to the Casuists, especially of the Jesuits order, it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable Doctor; here we have five good men and true, besides Ocham, Bassolis, and Melchior Canus, to acquit us from our search after this question in Scripture. But because this, although it satisfies me, will not satisfy them that follow the decree of Trent; we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture. Pede pes.   

SECT. III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint John's Gospel.  
IN this Chapter it is earnestly pretended that our blessed Saviour taught the mystery of Transubstantiation; but with some different opinions; for in this question they are divided all the way: some reckon the whole Sermon as the proof of it, from verse 33 to 58; though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not; who says, 
Lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 5.  Constat, it is known that the Eucharist is not handled in the whole chapter: for Christ there discourses of Natural bread the miracle of the loaves, of Faith, and of the Incarnation in a great part of the chapter; Solum igitur quaestio est de illis verbis, [Fanis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundivitâ] & de sequentibus, fere ad finem capitis. The question only is concerning those words verse 51. The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world] and so forward almost until the end of the chapter. The reason which is pretended for it, is, because Christ speaks in the future, and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year: but this is a trifle; for the same thing in effect is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise; 
* Vers. 27.  Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat that endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you. The same also is affirmed by Christ under the expression of water, S. John 4.14. He that drinketh the water which I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water which I shall give him shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal; The places are exactly parallel; and yet as this is not meant of Baptism, so neither is the other of the Eucharist; but both of them of spiritual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him, it were strange if they were not expressed in the future; for although they always did signify in present, and in sensu currenti, yet because they are of never failing truth, to express them in the future is most proper, that the expectation of them may appertain to all,  
Ad natos natorum & qui nascentur ab illis. But than, because Christ said, [The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World] to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy Sacrament, is as frivolous as if it were said that nothing that is spoken in the future can be figurative; and if so, than let it be considered what is meant by these; 
Rev. 2.7. & 17.  [To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life:] and [To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden Manna:] These promises are future, but certainly figurative; and therefore why it may not be so here, and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith, I am certain there is no cause sufficient in this excuse. For if eating Christ by faith, be a thing of all times, than it is also of the future; and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future, which is always in flux and potential signification. But the secret of the thing was this, the arguments against the sacramental sense of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51 verse could not so well be answered, 
L. 1. Euch. c. 7. §. respondeo verba.  and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither, as appears in his answer to the ninth argument: that of some Catholics. How ever; as to the Article I am to say these things.  
1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation, or of the Sacrament at all. 
* De Communione sub utrâque specie.  Johannes de Ragusio, Biel 
a In Canon. , Cusanus 
b Ep. 7. ad Bohem. , Ruard Tapper 
c Artic. 15. , Cajetan 
d part 3. q. 80. art. 8. , Hessels 
e Lib. de common. sub unâ specie. , Jansenius 
f Concord. Evang. c. 59 , Waldensis 
g Tom. 2. de sacram. c. 91. , Armachanus 
h Lively 9 c. 8. Ejusdem sententiae sunt Aeneas Silvius dial. contr. Tabor. Alensis part. 4. q. 11. mem. 2. a. 4. Lindanus, Gaspar Sagerus & alii. , save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it, says in effect that that they did not do it very honestly; for he affirms that they did it, that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the communion under both kinds: and if it be so, and be not so, as it may serve a turn, It is so for Transubstantiation, and it is not so for the half communion, we have but little reason to rely upon their Judgement or candour in any exposition of Scripture. But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so. The Heretic Severus in Anastasius Sinaita, maintained it lawful, and even necessary [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] according to occasions and emergent heresies to altar and change the doctrines of Christ: and the Cardinal of Cusa 
i Epist. 2. ad Bohem.  affirmed it lawful, diversely to expound the Scriptures according to the times. So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing: and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker.  
2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it, not to be meant of sacramental manducation, to avoid the unanswerable argument against their half Communion: for so Christ said, 
Verse 53.  Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. It is therefore as necessary to drink the chalice as to eat the bread, and we perish if we omit either. And their new whimsy of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus, that is sacramentally poured forth; blood that is poured forth, not that is in the body. 2. If it were in the body, yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats. 3. If in the sacramental body, Christ gave the blood by concomitancy, than he gave the blood twice; which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed. 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body, than so is the body with the blood; and than it will be sufficient to drink the chalice without the host, as to eat the host without the chalice; and than we must drink his flesh as well as eat his blood; which if we could suppose to be possible, yet the precept of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten, and eating that which is to be drunk. But certainly they are fine propositions which cannot be true, unless we can eat our drink, and drink our meat, unless bread be wine and wine be bread, or to speak in their style, unless the body be the blood, and the blood the body; that is, unless each of the two symbols be the other as much as itself; as much that which it is not, as that which it is. And this thing their own Pope Innocentius 
a lib. 4. de Miss. myster. c. 21.  the third, and from him Vasquez 
b in 3. t. 3. disp. 216. n. 50.  noted, and Salmeron 
c Tom. 8. tr. 24. , who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing, and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed.  
3. But what ever can come of this, yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Father's concerning oral manducation and potation, 
Clem: Rom: l. 8. c. 20. constit: Apost: Eccles: hierarch cap: ult. Gennadius cap: 52. de dogmat. Eccles: cap. de Sabbatho Sancto Paschatis. S. Cyprian. Ep: 59 ad Fiduc: Concil: Tolet: 2. c. 11.8. August: Ep. 93. & 106. Innocentius papa ibid. Paulinus Episc: Nolanus A.D. 353. Epist: 12. ad Severum. Paulinus de infantibus ai●… Pura salutiferis imbuit ora cibis. Hic mos duravit ad tempora Ludovici Pii, & Lotharii, ait Beat: Rhenan: in Tertul: de Cor: Milit.  they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants, as to give them baptism; and did for above seven ages together practise it; And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist, answer the argument; Bellarmine is troubled with it, and in stead of answering, increases the difficulty, and concludes firmly against himself, saying; if the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually, or by faith, it will be more impossible to Infants, for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipped in the chalice, than to make them believe. To this I reply, that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sense, neither is any law at all given to them; and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity. But than although I have answered the argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sense to any; nor in the Spiritual sense to them; yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause. 
l. 1. Euchar c. 7. § respondco communem.  For since it is certain (and he confesses it) that it is easier, that is, it is possible to give infants the Sacrament; it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant, Infants are obliged; that is, the Church is obliged to minister it, as well as Baptism: there being in virtue of these words the same necessity, and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it. But than on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith, because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible commandment. So that we can answer S. Augustine's and Innocentius his arguments for communicating of Infants, but they cannot.  
4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation, than no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament. For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; if it be answered that the Holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire; I reply that is not true; because if a Catechumen desires baptism only in the article of his death, it is sufficient to salvation, and they dare not deny it. 2. Fools, young persons, they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire. 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament, and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire. For, they are not opposite, but subordinate members, differ only as act and disposition; and this disposition is not at all required but as it is in order to the act, and therefore is nothing of itself, and is only the imperfection of, or passage to the act; if therefore the act were not necessary, neither were the disposition; but if the act be necessary, than the desire which is but the disposition to the act is not sufficient. As if it be necessary, to go from Oxford to London, than it is necessary that you go to Henly, or Uxbridge; but if it be necessary to be at London, it is not sufficient to go to Uxbridge; but if it be not necessary to be at London, neither is it necessary to go so far. But this distinction as it is commonly used is made to serve ends, and is grown to that inconvenience, that repentance itself is said to be sufficient, if it be only in desire; for so they must, that affirm repentance in the article of death after a wicked life to be sufficient; when it is certain there can be nothing actual but ineffective desires; and all the real and most material events of it cannot be performed, but desired only. But whosoever can be excused from the actual susception of a Sacrament, can also in an equal necessity be excused from the desire; and no man can be tied to an absolute, irrespective desire of that which cannot be had; and if it can, the desire alone will not serve the turn. And indeed a desire of a thing when we know it cannot be had, is a temptation either to impatience, or a scruple; and why, or how can a man be obliged to desire that to be done, which in all his circumstances is not necessary it should be done. A preparation of mind to obey in those circumstances in which it is possible, that is, in which he is obliged, is the duty of every man; but this is not an explicit desire of the actual susception, which in his case, is not obligatory, because it is impossible; And lastly, such a desire of a thing, is wholly needless, because in the present case, the thing itself is not necessary; therefore neither is the desire; neither did God ever require it but in order to the act. But however if we found by discourse that for all these decretory words, the desire can suffice, I demand by what instrument is that accepted; whether by faith, or no? I suppose it will not be denied. But if it be not denied, than a spiritual manducation can perform the duty of those words: for susception of the Sacrament in desire is at the most but a spiritual manducation. 
Beda in 1 Cor. 10. citat Augustini Sermon: ad Infants.  And S. Austin affirms that Baptism can perform the duty of those words, if Beda quotes him right; for in his Sermon to Infants and in his third book de peccatorum meritis & remissione, he affirms that in Baptism Infants receive the Body of Christ; So that these words may as well be understood of Baptism, as of the Eucharist, and of faith better than either.  
5. The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and blood, and were scandalised at it; and Christ reproved their folly by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sense; So that if men would believe him, that knew best the sense of his own words, there need be no scruple of the sense; I do not understand these words in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual, saith Christ: the flesh profiteth nothing; 
S. John. 6.63.  the words that I have spoken they are spirit, and they are life. Now besides that the natural sense of the words hath in it too much of the sense of the offended disciples, the reproof and consultation of it is equally against the Romanists, as against the Capernaites. For we contend it is spiritual; so Christ affirmed it: they that deny the Spiritual sense, and affirm the Natural, are to remember that Christ reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the expression of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass, that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum; for as they understood Christ to mean his true flesh natural and proper, so do they; as they thought Christ intended they should tear him with their teeth and suck his blood, for which they were offended, so do these men not only think so, but say so, and are not offended. 
l. 3. de Euchar. c. 37.  So said Alanus; apertissimè loquimur, corpus Christi verè à nobis contrectari, manducari, circumgestari, dentibus teri, sensibiliter sacrificari, non minùs quàm ante consecrationem panis. And they frequently quote those Metaphors of S. Chrysostom, which he preaches in the height of his Rhetoric, as Testimonies of his opinion in the doctrinal part: and Berengarius was forced by Pope Nicholas to recant in those very words, affirming that Christ's body, sensualiter non solùm Sacramento, said in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, that Christ's flesh was sensually not only in the Sacrament, but in truth of the thing to be handled by the Priest's hands, to be broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful: In so much that the gloss on the Canon, the Consecratione didst 2. cap. Ego Berengarius, affirms it to be a worse heresy, than that of Berengarius, unless it be soberly understood; to which also Cassander assents; and indeed I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum, and the offended disciples, supposing it to be a great objection against their doctrine, that it was the same with the men of Capernaum, and is only finer dressed: But I found that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their rude circumstances; 
l. 1. Eucha. cap. 6. § 2. ex dubitatione.  for he affirms that Christ corrected them not for supposing so, but reproved them for not believing it to be so. And indeed himself says as much, Corpus Christi verè ac propriè manducari etiam corpore in eucharistiâ; the body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the body in the Eucharist: and to take of the foulness of the expression by avoiding a worse he is pleased to speak nonsense. Nam ad rationem manducationis non est mera attritio, 
ibid. cap. 11 resp. ad 5mm. arg.  sed satìs est sumptio & transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana. A thing may be manducated or chewed though it be not attrite or broken: If he had said it might be swallowed and not chewed, he had said true; but to say it may be chewed, without chewing or breaking, is a riddle fit to spring from the miraculous doctrine of Transubstantiation: and indeed it is a pretty device, that we take the flesh, and swallow down flesh, and yet manducate or chew no flesh, and yet we swallow down only what we manducate; Accipite, manducate, were the words in the institution. And indeed according to this device there were no difference between eating and drinking; and the Whale might have been said to have eaten Ionas, when she swallowed him without manducation or breaking him, and yet no man does speak so; but in the description of that accident reckon the Whale to be fasting for all that morsel; Invasúsque cibus ejunâ vixit in alvo, said Alcimus Avitus; Jejuni, pleníque tamen vate intemerato, said Sidonius Apollinaris; vivente jejunus cibo, so Paulinus; the fish was full and fasting, that is, she swallowed Ionas, but eat nothing. As a man does not eat bullets or quicksilver against the Iliacal passion, but swallows them; and we do not eat our pills; The Greek Physicians therefore call a pill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thing to be swallowed; and that this is distinct from eating, Aristotle tells us, speaking of the Elephant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he eats the earth, but swallows the stones. 
In Levit. l. 2. c. 1.  And Hesychius determined this thing, Non comedet ex eo quisquam, i e. non dividetur, quia dentium est dividere, & partiri cibos, cum aliter mandi non possint. To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment, but the essence of manducation. But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, than he grants it in plain terms, that Christ's body is chewed, is attrite or broken with the teeth, and that not tropically but properly, which is the crass doctrine which Christ reproved in the men of Capernaum. To lessen and sweeten this expression he tells us, it is indeed broken; but how? under the species of bread and invisibly; well so it is, though we see it not; and it matters not under what; if it be broken, and we bound to believe it, than we cannot avoid the being that, which they so detested, devourers of Man's flesh. See Theophylact in number 15. of this section.  
6. Concerning the bread or the meat indeed of which Christ speaks, 
Verse 54.  he also affirms that whosoever eats it hath life abiding in him: But this is not true of the Sacrament; for the wicked eating it, receive to themselves damnation. It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation, but of spiritual, and of eating Christ by faith: that is, receiving him by any instrument or action Evangelical. For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communicating with his body; By baptism, by holy desires, by obedience, by love, by worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament; and it signifies not otherwise, but as if Christ had said; To all that believe in me and obey, I will become the author of life and salvation: Now because this is not done by all that receive the Sacrament, not by unworthy communicants, who yet eat the symbols (according to us) and eat Christ's body (according to their doctrine) it is unanswerably certain, that Christ here spoke of Spiritual manducation, not of Sacramental. Bellarmine (he that answers all things, whether he can or not) says that words of this nature are conditional; meaning, that he who eats Christ's flesh worthily shall live for ever; and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons, yet it may be meant of the Sacrament, because without his proper condition it is not prevalent. I reply, that it is true it is not, it cannot; and that this condition is spiritual manducation; but than without this condition the man doth not eat Christ's flesh, that which himself calls the true bread, for he that eats this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath life in him, that is, he is united to me, he is in the state of grace at present. For it aught to be observed, that although promises de futuro possibili are to be understood with a condition appendent; yet propositions affirmative at present, are declarations of a thing in being, and suppose it actually existent: and the different parts of this observation are observable in the several parts of the 54. verse. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; that's an affirmation of a thing in being, and therefore implies no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject. He that eats hath life. But it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and I will raise him up at the last day, that's the futuro possibili; and therefore implies a condition besides the affirmation of the antecedent, viz. si permanserit, if he remains in this condition, and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life. And so the argument remains unharmed, 
Tract. 26. in Johan.  and is no other than what I learned from S. Austin, Hujus rei Sacramentum etc. de mensâ Dominicâ sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium; Res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. And it is remarkable that the context and design of this place takes of this evasion from the adversary: For here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh, to the Israelites eating of Manna, and prefers it infinitely; because they who did eat Manna might die, viz. spiritually and eternally; but they that eat his flesh, shall never die, meaning, they shall not die eternally; and therefore this eating cannot be a thing which can possibly be done unworthily. For if Manna, as it was Sacramental, had been eaten worthily, they had not died who eat it; and what privilege than is in this above Manna, save only that the eating of this, supposes the man to do it worthily, and to be a worthy person; which the other did not? 
Cajetan in Joh. 6.  Upon which consideration Cajetan says, that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily, and that it is not spoken of eating the Sacrament, but of eating and drinking [that is, communicating with] the death of Jesus. The argument therefore lies thus. There is something which Christ hath promised us, which whosoever receives, he receives life and not death; but this is not the Sacrament: for of them that communicate, some receive to life, and some to death, saith S. Austin, and a greater than S. Austin, 
1 Cor. 11.  Saint Paul; and yet this which is life to all that receive it, is Christ's flesh (said Christ himself) therefore Christ's flesh here spoken of is not Sacramental.  
7. To warrant the Spiritual sense of these words against the Natural, it were easy to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the Fathers; at lest a great consent. Tertullian hath these words. Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, Materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus. Nam quia durum & intolerabilem existimaverunt semonem ejus, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinâsset, 
Tertul. de refur. carn. c. 37.  ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis, praemisit, Spiritus est qui vivificat; atque ita subjunxit, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scil: Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had determined his flesh to be eaten by them; that he might dispose the state of salvation in the spirit, he premised, It is the Spirit that giveth life: and than subjoins, The flesh profiteth nothing, meaning, nothing to the giving of life. So that here we have, besides his authority, an excellent argument for us: Christ said, he that eateth my flesh hath life, but the flesh, that is, the fleshly sense of it profits nothing to life; but the Spirit, that is, the spiritual sense does; therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sense.  
And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse, let me observe this, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely useless, and to no purpose; For by the words of our Blessed Lord, by the doctrine of S. Paul, and the sense of the Church, and the confession of all sides, the natural eating of Christ's flesh, (if it were there, or could so be eaten) alone or of itself does no good, does not give life; but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us; and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh; it may be done in Baptism, by faith, and charity, by hearing, and understanding, and therefore it may also in the Blessed Eucharist, although there also according to our doctrine he be eaten only Sacramentally, 
Ser. 6.4. temp. Septembr. post consecrat.  and Spiritually. And hence it is that in the Mass book anciently it is prayed after consecration, Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus, ut de perceptis muneribus gratias exhibentes beneficia potiora sumamus] We beseech thee Almighty God, that we giving thanks for these gifts received may receive greater gifts] which besides that it concludes against the Natural presence of Christ's body, (for what greater thing can we receive, if we receive that?) it also declares that the grace and effect of the Sacramental communion is the thing designed beyond all corporal sumption: 
In Miss. vol. pro quacunque necessitate.  and as it is more fully expressed in another collect [ut terrenis affectibus expiati ad superni plenitudinem Sacramenti, cujus libavimus sancta, tendamus] that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the fullness of the heavenly Sacrament, the Holy things of which we have now begun to taste. And therefore to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no purpose, is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence, less than a plain declaration from God. Add to this, that this bodily presence of Christ's body is either for corporal nourishment, or for spiritual: Not for Corporal; for Natural food is more proper for it; and to work a miracle to do that, for which so many Natural means are already appointed, is to no purpose, and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by God; neither is it done for spiritual nourishment: because to the spiritual nourishment, virtues and graces, the word and the efficacious signs, faith and the inward actions, and all the emanations of the Spirit are as proportioned, as meat and drink are to natural nourishment; and therefore there can be no need of a Corporal presence. 2. Corporal manducation of Christ's body is apparently inconsistent with the nature and condition of the body. 1. Because that which is after the manner of a spirit, and not of a body, cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a body, but of a spirit; as no man can eat a Cherubin with his mouth, if he were made apt to nourish the soul: but by the confession of the Roman Doctors, Christ's body is present in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit, therefore without proportions to our body, or bodily actions. 2. That which neither can feel, or be felt, see or be seen, move or be moved, change or be changed, neither do nor suffer corporally, cannot certainly be eaten corporally; but so they affirm concerning the body of our Blessed Lord; it cannot do or suffer corporally in the Sacrament, therefore it cannot be eaten corporally, any more than a man can chew a spirit, or eat a meditation, or swallow a syllogism into his belly. This would be so far from being credible, that God should work so many miracles in placing Christ's Natural body for spiritual nourishment, that in case it were revealed, to be placed there to that purpose, itself must need one great miracle more to verify it, and reduce it to act; and it would still be as difficult to explain, as it is to tell how the material fire of hell should torment spirits and souls. And Socrates in Plato's banquet said well; Wisdom is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity. 3. That the corporal presence does not nourish spiritually, appears; because some are nourished spiritually, who do not receive the Sacrament at all, and some that do receive, yet fall short of being spiritually nourished, and so do all unworthy communicants. This therefore is to no purpose; and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the world, especially with so great a pomp of miracles. 4. 
* Del' Euchar. pag. 265. Gallic:  Card. Perron affirms that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose, because the residence of Christ's natural body in our bodies does really and substantially join us unto God, establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. And Bellarmine speaks something like this de Euchar. l. 3. c. 9 But concerning this besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christ's body in our bodies, since every one that is regenerated and born anew of water and of the spirit is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same plant with Christ, as S. Paul calls him Rom. 6.5. He hath put on Christ, he is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, Galat. 3.27. Ephes. 5.30. and all this by faith by baptism, by regeneration of the spirit; besides this (I say) this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate which these great and witty dreamers dream of, would make man to be God. For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God, is consubstantial with the true God, that is, he is really, substantially, and truly God; which to affirm were highest blasphemy. 5. One device more there is to pretend an usefulness of the doctrine of Christ's Natural presence. viz. that by his contact and conjunction it becomes the cause and seed of the resurrection. But besides that this is condemned by 
a Tom. 3. in 3. disp. 204. n. 3.  Vasquez as groundless, and by 
b Ibid. disp. 64. sect. 1.  Suarez as improbable and a novel temerity; it is highly confuted by their own doctrine: For how can the contact or touch of Christ's body have that or any effect on ours, when it can neither be touched, nor seen, nor understood but by faith? which 
c Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 9  Bellarmine expressly affirms. But to return from whence I am digressed.  
Tertullian adds in the same place. Quia & sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitae appetendus, & devorandus auditu, & ruminandus intellectu, & fide digerendus. Name & paulò antè, carnem suam panem quoque caelestem pronunciârat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam Patrum, qui panes & carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant divinae vocationi. Because the Word was made flesh, therefore he was desired for life, to be devoured by hearing, to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding, to be digested by faith. For a little before he called his flesh also celestial bread, still, or all the way, urging by an an allegory of necessary food, the memory of their Fathers who preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine calling.  
S. Athanasius, or who is the Author of the tractate upon the words, Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis, in his works, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. The things which he speaks are not carnal, but spiritual: For to how many might his body suffice for meat, that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? But for this it was that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, that he might draw them of from carnal, and corporal senses, and that he might learn that his flesh which he called meat, was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment. For saith he, the things that I have spoken, they are spirit and they are life.  
But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair. 
Origen. in Levit. c. 10. hom. 7.  Est & in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum, qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit; si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera: If we understand these words of Christ, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, literally, this letter kills. For there is in the new Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken.  
S. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sense, but plainly denies the proper and natural. Non iste panis est, 
De Sacrament. l. 5. c. 4.  qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. That is not the bread of life, which goes into the body, but that which supports the substance of the soul; And, fide tangitur, fide videtur, 
I● Lucam. l. 6. c. 8.  non tangitur corpore, non oculis comprehenditur, this bread is touched by faith, it is seen by faith: and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith, is apparent from Christ's own words, verse 35. I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that beleiveth on me shall not thirst: coming to Christ is eating him, believing him is drinking his blood. It is not touched by the body, it is not seen with the eyes. S. chrysostom in his 47. homily upon this chapter of S. John, expounds these words in a spiritual sense; for these things (saith he) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as have in them nothing carnal, nor any carnal consequence.  
S. Austin gave the same exposition, Ut quid paras dentes & ventrem? 
Tract. 25. in Joh. Tract. 26.  crede & manducasti: and again, Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit in eum manducat.  
Theophylact makes the spiritual sense to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Cannibals, 
In Joh. 6.  or devourers of man's flesh, as the men of Capernaum began to dream, and the men of Rome, though in better circumstances, to this day dream on. Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quia enim nos hoc spiritualitèr intelligimus, neque carnium voratores sumus, imò sanctificamur per talem cibum, non sumus carnis voratores. The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour man's flesh. But because we understand this spiritually, therefore we are not devourers of man's flesh, but are sanctified by this meat. Perfectly to the same sense, and almost in the very words Theodorus Bp. of Heraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John.  
It were easy to add that Eusebius calls the words of Christ his flesh and blood, 
L. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcel: Ancyran: M. S.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that so also does S. Hierome, saying that although it may be understood in mystery; 
S. Hieron. psal. 147.  tamen veriùs corpus Christi & sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est; 
Clem. Alex. l. 1. paedag. c. 6.  that so does Clemens Alexandrinus; that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Basil in psal. 33.  S. Basil says that his doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and blood; that S. Bernard says to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh; but I decline (for the present) to insist upon these; because all of them, excepting S. Hierome only, may be supposed to be mystical expositions, which may be true, and yet another exposition may be true too. It may suffice that it is the direct sense of Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and Theophylact, that these words of Christ in the sixth of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper, but in the spiritual sense. The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical, but the literal sense; and therefore their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence.  
And yet after all this, suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramental manducation, and affirmed that the bread which he would give should be his flesh; what is this to Transubstantiation? That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well of any other mystery, of this amongst others; that is of all the ways of taking him, is to me highly probable: Christ is the food of our souls; this food we receive in at our ears, our mouth, our hearts; and the allusion is plainer in the Sacrament than in any other external rite, because of the similitude of bread, and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves, which introduced all that discourse. But than this comes in only as it is an act of faith; for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith, himself being the expounder. 
Verse 47. & 29. & 64.  Now the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist being acts and symbols and consignations of faith, and effects of believing, that is of the first, and principal receiving him by faith in his words, and submission to his doctrine, may well be meant here, not by virtue of the words; for the whole form of expression is Metaphorical, not at all proper; but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect; it is an act or manner of receiving Christ, and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery. The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh, 
Verse 51.  which he would give for the life of the world, viz. to be crucified and killed. And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death; for he speaks of bread only before, or meat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but now he speaks of flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and drink, and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament, which is his similitude and representation; but this is but the meaning of the second or third remove; if here Christ gins to change the particulars of his discourse, it can primarily relate to nothing, but his death upon the cross; at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world; and so giving it, it became meat; the receiving this gift was a receiving of life, for it was given for the life of the world. The manner of receiving it is by faith, and hearing the word of God, submitting our understanding; the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ, conforming to his doctrine and example; and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation, so they come under this discourse, and no otherwise.  
But to return: this very allegory of the word of God to be called meat, and particularly Manna, which in this chapter Christ particularly alludes to, is not unusual in the old Testament. 
In Allegoriis.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Philo) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given us to eat. This is the word which the Lord hath ordained, you see what is the food of the soul, even the eternal word of God etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The word of God, the most honourable and eldest of things is called Manna; 
In libro, Pejorem in sidiarimeliori.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The soul is nourished by the word — qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum. 
Allegoriis.   
And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Eusebius, S. Basil, S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I waved before, all agreeing upon this exposition, 
Supra.  that the word of God, Christ's doctrine is the flesh he speaks of, and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh; for this sense is the literal and proper; and S. Hierome is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical, and that this is the more true and proper; 
De Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. & ad alios patres.  and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sense, is one of his confident say without reason, or pretence of proof: and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament; I answer, it is sufficient, that they agreed in this sense: and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sense of eating Christ in the Sacrament; particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and S. Ambrose above quoted: to which I add the words of Eusebius in the 3 d. book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica, expounding the 63. verse of the 6. of John; he brings in Christ speaking thus. Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear; and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood. But know ye, that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life. Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation, and to affirm ours: though to do so be not usual, unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary; and to require such hard conditions in the say of men, that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus, if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative, though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause, is a device to escape rather than to intent truth and reality in the discourses of men. I conclude; It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place, Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrìnâ coelesti: sic enim dicit panem suum, ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum. The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine: So he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his. And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Basil, Athanasius, Eusebius, S. Hierom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Theophylact, and S. Bernard are a good security for the sense of a place of Scripture, we have read their evidence, and may proceed to sentence.  
But it was impossible, but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink, and signifying the receiving Christ crucified, and communicating with his passion in all the ways of faith and Sacrament, should also meet with as allegorical expounders, and for the likeness of expression be referred to sacramental manducation; And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation, though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended. For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament, the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it; for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament, so is he also in the Sacrament: as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy hearer, so is he to the worthy communicant: as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him, so to all that obediently remember him; so Christ's flesh is meat indeed, however it be taken, if it be taken spiritually, but not however it be taken, if it be taken carnally; He is nutritive in all the ways of spiritual manducation, but not in all the ways of natural eating, by their own confession, nor in any, by ours. And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion, if they should gain one of the premises; But the truth is this: It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament, neither if it were, would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation.  
I will not be alone in my assertion, though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out: S. Austin saith the same; 
Aug. in psal. 98.  Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum vobis] Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis: Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos. That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually, ye are not to eat that body which ye see; I have commended a Sacrament to you, which being understood spiritually will give you life; where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf, he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one. And again; ut quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus, similitudinem quoque sanguinis & carnis sumamus, ita ut & veritas non desit in sacramento, & ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis, 
Gratianus ex Augustino de consecrat. dist. 2. § utrum. Lugduni 1541.  quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus: that as we receive the similitude of his death in Baptism, so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and blood, so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor the Pagans' ridiculously affirm, that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man. Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question; we receive Christ's body in the Eucharist, as we are baptised into his death; that is, by figure and likeness. In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body: and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh, so as the heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught them they should. So that though these words were spoken of sacramental manducation (as sometimes it is expounded) yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verify these words of Christ, without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh. And that we may not think this doctrine dropped from S. 
Prospero Sent. 339. sed verba sunt S. Augustini.  Austin by chance, he again affirms dogmatically, Qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He that disagrees from Christ (that is, disobeyes him) neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, although, to his condemnation, he every day receive the Sacrament of so great a thing. The consequent of which words is plainly this; that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood, but by a moral instrument, faith and subordination to Christ; the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh, but the Symbols and Sacrament of it.  
Lastly, suppose these words of Christ [the bread which I shall give is my flesh] were spoken literally of the Sacrament; what he promised he would give, he performed, and what was here expressed in the future tense, was in his time true in the present tense, and therefore is always presently true after consecration; It follows, that in the Sacrament this is true; panis est corpus Christi, The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this proposition will be owned. It follows inevitably from this doctrine, If these words be spoken of the Sacrament. 
De consecrat. dist. 2. c. 55. Gloss. panis est in altari. De ●uchar l. 3. c. 19  But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us. Hoc tamen est impossibile, quòd panis sit corpus Christi, It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body, saith the Gloss of Gratian; and Bellarmine says it cannot be a true proposition, in quâ subjectum supponit pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi; Panis enim & corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt. The thing that these men dread, is, jest it be called bread and Christ's body too, as we affirm it unanimously to be; and as this argument upon their own grounds evinces it. Now than how they can serve both ends, I cannot understand. If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promised to give to be his flesh, than so it came to pass; and than it is bread and flesh too. If it did not so come to pass, and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh; than, when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh, he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament; But either figuratively in the Sacrament, or in the Sacrament not at all; either of which will serve the end of truth in this question. But of this hereafter.  
By this time I hope I may conclude, that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth chapter of S. John. Johannes de tertiâ & Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit, eò quòd caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent. They are the words of 
* Prompt. Cathol. ser. 3. heb. sanct.  Stapleton, and are good evidence against them.   

SECT. iv Of the words of Institution.  
MUlta mala oportet interpretari eos quiunum non rectè intelligere volunt, said Irenaeus: 
1. Contr. haeres. l. 5.  they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one. The words of consecration are praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae, atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii, said Bellarmine, 
I. 1. c. 8. Euchar. §. sequitue argumentum.  the greatest ground of the whole question; and by adhering to the letter the Mystery is lost, and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies, and inextricable riddles; which because themselves cannot untie, they torment their sense and their reason, and many places of Scripture, whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter, and refute the spirit of these words.  
The words of Institution are these:  S. Math. 26.26. 
jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body: And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  S. Luke 22.19. 
And he took bread and gave thanks and broke it and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after Supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.  S. Mark 14.22. 
jesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many.  1 Cor. 11.23. 
The Lord jesus the same night in which he was betrayed taken bread. And when he had given thanks he broke it, and said, Take, eat, This is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me.  
These words contain the Institution, and are usually called the words of Consecration in the Latin Church. Concerning which the consideration is material. Out of these words the Latin Church separates, [Hoc est corpus meum] This is my body,] and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention, do effect this change of the bread into Christ's body, which change they call Transubstantiation. But if these words do not effect any such change, than it may be Christ's body before the words, and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man; or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation: and as it will be uncertain when the change is, so also it cannot be known what it is. If it be Christ's body before those words, than the literal sense of these words will prove nothing, it is so as it will be before these words, and made so by other words which refer wholly to use; and than the praecipuum fundamentum the pillar and ground of Transubstantiation is supplanted. And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words, it will be Christ's body only in the reception. Now concerning this I have these things to say:  
1 By what argument can it be proved that these words [Take, and eat] are not as effective of the change, as [Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body?] If they be, than the taking and eating does consecrated: and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten, and than when that's done it is so no more; and besides, that reservation, circumgestation, adoration, elevation of it must of themselves fall to the ground; it will also follow that it is Christ's body only in a mystical, spiritual and sacramental manner.  
2 By what argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words [This is my body] should be the words effective of conversion and consecration? That Christ used these words is true, and so he used all the other; but did not tell which were the consecrating words, nor appoint them to use those words; but to do the thing, and so to remember and represent his death. And therefore the form and rites of consecration & ministeries are in the power of the Church, where Christ's command does not intervene; as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion; in Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Ordination, etc. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist, S. 
De Spir. S. c. 27.  Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; etc. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing, which of all the Saints hath left us? for we are not content with these which the Apostles and the Evangelists mention, but before and after we say other things which have great efficacy to this mystery. 
L. 7. ep. 63.  But it is more material which S. Gregory affirms-concerning the Apostles, Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent, The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer. To which I add this consideration, that it is certain, Christ interposed no command in this case, nor the Apostles; neither did they for aught appears intent the recitation of those words to be the sacramental consecration, and operative of the change, because themselves recited several forms of institution in S. Matthew and S. Mark for one, and S. Luke and S. Paul for the other, in the matter of the Chalice especially; and by this difference declared, there is no necessity of one, and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose.  
3 If they make these words to signify properly and not figuratively, than it is a declaration of something already in being, and not effective of any thing after it. For else [est] does not signify [is] but it shall be; because the conversion is future to the pronunciation; and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transubstantiated till the ['em] in meum be quite out, 
Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. respondeo cum.  till the last syllable be spoken; But yet I suppose they cannot show any example, or reason, or precedent, or Grammar, or any thing for it, that est should be an active word. And they may remember, how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and persuasion that their sins are pardoned: saying, that faith must suppose the thing done, or their belief is false: and if it be done before, than to believe it does not do it at all, because it is done already. The case is here the same: They affirm that it is made Christ's body, by saying, it is Christ's body; but their saying so must suppose the thing done, or else their saying so is false; and if it be done before, than to say it, does not do it at all, because it is done already.  
4 When our blessed Lord took bread, he gave thanks, said S. Luke and S. Paul; he blessed it, said S. Matthew and S. Mark; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making it Eucharistical; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was, consecrating or making it holy; it was common bread, unholy when he blessed it, and made it Eucharistical, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is the word in justin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and wine, food made Eucharistical, or on which Christ had given thanks, Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, so Irenaeus and others; 
1 Cor. 14, 15, 16, 17.  and S. Paul does promiscuously use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by benedictionem, 
1 Cor. 10.  and therefore S. Paul calls it the cup of blessing; and in this very place of S. Matthew S. Basil reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
In regulis moralibus.  either in this following the old Greek copies who so read this place, or else by interpretation so rendering it, as being the same; 
Epist. 2d Caecilium.  and on the other side S. Cyprian renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word used in the blessing the Chalice) by benedixit. Against this 
* Respons. ad Nod. Gordium.  Smiglecius the Jesuit with some little scorn says, it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread, and so it should be if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blessing and giving of thanks were all one. But in this he shown his anger or want of skill, not knowing or not remembering that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech; and in the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Paul uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to appease or propitiate our sins, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins; and so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only that by this means God also makes the bread holy, blessed, and eucharistical. Now I demand, what did Christ's blessing effect upon the bread and the chalice? any thing, or nothing? if no change was consequent, it was an ineffective blessing, a blessing that blessed not: if any change was consequent, it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended, that is, that it might be Eucharistical, and than the following words [this is my body] this is the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in my blood, were, as Cabasilas affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of history and narration; and so the Syriac Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blessing and giving of thanks, when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical.  
5 The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministering man. 
Apol. 2.  justin Martyr calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nourishment made Eucharistical by prayer; and Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 8. contr. Celsum.  bread made a body, a holy thing by prayer; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 4. de fide, cap. 14.  so Damascen, by the invocation and illumination of the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed. For the ancient Latin Church, 
Vide Amb●osium Catharinuns in integro qué scripsit libro hac deer.  S. Hierome reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests, uses this expression for the honour of Priests above the other, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguísque conficitur, by their prayers the body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament. And S. 
L. 3. de Trin. c. 4.  Austin calls the Sacrament prece mysticâ consecratum. But concerning this, I have largely discoursed in another 
* The Divine Instit. of the office ministerial. §. 7.  place. But the effect of the consideration in order to the present Question is this; that since the change that is made is made not naturally, or by a certain number of syllables in the manner of a charm, but solemnly, sacredly, morally, and by prayer, it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects, as a consequent of a moral instrument.  
6 And it is considerable, that since the ministeries of the Church are but imitations of Christ's Priesthood which he officiates in heaven, since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercession, and representing in the way of prayer the sacrifice which he offered on the Cross: it follows that the ministeries of the Church must be of the same kind, operating in the way of prayer, morally, and therefore wholly to moral purposes; to which the instrument is made proportionable. And if these words which are called the words of Consecration be exegetical, and enunciative of the change that is made by prayers, and other mystical words; it cannot be possibly inferred from these words that there is any other change made than what refers to the whole mystery and action: and therefore, Take, eat, and this do, are as necessary to the Sacrament as [Hoc est corpus] and declare that it is Christ's body only in the use and administration; and therefore not natural but spiritual. And this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew, Take, eat this which is my body, plainly supposing the thing to be done already; not by the exegetical words, but by the precedents, the mystic prayer, and the words of institution and use; and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer. But the force of the Argument upon supposition of the premises is acknowledged to be convincing by an Archbishop of their own, 
Archiep. Caesar. Tractat. varii disp. de neces. correct. Theol. Scholar  Si Christus dando consecravit, etc. If Christ giving the Eucharist did consecrated (as Scotus affirmed) than the Lutherans will carry the victory, who maintain that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only, while it is used, while it was taken and eaten. And yet on the other side, if it was consecrated, when Christ said, Take, eat, than he commanded them to take bread, and to eat bread, which is to destroy the Article of Transubstantiation. So that in effect, whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words, their new Doctrine is destroyed. If it was not consecrated when Christ said, Take, eat, than Christ bid them take bread, and eat bread, and they did so: But if it was consecrated by those words, Take, eat, than the words of consecration refer wholly to use, and it is Christ's body only in the Taking and eating, which is the thing we contend for. And into the concession of this Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our argument. 
De Euch. l. 1. c. 11.  For to avoid Christ's giving the Apostles that which he took, and broke, and blessed, that is, bread, the same case being governed by all these words; he answers, Dominum accepisse, & benedixisse panem, sed dedisse panem non vulgarem, sed benedictum & benedictione mutatum: The Lord took bread and blessed it, but he gave not common bread, but bread blessed and changed by blessing; and yet it is certain he gave it them before the words, which he calls the words of Consecration. To which I add this consideration: that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative and exegetical, not operative and practical; for in particular, if these words, Hoc est corpus meum were otherwise, than the Priest should turn it into his own, not into the body of Christ. Neither will it be easy to have an answer, not only because the Greeks and Latins are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration: But the Latins themselves have seven several opinions, 
Tractat. varii.  as the Archbishop of Caesarea de capite fontium, hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of divers treatises: and that the consecration is made by [this is my body] though it be now the prevailing opinion, yet that by them Christ did not consecrated the elements, was the express sentence of Pope Innocent 3. and Innocent 4. and of many ancient Fathers, as the same Archbishop of Caesarea testifies in the book now quoted; and the Scholasticks are hugely divided upon this point, viz. Whether these words are to be taken materially or significatively; the expression is barbarous and rude, but they mean, whether they be consecratory or declarative. Aquinas makes them consecratory, and his authority brought that opinion into credit; and yet Scotus and his followers are against it; and they that affirm them to be taken significatively, that is, to be consecratory, are divided into so many opinions that they are not easy to be reckoned; only 
* In 4. Sentent.  Guido Brianson reckons nine, and his own makes the tenth. This I take upon the credit of one of their own Archbishops.  
But I proceed to follow them in their own way; whether [Hoc est corpus meum] do effect or signify the change; yet the change is not natural and proper, but figurative, sacramental, and spiritual; exhibiting what it signifies, being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit: and this I shall first show by discussing the words of institution; first those which they suppose to be the consecratory words, and than the other.  
Hoc est corpus meum] Concerning which form of words we must know, that as the Eucharist itself was in the external and ritual part, an imitation of a custom and a sacramental already in use among the Jews, for the major domo to break bread and distribute wine at the Passeover after supper to the eldest according to his age, to the youngest according to his youth, as it is notorious and known in the practice of the Jews: so also were the very words which Christ spoke in this changed subject, an imitation of the words which were than used, This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt; 
Scaliger de emendatione tempor. l. 6  This is the Passeover: and this Passeover was called, The body of the Paschal Lamb: nay it was called the body of our Saviour, and our Saviour himself; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Justin Martyr dial. cum Tryph. And Esdras said to the Jews, This Passeover is our Saviour, and This is the body of our Saviour, as it is noted by others. So that here the words were made ready for Christ, and made his by appropriation, by meum: he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, he is the true ; which he than affirming called that which was the Antitype of the Passeover, the Lamb of God, [His body] the body of the true Passeover, to wit, in the same sacramental sense in which the like words were affirmed in the Mosaical Passeover.   

SECT. V 
§ 5.   
HOC, This] That is, this bread is my body, this cup, or the wine in the cup, is my blood: concerning the chalice, there can be nodoubt; it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic calix, this chalice; and as little of the other. The Fathers refer the pronoun demonstrative to bread, saying, that, of bread it was Christ affirmed, This is my body; which I shall have in the sequel more occasion to prove: for the present, these may suffice; Christus panem corpus suum appellat, saith 
a Lib. adv. Judaeos.  Tertullian. Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus salvatoris: so 
b Ep. ad Hebidiam.  S. Hierome. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so 
c In Joh. 12.  S. Cyril of Alexandria, he called bread his flesh. 
d Dial. 1. cap. 8.  Theodoret saith that to the body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] therefore signifies this bread; and it matters not that bread in the Greek is of the masculine gender; for the substantive being understood not expressed, by the rule of Grammar, the adjective must be the neuter gender, and is taken substantively. Neither is there any inconvenience in this, 
L. 1. de Euch. cap. 10. § porro 4.  as Bellarmine weakly dreams upon as weak suggestions. For when he had said that hoc is either taken adjectively or substantively, he proceeds, not adjectively, for than it must agreed with the substantive, which in this case is masculine; bread being so both in Greek and in Latin. But if you say it is taken substantively (as we contend it is) he confutes you thus; If it be taken substantively, so that hoc signifies this thing, and so be referred to bread, than it is most absurd, because it cannot be spoken of any thing seen; that is, of a substantive, unless it agrees with it, and be of the same gender; that is in plain English, It is neither taken adjectively, nor substantively: not adjectively, because it is not of the same gender: not substantively, because it is not of the same gender; that is, because substantively it is not adjectively. But the reason he adds is as frivolous; because no man pointing to his brother will say, hoc est frater meus, but hic est frater meus, I grant it. But if it be a thing without life you may affirm it in the neuter gender, because it being of neither sex, the subject is supplied by [thing] so that you may say hoc est aqua, this is water; so in 
a Pet. 2.19  S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is grace, and 
b Exod. 8.19.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But of a person present you cannot say so, because he is present, and there is nothing distinct from him, neither re nor ratione, in the thing nor in the understanding; and therefore you must say hic, not hoc; because there is no subject to be supposed distinct from the predicate. But when you see an image or figure of your brother, you may than say, hoc est frater meus, because here is something to make a subject distinct from the predicate. This thing, or this picture, this figure, or this any thing, that can be understood and not expressed, may make a neuter gender; and every School boy knows it: so it is in the blessed Sacrament, there is a Subject or a thing distinct from Corpus: This bread, this which you see is my body; and therefore is in Hoc no impropriety, though bread be understood.  
To which I add this, That though bread be the nearest part of the thing demonstrated, yet it is not bread alone, but sacramental bread; that is, bread so used, broken, given, eaten, as it is in the institution and use: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is my body; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the whole action about the bread and wine, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be easily understood without an impropriety. [And indeed it is necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this] should take in the whole action on all sides: because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ, nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it. But the bread broken, blessed, given, distributed, taken, eaten; this is Christ's body, viz. as Origens expression is, 
In c. 15. Mat.  typicum symbolicúmque corpus. By the way give me leave to express some little indignation against those words of Bellarmine, which cannot easily be excused from blasphemy; saying, that if our Lord had said of the bread which the Apostles saw and knew to be bread, This is my body, absurdissima esset locutio, it had been a most absurd speech. So careless are these opiniators of what they say, that rather than their own fond opinions should be confuted, they care not to impute nonsense to the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And yet that Christ did say this of bread so ordered and to be used, Hoc est corpus meum, besides that the thing is notorious, I shall prove most evidently.  
1 That which Christ broke, which he gave to his disciples, which he bid them eat, that he affirmed was his body. What gave he but what he broke? what did he break, but that which he took? what did he take? accepit panem (saith the Scripture) he took bread, therefore of bread it was that he affirmed, It was his body. Now the Roman Doctors will by no means endure this; for if of bread he affirmed it to be his body; than we have cleared the Question, for it is bread and Christ's body too; that is, it is bread naturally, and Christ's body spiritually; for that it cannot be both naturally, they unanimously affirm. And we are sure upon this Article: for disparatum de disparato non praedicatur propriè; It is a rule of nature and essential reason, If it be bread it is not a stone, if it be a Mouse it is not a Mule; and therefore when there is any praedication made of one divers thing by another, the proposition must needs be improper and figurative. 
De consecrat. dist. 2. c. quia.  And the Gloss of Gratian disputes it well, If bread be the body of Christ (viz. properly and naturally) than something that is not born of the Virgin Mary is the body of Christ; and the body of Christ should be both alive and dead. Now that [Hoc, This] points to bread, besides the notoriousness of the thing in the story of the Gospels, in the matter of fact, and S. Paul calling it bread so often, (as I shall show in the sequel) it aught to be certain to the Roman Doctors, and confessed, because by their doctrines when Christ said Hoc, This] and a while after, it was bread; because it was not consecrated till the last syllable was spoken. To avoid this therefore, they turn themselves into all the opinions and disguises that can be devised. 
* E●us●…em sententiae sunt, Ocbam, Petrus de Aliaco, Ca●e●●●ensis, Antisiodorensis in 4. l. sent. didst. 13. Rossensis cap. 4. contrae captiv. Babyl. Maldonat. Barradius in Evangel.  Stapleton says, that [Hoc, This] does only signify the predicate, and is referred to the body, so as Adam said, This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone, Hoc] not this rib, but this thing, this predicate; So, Hic est filius meus, hic est sangu●s Testaments. Now this is confuted before; for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject & predicate, as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are. Some others say, This is, that is, this shall be my body; So that is demonstrates not what is, but what shall be. But this prevailed not amongst them: Others say, that This, signifies Nothing; So Innocentius the third, Mayor, the Count of Mirandula, De capite Fontium, and Catharinus. Others yet affirm, that [This] signifies, these accidents. So Ruard Tapper, and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes. Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This] demonstrates neither bread nor the body, nor nothing, nor the accidents, but a substance indefinitely, which is under the accidents of bread; as when Christ turned the water into wine, he might have said Hoc est vinum, not meaning that water is wine, but this which is here, or this which is in the vessel is wine, which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more than once, not at all considering that in this form of speech, there is the same mistake as in the former: for in this example there are not two things, as we contend there are in the Sacrament; and that to make up the proposition, the understanding is forced to make an artificial subject; and [this] refers to wine, and is determined by his imaginary subject, and makes not an essential or physical, but a logical praedication; This which is in the vessel is wine: and the proposition is identical, if it be reduced to a substantial. But when Christ said [Hoc est corpus meum] hoc] first, neither points to corpus as the other does to vinum, even by their own confession; nor yet, secondly, to an artificial subject, whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative, and determinate; for than it were no real affirmative, not at all significative, much lesle effective of a change: nor yet, thirdly, will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there, viz. bread; but what than? It demonstrates something real, that either 1. is not the predicate, and than there would be two things disparate signified by it, two distinct substances, which in this case could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ: or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predicate, and than the proposition were identical, viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ; which is an absurd praedication: or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemonstrable, pointing at something that is nothing certain, and than it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated; for if by this which is under the species, they mean any certain substance, it must be bread or the body of Christ, either of which undoes their cause.  
But if it be inquired, by what Logic or Grammar it can be, that a Pronounce demons; trative should signify indeterminately, that is, an individuum vagum: They tell us, not; it does not: but it signifies an individual, determinate substance under the accidents of bread, not according to the formality of the bread, 
L. 2. exam. mist. Calvin. c. 1. § 4. Objectio.  but secundùm rationent substantiae communem & individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia, but according to the formality of a substance common and individual, indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents. So Gregory de Valentia; which is as good and perfect nonsense as ever was spoken. It is determinate and not determinate, it is a substance in order to accidents, individual and yet common, universal and particular, it is limited, but after an unlimited manner; that is, it is and it is not; that is, it is the Logic, and the Grammar, and the proper sense of Transubstantiation, which is not to be understood but by them that know the new and secret way: to reconcile contradictories. Bellarmine sweetens the sense of this as well as he may, and says that the pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the species, that is, the accidents of bread; these accidents are certain and determinate; 
L. 1. Euch. c. 11. §. ad id verò.  so that the pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents, not of the substance. But yet so as to mean not the accidents, but the substance, and not the substance which is, but which shall be; for it is not the same yet: which indeed is the same nonsense with the former, abused or set of with a distinction, the parts of which contradict each other. The pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents, and yet does not mean the accidents, but the substance under them; and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them, but that which shall be; for the substance which is meant is not yet: and it does not point at the substance, but yet it means it: For the substance indeed is meant by the pronoun demonstrative, but that it does not at all demonstrate it, but the accidents only. And indeed this is a fine secret: The substance is pointed at before it is, and the demonstration is upon the accidents, but means the substance, in obliquo, but not in recto; not directly, but as by the by; just as a man can see a thing before it be made, and by pointing at a thing which you see, demonstrates or shows you a thing which shall never be seen. But than if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was, that is the secret not yet revealed. But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at lest in the Jesuits Schools. This] points out something under the accidents of bread, meaning, This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body: there it rests. But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism: When Christ said, Hoc, this is my body; by This] he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread, is my body. But at that instant, that which was contained under the accidents of bread, was the substance of bread; Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed, that he related to by the pronoun demonstrative, and of that he affirmed, it was his body. The Major is that the Jesuits contend for: the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine, Quando dicitur [Hoc] tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi: therefore the conclusion aught to be his and owned by them. However I will make bold to call it a. demonstration upon their own grounds, and conclude that it is bread and Christ's body too; and that is the doctrine of the Protestants. And I add this also, that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal, natural sense, and yet that themselves should expound it in a sense which suffers a violence and a most unnatural, ungrammatical torture; for if they may change the words from the right sense and case to the obliqne and indirect, why may not we? And it is less violence to say [Hoc est corpus meum] i e. hic panis est corpus meum; viz. spiritualitèr: than to say, hoc est, that is, sub his speciebus est corpus meum. And this was the sense of 
* In 4. qu 6  Ocham the Father of the Nominalists: It may be held that under the species of bread, there remains also the substance; because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible; and of all the manners this is most reasonable, and more easy to maintain, and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other. Yet because of the determination of the Church (viz. of Rome) all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary. By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that, against which neither Scripture nor Reason hath determined.  
2 The case is clearer in the other kind, as in transition I noted above 
* Numb. 1. §. 5. Vide Picherel. Doct Sorbon. in 26. Matth.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic calix. I demand to what [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hic, This] does refer? what it demonstrates and points at? The text sets the substantive down, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this cup; that is, the wine in this cup; of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in his blood: that is, this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament, I make it in my blood, this is the Symbol, what I do now in sign, I will do to morrow in substance, and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament. I cannot device what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice. — Hoc potate merum 
* Lib. 4. Evang. hist. vers. 456. — So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine, 
Atque ait, hic sanguis populi●●clicta remitres, Hanc potate meum in stead of Hoc potate merum: nam veris crtedite dictis, Posthac non●●quam vitis gustabo liquorem, Donec regn● patris melioris munera vita ●n nova me rursus concedent suygere vina.  Drink this wine, [But by the way, this troubled some body, and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into, Hunc potate meum; but that the cheat was too apparent] And if it be so of one kind, it is so in both, that is beyond all question. Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum, a most robustious argument: By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or cup, cannot be meant the wine in the cup, because it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L. 1. c. 10. de Euchar. §. sed addo arg.  This Cup [is the New Testament in my blood] which was shed for you; referring to the cup, for the word can agreed with nothing but the cup; therefore by the cup is meant not wine, but blood, for that was poured out. To this I oppose these things; 1. Though it does not agreed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet it must refer to it, and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Demosthenes: so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problems observes another out of Cicero. Benè autem dicere, quod est peritè loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regionem, cujus terminis septa teneatur; Many more he citys out of Plato, Homer, and Virgil; and me thinks these men should least of all object this, since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses, and all the world knows, 
L. 8. Biblioth.  there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties, hyperbata and Antiptoses. But in the present case it is easily supplied by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is frequently understood, and employed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, in my blood which is shed for you. 2 If it were referred to [cup] than the figure were more strong and violent, and the expression less literal; and therefore it makes much against them, who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament. 3 To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This cup, and let what sense soever be affixed to it afterwards, if it do not suppose a figure, than there is no such things as figures, or words, or truth, or things. 4. 
Vide Beza in Annot. in hunc locum.  That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark, where the word is directly applied to blood; S. Paul uses not the word, and Bellarmine himself gives the rule, verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marce, etc. when one Evangelist is plain, by him we are to expound another that is not plain: and S. Basil in his reading of the words, either following some ancienter Greek copy, or else mending it out of the other Evangelists, 
Regul. moral. 21.  changes the case into perfect Grammat, and good Divinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3 The symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup, after Consecration; that is, in the whole use of them. This is twice affirmed by S. 
1 Cor. 10.16.  Paul, The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication (so it should be read) of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ? as if he had said, This bread is Christ's body; though there be also this mystery in it, This bread is the communication of Christ's body, that is, the exhibition and donation of it, not Christ's body formally, but virtually, and effectively, it makes us communicate with Christ's body in all the effects and benefits: A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus, where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho communicasse concordiam, that is, consignasse, he communicated concord; he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship, the benefit of that communication: and so is the cup of benediction, that is, when the cup is blessed, it communicates Christ's blood, and so does the blessed bread; for to eat the bread, in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians; they are the words of 
* L. 17. de Civ. Dei cap. 5.  S. Austin, Omnes de unto pane participamus; so S. Paul, we all partake of this one bread. Hence the argument is plain; That which is broken is the communication of Christ's body; But that which is broken is bread, therefore bread is the communication of Christ's body. The bread which we break, those are the words.  
4 The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet, Let a man examine himself, 
1 Cor. 11.28. & 26.  and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And, so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare the Lords death till he come; and the same also vers. 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist, Bread. It is bread, sacramentalbread when the communicant eats it: But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread, would quickly found that in stead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad. But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity, calling things by their own plain names.  
5 Against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors. 1. That the holy Eucharist, or the sacred body is called [bread] because it is made of bread; as Eve is called of Adam, bone of his bone; and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods; or else because it sometimes was bread, therefore so it is called after: just as we say, The blind see, the lame walk, the harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
L. 1. c. 14. de Euchar.  Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes, yet jest any others should be pleased with it, I have this certain confutation of it; that by the Roman doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated, and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body; and the holy body never was bread, not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change. It cannot therefore be called bread, unless it be bread; at lest not for this reason. For if the body of Christ be not bread than, neither ever was it bread, neither was it made of bread; and therefore these cannot be the reasons, because they are not true. But in the instances alleged, the denomination still remains, because the change was made in the same remaining matter, or in the same person, or they were to be so again as they were before; nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist, by their doctrine, therefore these instances are not pertinent. 2. Others answer, that the holy Body is called Bread, because it seems to be so: just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates, of Bulls, of Serpents, of Cherubims, are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble. I reply, that well they may, because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations, no man will suppose them other than the pictures, and so to speak is usual and common. But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it aught not to be called bread for the likeness to bread, unless it were bread indeed; because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith: but rather because it is like bread, and all the world are apt to take it for such, it aught to have been described with caution, and affirmed to be Christ and God, and not to be bread though it seem so. But when it is often called Bread in Scripture, which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery, and is never called in Scripture, the Son of God, or God, or Christ; which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery; it is certain that it is called bread, not because it is like bread, but because it is so indeed. * And indeed upon such an answer as this, it is easy to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon, and no apple; for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple, it may be replied than as now, It is true they call it an apple, because it is like an apple, but indeed it is a Pigeon. 3. Some of them say when it is called bread, is not meant that particular kind of nourishment; but in general it means any food; and so only represents Christ's body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food. Just, as in S. Joh. 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven, not meaning material bread, but divine nourishment. But this is the weakest of all, because this which is called bread is broken, is eaten, hath the accidents of bread, and all the signs of his proper nature; and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like, and not signify that to which it is so like. * Besides this, bread here signifies, as wine or chalice does in the following words; now that did signify the fruit of the Vine, that special manner of drink (Christ himself being the Interpreter) and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food.  
6 If after the blessing the bread does not remain, but (as they affirm) be wholly annihilated, than by blessing God destroys a creature; which indeed is a strange kind of blessing: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Suidas, verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When God blesses, he confirms his words with deeds, and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses. And certain it is, that although blessing can change it, it must yet change it to the better; and so we affirm he does: for the bread besides the natural being, by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner; but than it must remain bread still, or else it receives not that increase and change; but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing, it is not Christ's body in any sense, nor in any sense can pretend to be blessed. To which add the words of S. Austin, 
L. 83. Quaest. 21.  Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi, id est, tendendi ad non esse. He that is the fountain of all being, is not the cause of not being, much less can his blessing 'cause any thing not to be. It follows therefore, that by blessing the bread becomes better, but therefore it still remains.  
7 That it is bread of which Christ affirmed [This is my body] and that it is bread after consecration, was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church. I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers, In Trullo at Constantinople, decreeing thus against the Aquarii, In Sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus Christi offeratur, ut ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis & vinum aquâ mixtum, In the holy places or offices] let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. So Justin Martyr, 
Just. Mart. Apol. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We are taught that the food made Eucharistical, the food which by change nourishes our flesh and-bloud, is the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we do not receive it as common bread: Not, for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical, and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still, and that for two reasons. 1. Because still he calls it bread, not common bread, but extraordinary, yet bread still. Card. Perron says, it follows not to say, it is not common bread, therefore it is bread; so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham, we might say they were not common men; but it follows not that they were men at all. So the holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus, was no common Dove; and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all. I reply to this, that of whatsoever you can say, it is extraordinary in his kind, of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind: as concerning the richest scarlet, if you say this is no ordinary colour, you suppose it to be a colour: so the Corinthian brass was no common brass, and the Colossus was no common Statue, and Christmas day is no common day, yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject; Corinthian brass is brass, Colossus is a statue, and Christmas day is a day. But if you affirm of a counterfeit, or of an image or a picture, by saying it is no common thing, you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution; but if it have the nature of the thing, than to say it is not common, denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminency; the first says it is not so at all, the second says it is more than so; and this is taught to every man by common reason, and he could have observed it if he had pleased; for it is plain, Justin said this of that, which before the Consecration was known to be natural bread, and therefore now to say it was not common bread, is to say it is bread and something more. 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still, is because it is that by which our blood and our flesh is nourished by change. Bellarmine says, that these words, by which our flesh and blood is nourished, mean by which they use to be nourished; not meaning that they are nourished by this bread when it is Eucharistical. But besides that this is gratis dictum without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin, but by a presumption taken from his own opinion, as if it were impossible that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine: besides this I say the interpretation is insolent, Nutriuntur, i.e. solent nutriri; as also because both the verbs are of the present tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The flesh and blood are nourished by bread, and it is the body of Christ; that is, both in conjunction; so that he says not, as Bellarmine would have him, Cibus ille ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum prece mysticâ consecratur, efficitur corpus Christi; but, Cibus ille quo carnes nostrae aluntur, est corpus Christi. The difference is material, and the matter is apparent: but upon this alone I rely not. To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus, 
L. 4. c. 57  Dominus accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, & temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit; Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body, and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his blood. Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what 
* De Euch. l. 3. c. 19  Bellarmine says, non potest fieri, cannot be done; that in the same proposition bread should be the subject, and body should be the predicate; Irenaeus says that Christ said it to be so, and him we follow. But most plainly in his fifth Book, Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verhum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi; ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? and a little after he affirms that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones; and that this is not understood of the spiritual man, but of the natural disposition or temper; quae de chalice qui est sanguis ejus nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus ejus augetur; and again, eum calicem qui est creatura suum sanguinem qui effusus est ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem, & eum panem etc. qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corpora; it is made the Eucharist of the bread, and the body of Christ out of that, of which the substance of our flesh consists and is increased: by the bread which he confirmed to be his body, he increases our bodies, by the blood which was poured out he increases our blood; that is the sense of Irenaeus so often repeated. And to the same purpose is that of Origen, 
L. 8. adv. Ceisum.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The bread, which is called the Eucharist, is to us the symbol of thanksgiving or Eucharist to God. So also Tertullian 
* Tertul. adv. Martion. l. 4. c. 40. , acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suis corpus suum fecit, He made the bread which he took and distributed to his disciples to be his body. But more plainly in his book De Coronâ militis, Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur; we cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground. The Eucharist he plainly calls bread; and that he speaks of the Eucharist is certain, 
Bellar. l. 4. Euch. c. 14 §. si rursus objicias.  and Bellarmine quotes the words to the purpose of showing how reverently the Eucharist was handled and regarded. The like is in S. Cyprian, 
Cyprian. ep. 76.  Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, & sanguinem suum vinum appellat; Our Lord calls bread his body, and wine his blood. So John Maxentius in the time of Pope Hormisda, 
Dial. 2. contr. Nestor.  The bread which the whole Church receives in memory of the Passion, is the body of Christ. 
Carech. mystag. 4.  And S. Cyril of Jerusalem is earnest in this affair; since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread, This is my body, who shall dare to doubt it? which words I the rather note, because Cardinal Perron brings them, as if they made for his cause, which they most evidently destroy. For if of bread Christ made this affirmation, that it is his body, than it is both bread and Christ's body too, and that is it which we contend for. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, 
Maximus.  collected out of Maximus, Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christ's flesh and blood in his incarnation, by this argument. If as these men say, he be without flesh and blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of what body and of what blood did he command the images or figures giving the bread and cup to his Disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made? 
Acacius in Jennet. 2. Graec. caten. in pentateuch.  But Acacius the successor of Eusebius in his Bishopric, calls it bread and wine even in the very use and sanctification of us. Panis vinúmque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat, the bread and wine sanctifies them that are fed with this matter. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum, so S. 
L. 2. adv. jevin.  Hierome, he offered wine not water in the type [representment or sacrament] of his blood. To the same purpose, but most plain are the words of Theodoret, 
Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body, and the mixture in the chalice he called blood. So also S. Austin Serm. 9 De diversis; The Euoharist is our daily bread, but we receive it so that we are not only nourished by the belly, but also by the understanding. And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latin, if the same thing be not affirmed in the little Masse-book published by Paulus 5. for the English Priests, Deus qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento, tribue quaesumus, ut eorum & corporibus nostris subsidium non desit & mentibus, The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body. Who please may see more in Macarius 27 homily, and Ammonius in his Evangelical Harmony in the Bibliotheca PP. and this though it be decried now adays in the Roman Schools, yet was the doctrine of 
a Sent. 4. didst 11. q. 3.  Scotus, of 
b Ibid. q. 1.  Durandus, 
c Ibid. q. 6. & Centilog. Theol. con. l. 4. q. 6.  Ocham, 
d Ibid. q. 6. ar. 1.  Cameracensis, and 
e Canon. missae lect. 40. H.  Biel, and those men were for Consubstantiation; that Christ's natural body was together with natural bread, which although I do not approve, yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denied me; it was their doctrine, that after consecration bread still remains; after this let what can follow. But that I may leave the ground of this argument secure, I add this, that in the Primitive Church eating the Eucharistical bread was esteemed a breaking the fast, which is not imaginable any man can admit, but he that believes bread to remain after consecration, and to be nutritive as before: but so it was that in the second age of the Church it was advised that either they should end their station (or fast) at the communion, or defer the communion to the end of the station; as appears in Tertullian, de Oratione cap. 14. which unanswerably proves that than it was thought to be bread and nutritive, even than when it was Eucharistical: and 
* Apol. 4.6.  Picus Mirandula affirms that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the Sacrament for refection, it breaks his fast. The same also is the doctrine of all those Churches who use the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, and S. chrysostom, who hold that receiving the holy Communion breaks the fast, as appears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about 600 years ago. The sum of all is this; If of bread Christ said this is my body, because it cannot be true in a proper natural sense, it implying a contradiction that it should be properly bread, and properly Christ's body; it must follow, That it is Christ's body in a figurative improper sense. But if the bread does not remain bread, but be changed by blessing into our Lord's body; this also is impossible to be in any sense true, but by affirming the change to be only in use, virtue and condition, with which change the natural being of bread may remain. For, he that supposes that by the blessing, the bread ceases so to be, that nothing of it remains, must also necessarily suppose that the bread being no more, it neither can be the body of Christ, nor any thing else. For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being, should yet abide under a certain difference of being, and that that thing which is not at all, should yet be after a certain manner. Since therefore (as I have proved) the bread remains, and of bread it was affirmed [This is my body] it follows inevitably that it is figuratively, not properly and naturally spoken of bread, That it is the flesh or body of our Lord.   

SECT. VI [Est corpus meum.]  
THe next words to be considered are [Est corpus] This is my body;] and here gins the first Tropical expression; [Est,] that is, significat or repraesentat, & exhibet corpus meum, say some. This is my body, it is to all real effects the same to your particulars, which my body is to all the Church: it signifies the breaking of my body, the effusion of my blood for you, and applies my passion to you, and conveys to you all the benefits; as this nourishes your bodies, so my body nourishes your souls to life eternal, and consigns your bodies to immortality. Others make the trope in Corpus; so that Est shall signify properly, but Corpus is taken in a spiritual sense, sacramental and mysterious; not a natural and praesential: whether the figure be in Est or in Corpus, is but a quaestion of Rhetoric, and of no effect. That the proposition is tropical and figurative is the thing, and that Christ's natural body is now in heaven definitively, and no where else; and that he is in the Sacrament as he can be in a Sacrament, in the hearts of faithful receivers, as he hath promised to be there; that is, in the Sacrament mystically, operatively, as in a moral and divine instrument, in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing; this is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason and accounted to them that disagree. But this which is to all the purpose which any one pretends can be in the sumption of Christ's body naturally, yet will not please the Romanists, unless [Est, Is] signify properly without trope or metonymy, and corpus be corpus naturale. Here than I join issue; It is not Christ's body properly, or naturally: for though it signifies a real effect, yet it signifies the body figuratively, or the effects and real benefits.  
Now concerning this, there are very many inducements to infer the figurative or tropical interpretation. 1. In the language which our blessed Lord spoke, there is no word that can express significat, but they use the word Is; the Hebrews and the Syrians always join the names of the signs with the things signified; and since the very essence of a sign is to signify, it is not an improper elegancy in those languages to use [Est] for significat. 2. It is usual in the Old Testament, 
Gen. 41.26, 27. & 40.12, 18. & 17.10. Exod. 12.11.  as may appear, to understand est when the meaning is for the present, and not to express it: but when it signifies the future than to express it; the seven fat cows, seven years; the seven withered ears shall be seven years of famine. 3 The Greek Interpreters of the Bible supply the word est in the present tense which is omitted in the Hebrew, as in the places above quoted: but although their Language can very well express [signifies] yet they follow the Hebrew Idiom. 4 In the New Testament the same manner of speaking is retained, to declare that the nature and being of signs is to signify they have no other esse but significare, and therefore they use est for significat. The Seed is the Word, the Field is the World, the Reapers are the Angels, the Harvest is the End of the world; the Rock is Christ; I am the Door; I am the Vine, my Father is the husbandman; I am the way, the truth, and the life; Sarah and Agar are the two Testaments; the Stars are the Angels of the Churches, the Candlesticks are the Churches; and many more of this kind; we have therefore great and fair, and frequent precedents for expounding this est by significat, for it is the style of both the Testaments to speak in signs and representments, where one disparate speaks of another; as it does here: the body of Christ, of the bread, which is the Sacrament; especially since the very institution of it is representative, significative, and commemorative: For so said our blessed Saviour, Do this in memorial of me 
* Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentiâ non est positum, S. August. in Psal. 37. ; and this doing, ye show forth the Lords death till he come, saith S. Paul.  
The second credibility that our blessed Saviour's words are to be understood figuratively, is because it is a 
* Haec n. Sacramenta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur, quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia, aliud significantia. August. l. 3. contr. Max. c. 22. Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum, sive sacrum secretum. Bern. Serm. de coen. Dom.  Sacrament: For mysterious and tropical expressions are very frequently, almost regularly and universally used in Sacripture in Sacraments and sacramentals. And therefore it is but a vain discourse of Bellarmine to contend that this must be a proper speaking, because it is a Sacrament. For that were all one as to say, he speaks mystically, therefore he speaks properly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for a Sacrament, and all the Greek that is for it in the New Testament: and when S. Paul tells of a man praying in the spirit, but so as not to be understood, he expresses it by, speaking mysteries 
* 1 Cor. 14.2. . The mysterious and sacramental speaking is secret and dark. But so it is in the sacrament or covenant of circumcision. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Gen. 17.10.  This is my Covenant, and yet it was but the seal of the Covenant, (if you believe S. 
Rom. 4.11  Paul) it was a Sacrament and a consignation of it, but it is spoken of it affirmatively; and the same words are used there as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places.  
And upon this account two other usual objections (pretending that this being a Covenant and a Testament, it aught to be expressed without a figure) are dissolved. For here is a Covenant and a Testament and a Sacrament all in one, and yet the expression of them is figurative; and the being a Testament is so far from supposing all expression in it to be proper and free from figure, that itself, the very word Testament in the institution of the holy Sacrament is tropical or figurative: est Testamentum, that is, est signum Testamenti, it is, that is, it signifies. And why they should say that a Testament must have in it all plain words and no figures or hard say, that contend that both the Testaments New and Old, are very full of hard say, and upon that account forbidden the people to read them, I confess I cannot understand. Besides this, though it be fit in temporal Testaments all should be plain, yet we see all are not plain; and from thence come so many suits of Law; yet there is not the same reason in spiritual or divine, and in human Testaments; for in human, there is nothing but legacies and express commands, both which it is necessary that we understand plainly; but in divine Testaments there are mysteries to exercise our industry and our faith, our patience and inquiry, some things for us to hope, some things for us to admire, some things to pry into, some things to act, some things for the present, some things for the future, some things pertaining to this life, some things pertaining to the life to come, some things we are to see in a glass darkly, some things reserved till the vision of God's face. And after all this, in human Testaments men aught to speak plainly, because they can speak not more when they are dead. But Christ can, for he being dead, yet speaketh; and he can by his Spirit make the Church understand as much as he please; and he will as much as is necessary: and it might be remembered, that in Scripture there is extant a record of Jacobs Testament, and of Moses, 
Gen. 49. Deut. 33.  which we may observe to be an allegory all the way. I have heard also of an Athenian that had two sons, and being asked on his deathbed to which of his two sons he would give his goods, to Leon or Pantaleon, which were the names of his two sons; he only said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but whether he meant to give all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon, or to Pantaleon, is not yet known. And in the Civil Law it is noted that Testaments have figurative expressions very often; and therefore decreed, Non n. in causâ Testamentorum ad definitionem, (strictam, sive propriam verborum significationem, saith the Gloss) utique descendendum est, cùm plerunque abusiuè loquantur, nec propriis vocabulis ac nominibus semper utantur Testatores, l. non aliter §. Titius F. de legate. & fidei come. And there are in Law certain measures for presumption of the Testators meaning. These therefore are trifling arrests; even a commandment may be given with a figurative expression, and yet be plain enough: such was that of Jesus, Pray ye the Lord of the Harvest, that he would sand Labourers into his Harvest; and that, Jesus commanded his Disciples to prepare the Passeover; and some others: so, Rend your hearts, and not your garments, etc. And an article of faith may be expressed figuratively; so is that of Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore much more may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mystery, and yet be plain enough; Tropica locutio cum fit ubi fieri solet, sine labore sequitur intellectus; said S. Austin, l. 3. the doct. Christ. c. 37. Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a thousand years together, and yet admitted of figures in the institution: and since these new men had the handling of it, and excluded the figurative sense, they have made it so hard, that themselves cannot understand it, nor tell one another's meaning. But it suffices as to this particular, that in Scripture, doctrines and promises, and precepts and prophecies, and histories, are expressed sometimes figuratively; Dabo tibi claves; and, Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis; and The dragon drew the third part of the Stars with his tail; and, Fight the good fight of faith, Put on the armour of righteousness; and very many more.  
3 And indeed there is no possibility of distinguishing sacramental propositions from common and dogmatical, or from a commandment; but that these are affirmative of a nature, those of a mystery; these speak properly, they are figurative: such as this, Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. The proposition is sacramental, mystical, and figurative: Go and baptise, that's a precept; therefore the rather is it literal and proper. So it is in the blessed Sacrament, the institution is in [Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat] In these also there is a a precept, and in the last words: Hoc facite, this do in remembrance of me; But the sacramental proposition or the mystical, which explicates the Sacrament, is, [Hoc est corpus meum] and either this is, or there is no sacramental proposition in this whole affair to explicate the mystery, or the being a sacrament. But this is very usual in sacramental propositions. For so baptism is called regeneration, and it is called a burial by S. Paul, for we are buried with him in Baptism; than baptism is either sepulchrum or sepultura, the grave or the burial, but either of them is a figure, and it is so much used in sacramental and mystic propositions, that they are all so, or may be so; ut baptismus sepulchrum, 
Lib. 20. cont. Faustum Manich. c. 21.  sic hoc est corpus meum, saith S. Austin. And this is also observed in Gentle rites: 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— So Homer:  The slain Lambs and the wine were the Sacrament, the faithful oaths, that is, the rite and mystery of their sanction; they were oaths figuratively.  
4 But to save the labour of more instances; S. Austin hath made the observation, and himself gives in a list of particulars: solet autem res quae significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari; septem spicae, 
In Levit. q. 57  septem anni sunt (non enim dixit septem annos significant) & multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictum erat, Petra erat Christus, non enim dixit, Petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non erat, sed per significationem. The thing which signifies is want to be called by that which it signifies: the seven ears of corn are seven years; he did not say they signified seven years, but are; and many like this. Hence it is said, the rock was Christ, for he said not, the rock signifies Christ; but as if the thing were that, not which it were in his own substance, but in signification. Pervulgatum est in Scripturâ, 
In Apoc. c. 14.  ut res figurata nomen habeat figurae, saith Ribera. That this is no unusual thing is confessed on all hands. V 8  
So is that of Exodus, the Lamb is the Passeover; and this does so verify S. Augustine's words, that in the New Testament the Apostles asked our Lord, Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passeover? that is, the Lamb which was the remembrance of the Passeover, as the blessed Eucharist is of the death of Christ. 
L. 1. Euch. c. 11.6. Quaedam citantur.  To this instance Bellarmine speaks nothing to purpose, for he denies the Lamb to signify the Passeover, or the passing of the Angel over the houses of Israel, because there is no likelihood between the Lamb and the Passeover; and to make the business up, he says, the Lamb was the Passeover: By some straining, the Lamb slain might signify the slaying the Egyptians, and remember their own escape at the time when they first eat the Lamb: But by no straining could the Lamb be the thing; especially, if for the dissimilitude it could not so much as signify it, how could it be the very same, to which it was so extremely unlike? but he always says something, though it be nothing to the purpose: and yet it may be remembered that the eating the Lamb was as proper an instrument of remembrance of that deliverance, as the eating consecrated bread is of the Passion of our blessed Lord. But it seems the Lamb is the very Passeover, as the very festival day is called the Passeover; so he. And he says true, in the same manner; but that is but by a trope or figure, for the feast is the feast of the Passeover; if you speak properly, it is the Passeover by a Metonymy: and so is the Lamb. And this instance is so much the more opposite, because it is the forerunner of the blessed Eucharist, which succeeded that, as Baptism did Circumcision; and there is nothing of sense that hath been, or I think can be spoken to evade the force of this instance; nor of the many other before reckoned.  
5 And as it is usual in all Sacraments, so particularly it must be here, in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches, that almost in every word there is plainly a trope. For 1. Here is the cup taken for the thing contained in it. 2. Testament, for the legacy bequeathed by the Testament. 3. This,] is not in recto, but in obliquo. This] that is, not this which you see, but this which you do not see. This which is under the species is my body. 4 My body, but not bodily; my body without the forms and figure of my body, that is, my body, not as it is in nature, not as it is in glory, but as it is in Sacrament; that is, my body sacramentally. 5 Drink ye] that is also improper; for his blood is not drunk properly, for blood hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the Paten, that is, is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread; and therefore it is in the veins, not separate, say they 
* See Brerely Liturg. Tract. 4 §. 8. Glossa in c. si per negligentiam dist. 2. de consecrat. in haec verba [De sanguine] ait. De sanguine, i e. de sacramento sanguinis. Sanguis n. Christi à corpore Christi separari non valet, ergo nec stillare nec fluere potest. , and yet it is in the bread, as it is in the chalice, and in both as upon the Cross, that is poured out, so Christ said expressly; for else it were so far from being his blood, that it were not so much as the Sacrament of what he gave; so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk, because it is not separate from the body; and in the bread it cannot be drunk, because there it is not in the veins; or if it were, yet is made as a consistent thing by the continent, but is not potable: now that which follows from hence is, that it is not drunk at all properly, but figuratively: and so Mr. Brerely 
a See Brercly Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 8.  confesses sometimes, and Jansenius 
b Concord. in eum locum. . There is also an impropriety in the word [given, for shall be given; is poured out, for shall be poured out 
c Salmer. in 1 Cor. 11. Gregor. de Valent. l. 1 de Missa c. 3. §. igitur. Tom. 3. disp. 47. §. 4. §. exempla tertiae. Ruard Tapper in art. 13. ; in [broken, for than it was not broken when Christ spoke it, and it cannot be properly spoken since his glorification. Salmeron allows an Enallage in the former, and Suarez a Metaphor in the latter. Frangi cùm dicitur, est Metaphorica locutio. And this is their excuse; why in the Roman Missal they leave out the words [which is broken for you] for they do what they please, they put in some words which Christ used not, and leave out something that he did use, and yet they are all the words of institution. And upon the same account, there is another trope in [eat] and yet with a strange confidence these men wonder at us for saying the sacramental words are tropical or figurative 
* Dico quòd figura co poris Christi est ibi, sed figura corporis Christi, non est ibi figura corporis Christi. Holcot. in 4. sent. q. 3. , when even by their own confession 
d Anselm, Lombard, Thomas, Ly●an, Gorran, Cajetan, Dion. Carth. Catharinus, Salmeron, Bened. Justinian, Sa, in 1 Cor. 11. & innumeri alii.  and proper grounds, there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety. And than concerning the main praedication; This is my body, as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body bread, and both these affirmatives are destructive of Transubstantiation; for if of bread Christ affirmed, It is his body, by the rule of disparates it is figurative; and if of his body he affirmed it to be bread, it is certain also and confessed to be a figure. Now concerning this, besides that our blessed Saviour affirmed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven, calling himself bread, and in the institution calling bread his body; we have the express words of Theodoret, 
Dial. 1. c. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Christ gave to his body the name of the Symbol, and to the Symbol the name of his body; and S. Cyprian speaks expressly to this purpose, as you may see above, §. 5. n. 9  
6 The strange inconveniences and impossibilities, the scandals and errors, the fancy of the Capernaites, and the temptations to faith, arising from the literal sense of these words, have been in other cases thought sufficient by all men to expound words of Scripture by tropes and allegories. The heresy of the Anthropomorphites and the Euchitae, and the doctrine of the Chiliasts, and Origen gelding himself, proceeded from the literal sense of some texts of Scripture, against which there is not the hundred part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lie against this. And yet no man puts out his right eye literally, or cuts of his right hand to prevent a scandal. Certain it is, there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of Institution, than of any other in Scripture: by so much as the danger of Idolatry, and actual tyranny, and uncharitable damning others, and schism, are worse than any temporal inconvenience, or an error in a matter of speculation.  
7 I argue out of S. Augustine's grounds thus: As the Fathers did eat Christ's body, 
Tract. 26. in S. Johan.  so do we under a divers Sacrament, and different symbols, but in all the same reality; whatsoever we eat, the same they did eat; for the difference is this only, they received Christ by faith in him that was to come, and we by faith in him that is come already; but they had the same real benefit, Christ as really as we, for they had salvation as well as we. But the Fathers could not eat Christ's flesh in a natural manner, for it was not yet assumed: and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally, that it is gone from us into heaven; yet that which I now insist upon is, that it was cibus spiritualis which they eat under the Sacrament of Manna; therefore we under the Sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat, eat only Christ in a spiritual sense, that is, our spiritual meat. And this is also true in the other Sacraments of the Rock and the Cloud: Our Fathers eat of the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink, that is, Christ; so he afterwards expounds it. Now if they did eat and drink Christ, that is, were by him in sacrament and to all reality of effect nourished up to life eternal, why cannot the same spiritual meat do the same thing for us, we receiving it also in Sacrament and Mystery? 2 To which I add, that all they that do communicate spiritually, do receive all the blessing of the Sacrament, which could not be unless the mystery were only sacramental, mysterious, and spiritual. 
In S. Joan. 6.49.  Maldonate speaking of something of this from the authority of S. Austin, is of opinion that if S. Austin were now alive, in very spite to the Calvinists, he would have expounded that of Manna otherwise than he did: It seems he lived in a good time when malice and the spirit of contradiction was not so much in fashion in the interpretations of Scripture.  
Now let it be considered whether all that I have said be not abundantly sufficient to outweigh their confidence of the literal sense of these sacramental words. They found the words spoken, they say they are literally to be understood, they bring nothing considerable for it; there is no Scripture that so expounds it, there is no reason in the circumstances of the words; but there is all the reason of the world against it, (as I have and shall show) and such, for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sense and rest in a tropical and spiritual. Now in all such cases when we found an inconvenience press the literal expression of a text, instantly we found another that is figurative, and why it is not so done in this, the interest and secular advantages which are consequent to this opinion of the Church of Rome may give sufficient account. In the mean time we have reason not to admit of the literal sense of these words, not only by the Analogy of other sacramental expressions in both Testaments, I mean that of Circumcision and the Passeover in the Old, and Baptism as Christ discoursed it to Nicodemus in the New Testament; but also 2. because the literal sense of the like words in this very article introduced the heresy of the Capernaites; and 3. because the subject and the predicate in the words of institution are divers and disparate and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly. 4 The words in the natural and proper sense seem to command an unnatural thing, the eating of flesh. 5 They rush upon infinite impossibilities, they contradict sense and reason, the principles and discourses of all mankind, and of all Philosophy. 6 Our blessed Saviour tells us that the flesh profiteth nothing, and (as themselves pretend) even in this mystery, that his words were spirit and life. 7 The literal sense cannot be explicated by themselves, nor by any body for them. 8 It is against the Analogy of other Scriptures. 9 It is to no purpose. 10 Upon the literal sense of the words, the Church could not confute the 
* Vide infra §. 12. n. 22. & n. 32. etc. & §. 10. n. 6.  Marcionites, Eutychians, Nestorians, the Aquarii. 11 It is against antiquity. 12 The whole form of words in every of the members is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party. 13 It is not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles, all which being more than needs, and none of them visible, but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences, cannot be supposed to be done by God, who does nothing superfluously. 14 It seems to contradict an article of faith, viz. of Christ's sitting in heaven in a determinate place, and being contained there till his second coming. Upon these considerations, and upon the account of all the particular arguments which I have and shall bring against it, it is not unreasonable, neither can it seem so, that we decline the letter, and adhere to the spirit, in the sense of these words. But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution, and the whole nature of the thing.   

SECT. VII. Considerations of the manner and circumstances and annexes of the institution.  
THe blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it: But Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sense when he eat his last supper, therefore neither does he now. The first proposition is, beyond all dispute, certain, evident, and confessed; Hoc facite, convinces it: This do] what Christ did, his Disciples are to do. I assume: Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last Supper, therefore neither does he now; the assumption I prove by divers arguments.  
1 If than he gave his natural body, than it was naturally broken, and his blood was actually poured forth before the passion; for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his body was delivered broken, his blood was shed: Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally; and than they were not true, because his body was yet whole, his blood still in the proper channels; or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sense, and so it was true: (as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spoke) for that which he than ministered was the Sacrament of his Passion.  
2 If Christ gave his body in the natural sense at the last Supper, than it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; If it was not, than it is not now, and than their dream of the Mass is vanished: if it was propitiatory at the last Supper, than God was reconciled to all the world, and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour: which therefore would have been needless and ineffective: so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine.  
3 If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper, and not only figuratively and in sacrament, than it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion, but a real exhibition of it: but that it was a Sacrament only, appears by considering that it was than alive; that the Passion was future, that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross, that than he was to be delivered for the life of the world. In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament, because it was before, and the substance was to follow after.  
4 If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread, than his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance, visible in his person, invisible under the accidents of bread: and than it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received, what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally; or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understood it in the literal sense, when they saw his body stand by, unbroken, alive, integral, hypostatical.  
5 If Christ's body were naturally in the Sacrament, I demand, whether it be as it was in the last Supper, or as upon the Cross, or as it is now in heaven? Not as in the last Supper, for than it was frangible, but not broken; but typically, by design, in figure and in Sacrament, as it is evident in matter of fact. 2. Not as on the Cross, for there the body was frangible and broken too, and the blood spilt; and if it were so now in the Sacrament, besides that it were to make Christ's glorified body passable, and to crucify the Lord of life again; it also were not the same body which Christ hath now, for his body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible, and cannot be otherwise; much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly, and yet be the same body. 3 Not as in heaven, where it is neither corruptible nor broken; for than in the Sacrament there were given to us Christ's glorified body; and than neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ's death, neither were the words of Institution verified, [This is my body which is broken;] besides, 
De Euch. l. 1. c. 13. §. 1.  in this we have Bellarmine's confession, neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo. But than if it be remembered, that Christ hath no other body but that which is in heaven; and that can never be otherwise than it is, and so it cannot be received otherwise properly; it unanswerably follows, that if it be received in any other manner (as it must if it be at all) it must be received (not naturally or corporally) but spiritually and indeed. By a figure, or a sacramental, spiritual sense, all these difficulties are easily assoiled, but by the natural never.  
6 At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist, but it was not in remembrance of Christ's death, for it was future than, and therefore not than capable of being remembered, any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow; it follows from hence that than Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras, and therefore never to be naturally verified, but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence, because than it was so and never else; at that time it was future, and now it is past, and in both it is relative to his death; therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sense, for that as it could not be remembered than, so neither broken now; that is, nothing of it is natural, but it is wholly ritual, mysterious, and sacramental. For that this was the sacrament of his death, appears in the words of Institution, and by the preceptive words," Do this in remembrance of me. And in the reason subjoined by S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
1 Cor. 11.26.  For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye show the Lords death, till he come. Therefore when Christ said, This is my body given, or broken on my part, taken, eaten on yours, it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sacramental image of his death; to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body, that so the substance should become his own shadow; the natural presence be his own Sacrament, or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered. His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more; that as Christ in heaven represents his death in the way of intercession, so do we by our ministry; but as in heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified, a rememoration of his crucifixion, of his death and passion, by which he reconciled God and man: so it is in the Sacrament after our manner, This is my body given for you] that is, This is the Sacrament of my death, in which my body was given for you. For as Aquinas said, in all sciences words signify things, but it is proper to Theology, that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signify something beyond it. This is my body, are the sacramental words, or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental; it must therefore signify something beyond these words, and so they do; for they signify the death which Christ suffered in that body. It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christ's body only, or his blood; but it is ex parte rei, a Sacrament of the death of his body; and to us a participation, or an exhibition of it, as it became beneficial to us, that is, as it was crucified, as it was our sacrifice. And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing, and the order of the words, and the body of the circumstances, that it is next to that which is evident in itself, and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the Institution; especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the Sacrament of the Passeover, and very many other instances; it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery, it reconciles our duty with the secret, it is free of all inconvenience, it prejudices no right, nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have; and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent, fit to be discoursed of, and inserred into the rituals of a wise Religion.  
7 He that receives unworthily receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy Sacrament, this is agreed on all sides; therefore he that receives benefit to his body, receives it by his worthy communicating, therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Eucharist, comes to it by the soul, therefore by the action of the soul, not the action of the body; therefore by faith, not by the mouth: whereas on the contrary, if Christ's body natural were eaten in the Sacrament, the benefit would come to the body by his own action, and to the soul by the body. All that eat are not made Christ's body, and all that eat not are not disintitled to the resurrection; the Spirit does the work without the Sacrament, and in the Sacrament when 'tis done: The flesh profiteth nothing] And this argument aught to prevail upon this account: Because, as is the nutriment, so is the manducation. If the nourishment be wholly spiritual, than so is the eating. But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish, therefore neither is it eaten naturally; but it does nourish spiritually, and therefore it is eaten only spiritually. 
Opusc. Tom. 2. Tract. 2. de Euch. c. 5.  And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan, though how they will endure it I cannot understand; Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento, sed non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr. Spiritualis manducatio quae per animam fit ad Christi carnem in Sacramento existentem perting it. The true body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, but not corporally, but spiritually. The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament; which is very good Protestant doctrine. And if it be absurd to say Christ's body doth nourish corporally, why it should not be as absurd to say, we eat it corporally, is a secret which I have not yet been taught. As is our eating so is the nourishing, because that is in order to this; therefore if you will suppose that natural eating of Christ's body does nourish spiritually, yet it must also nourish corporally; let it do more if it may, but it must do so much; just as the waters in baptism, although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul, yet because the waters are material and corporeal, they cleanse the body first and primarily: so it must be in this Sacrament also; if Christ's body were eaten naturally, it must nourish naturally, and than pass further: but that which is natural is first, and than that which is spiritual.  
8 For the likeness to the argument, I insert this consideration; by the doctrine of the ancient Church, wicked men do not eat the body, nor drink the blood of Christ. So Origen, 
I● M●t. 15.  Si fieri potest ut qui malus adhuc perseveret edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quisquis ederit panem hunc vivet in aeternum. If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness to eat the word made flesh, when it is the word and the living bread, it had never been written, Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever. So S. Hilary, 
L 8. de Trinit.  Panis qui descendit de coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, & Christi membrum est: The bread that came down from heaven is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord, 
De Coe●● Dom. aut quicunque author est.  and is a member of Christ. Lambunt Petram, saith S. Cyprian, They lick the Rock, that is, eat not of the food, and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten. They receive corticem sacramenti, & furfur carnis, saith S. Bernard, the skin of the Sacrament, and the bran of the flesh. But Ven. Bede is plain without an allegory. 
Saper Exod. de agno Pasch.  Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi: An unbelieving man is not fed with the flesh of Christ; the reason of which could not be any thing but because Christ is only eaten by faith. 
L. 21. de Civit. Dei c. 25.  But I reserved S. Austin for the last, So than these are no true receivers of Christ's body in that they are none of his true members. For (to omit all other allegations) they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot; and Christ himself saying, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, sheweth what it is to receive Christ, not only sacramentally, but truly; for this is to devil in Christ and Christ in him. For thus he spoke, as if he had said; He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him, cannot say, he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood. In which words (if the Roman Doctors will be judged by S. Austin for the sense of the Church in this Question, and will allow him in this point to be a good Catholic) 1 He dogmatically declares that the wicked man does not eat Christ's body truly. 2 He does eat it sacramentally. 3 That to eat with effect is to eat Christ's body truly: to which if they please to add this, 4 That to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect, it follows by S. Augustine's doctrine that spiritually is really, and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the Sacrament, but by the faithful receiver: or if you please receive the conclusion in the words of S. Austin, Tunc erit unicuique corpus & sanguis Christi, 
Serm. 2. de verb. Apost.  si quod in Sacramento sumitur, in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur, than to each receiver it becomes the body and blood of Christ, if that which is taken in the Sacrament, be in the very truth itself spiritually eaten, and spiritually drunk: which words of S. Austin, Bellarmine, upon another occasion being to answer, in stead of answering grants it, and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in S. 
L. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Respond. apud Augustinum.  Austin [the truest answer in all his books:] but whether it be for him or against him he aught to have considered. Neither can this be put of with saying, that the wicked do not truly eat Christ, that is, not to any benefit or purpose, but that this does not mean they receive him not at all. Just as we say when a man eats but a little, he does not eat: for as good never a jot, as never the better. This I say is not a sufficient escape, I Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real, and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally; but not the thing whose Sacrament it is; so that this is not a proposition of degrees, but there is a plain opposition of one to the other. 2 It is true, S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all, for he says they receive him sacramentally; but he says, they do not at all receive him truly, and the wicked man cannot say he does: and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture. 3 This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the say of the other Fathers, nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation, and much less in others which I have 
* De Serm. de verb. Apost. Pauli supr.  and shall remark, particularly this; that he calls that which the wicked eat, nothing but signum corporis & sanguinis. His words are these 
* Tract. 26 in Joh. vid. etiam Bellarminè 〈◊〉 1. Euch. c. 14. §. respondeo S. August. , Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem, non bibit sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis & sanguints: he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually, although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood. Plainly, all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christ's body, all that is to be done beyond, is to eat it spiritually. There is no other eating but these two; 
Tract. 59 in Joh.  and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus, and Panis Domini, Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord: But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord, that is, his body. But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph, num. 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller.  
9 Lastly, In the words of Institution and Consecration (as they call them) the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists, and S. Paul respectively, as appears by comparing them together; that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour: for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down. 2 That they all regarded the sense and meaning of the mystery, not the letters and the syllables. 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signify, for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agreed in the things; as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph, where the four forms are set by each other to be compared. 4 The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words, which Christ spoke not at all, nor are related by S. Matthew, or S. Mark, or S. Luke, or S. Paul, but she puts in some things and changes others; her form is this. Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: what is added is plain, what is altered would be very material, if the words were consecratory; for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew, and S. Mark, [this is my blood:] and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of; it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the article more secret, the form less operative, the authority less warrantable, the words less simple and natural. But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is, that the mystery was so wholly spiritual, that it was no matter by what words it were expressed, so the spirit of it were retained; and yet if it had been an historical, natural, proper sense that had been intended, it aught also in all reason to have been declared, or (much more) effected by a natural and proper, and constant affirmative. But that there is nothing spoken properly, is therefore evident, because there are so many praedications, and all mean the same mystery, Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti; and, Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine; and, Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal; all this declares it is mysterium fidei, and so to be taken in all senses: and those words are left in their Canon, as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words, or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith: It is mysterium fidei, not sanguis naturalis, a mystery of faith, not natural blood. For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke, respectively could be proper and without a figure; 
L. 1. de Euch. c. 11 § ad tertiam dico.  and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti, did signify, This is the divine promise (for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies) and that in S. Luke's words [This cup is the Testament] it signifies the instrument of the Testament, (for so a Will or a Testament is taken; either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written) yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood? it says nothing of that, and so if this sense of those words does avoid a trope, it brings in a distinct proposition; if it be spoken properly, it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine; and if the same word have several senses, than in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists, there are several predicates, and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper. And yet besides this, although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction, yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion; for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament, it is a tropical locution; just as I say, my bible (meaning my book) is the word of God; that is, contains the word of God, it is a Metonymy of the thing containing for that which it contains. But this was more than I needed, and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing.   

SECT. VIII. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture.  
THus I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances, and annexes of the Institution or Consecration proved, that the sense of this mystery is mysterious, and spiritual, that Christ's body is eaten only sacramentally by the body, but really and effectively only by faith, which is the mouth of the soul, that the flesh profiteth nothing, but the words which Christ spoke are spirit and life. And let it be considered, Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they sound in the letter, not as they are intended in the spirit, there be any thing, or indeed can be in the nature of the thing, or circumstances of it, or usefulness, or in the different forms of words, or the Analogy of the other discourses of Christ, that can give colour to their literal sense? against which so much reason and Scripture, and arguments from Antiquity do contest. This only I observe, that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpretation, but such which I have or shall wrist out of their hands; and which to all men's first apprehensions, and at the very first sight do make against them, and which without curious notion and devices cannot pretend on their side: as appears 1 in the tenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, verses 16, 17. 
V 16, 17.   
Out of which I have already proved, that Christ's body is not taken in the natural sense, but in the spiritual. 
§. 5. n. 6. L. 1. Euch. c. 12.  But when Bellarmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving nothing; to save any man the labour of answering them, he adds at the end of them these words; 
§. sed tota difficultas.  Sed tota difficultas est an corporaliter, realiter, propriè sumatur sanguis & caro, an solùm significatiuè & spiritualiter. Quod autem corporaliter & propriè probari posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis, Hoc est corpus meum. That is, after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended, 
C. 10. v. 16  all the difficulty of the quaestion still remained; and that he was feign to prove by Hoc est corpus meum, and the proper arguments of that; but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this chapter. But to make up this also he does corradere scrape together some things  to the words of this authority; as 1. That the literal sense is to be presumed unless the contrary be proved; which is very true: but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of Institution; and for the words in this chapter, if the literal sense be preferred, than the bread remains after Consecration, because it is called bread. 2 So the Primitive Saints expounded it] which how true it is, I shall consider in his own place. 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet, but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christ's body; so Bellarmine; which is a fit cover for such a dish: for 1 We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christ's body; but all the real effects and benefits of it. 2 If we had, yet it is not very much better than blasphemy, to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account. For if the very figure and sacrament of Christ's body be better than sacrifices offered to Devils, the Apostle had prevailed, though this sentence were true, that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure. And thus I have (for all that is said against it) made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence.  
There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal presence, viz. 
1 Cor. 11.29.27.  He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body: and, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat unworthily do yet eat Christ's body, because how else could they be guilty of it, and condemned for not discerning it?  
To this I answer many things. 1 S. Paul does not say, He that eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood unworthily, etc. but indefinitely, He that eateth and drinketh etc. 
V 29.  yet it is probable he would have said so, if it had been a proper form of speech, because by so doing it would have laid a greater load upon them. 2 Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely, he speaks most clearly against the Article in the Roman sense; for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
V 27.  The cup of the Lord, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this bread, and, he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ: and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence, but yet they have their proper consideration: Therefore 3 Not discerning the Lord's body, is, not separating it from profane and common usages, not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery. To which phrase Justin gives light in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we do not receive it as common bread and common drink; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but nourishment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer; and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4 It is the body of the Lord in the same sense here as in the words of Institution, which I have evinced to be exegetical, sacramental, and spiritual; and by despising the sacrament of it, we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Reus erit corporis & sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit, 
In 1 Cor. 11.  saith S. Hierome. And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statues of Theodosius broken in despite by the Antiochians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If you abuse the King's Image, the affront relates to your Prince. 5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not naturally, for that cannot now be, and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sense of the words in this place, than this, which they would entice into their party; For Christ's body is glorified, and not capable of natural injury: But the evil communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ: just as relapsing Christians are said by the same Apostles, to crucify the Lord of life again, and put him to an open shame, which I suppose they cannot do naturally or corporally. One is as the other, that is, both are tropical or figurative.  
These are all that they pretend from Scripture; and all these are nothing to their purpose; but now besides what I have already said, I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put of.   

SECT. IX. Arguments from other Scriptures, proving Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, to be only Spiritual, not Natural.  
1. THe first is taken from those words of our blessed Saviour, Whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, 
S. Mat. 15.17.  and is cast forth into the draught; meaning, that all food, that is taken by the mouth, hath for his share the fortune of the belly; and indeed manducation and ejection are equally diminutions of any perfect thing; and because it cannot without blasphemy be spoken, that the natural body of Christ aught or can suffer ejection, neither can it suffer manducation. To this Bellarmine weakly answers, that these words of Christ are only true, 
L. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Resp. cum Algero.  of that which is taken to nourish the body: which saying of his is not true; for if it be taken to purge the body, or to make the body sick, or to make it lean or to minister to lust, or to chastise the body, as those who in penances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums, yet still it is cast into the draught. 2. But suppose his meaning true, yet this argument will not so be put of; because although the end of receiving the blessed Sacrament, is not to nourish the body; yet that it does nourish the body, it affirmed by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others; 
§. 5. n. 9  of which I have already given account To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus, Illud [corpus Christi] in nos convertitur dum id manducamus & bibimus. That body is changed into us when we eat it and drink it; and therefore although it hath a higher purpose, yet this also cannot be avoided. 3. Either we manducate the accidents only, or else the substance of bread, or the substance of Christ's body. If we manducate only the accidents, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. l. 3. de anim. cap. 12.  than how do we eat Christ's body? If we manducate bread, than 'tis capable of all the natural alterations, and it cannot be denied. But if we manducate Christ's body after a natural manner, what worse thing is it, that it descends into the guts, than that it goes into the stomach; to be cast forth, than to be torn in pieces with the teeth, as I have proved 
§. 3. n. 6.  that it is by the Roman doctrine? Now I argue thus: if we eat Christ's natural body, we eat it either Naturally or Spiritually: if it be eaten only Spiritually than it is Spiritually digested, and is Spiritual nourishment, and puts on accidents, and affections Spiritual. But if the natural body be eaten naturally, than what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural? 4. Although Algerus, and out of him Bellarmine, would have Christians stop their ears against this argument, (and so would I against that doctrine of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents) yet it is disputed in the Summa Angelica, and an instance or case put which to my sense seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine: For (saith he) what if the Species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach? He answers; that they were not meat if they did not nourish; and therefore it is probable as Boetius says, that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught, though the Species do. 
De consecrat. dist. 2. c. Si per negligentiam. Glos. ibid.  And yet it is determined by the Gloss on the Canon Law, that as long as the Species remain uncorrupted, the holy body is there under those Species; and therefore may be vomited; and consequently ejected all ways by which the Species can pass unalter'd. Eoúsque progreditur corpus quousque species; said Harpsfield, in his disputation at Oxford. If these things be put together viz, the body is there so long as the Species are uncorrupted: and the Species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards, as in case of sickness: it follows that in this case, which is a case easily contingent, by their doctrine, the holy body must pass in latrinam. And what than? it is to be adored as a true Sacrament though it come from impure places, though it be vomited. So said Vasquez 
* in 3. t. 3. d. 195. n. 46.  and it is the prevailing opinion in their Church. Add to this, that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the Priest, it is certain that God does not hear his prayers: for he is enjoined by the Roman Missal published by authority of the council of Trent, and the command of Pope Pius the 4th, to pray, Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis, Let thy body O Lord which I have taken, and the blood which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels. It seems indeed they would have it go not further, to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument; but certain it is that if they intended it for a figurative speech, it was a bold one, and not so fitted for edification, as for an objection. But to return. This also was the argument of Origen: 
In cap. 15. S Mat.  Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur, & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei pérque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur— & haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the Sacrament, and affirms that according to the material part, that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, enters into the mouth, descends into the belly, and goes forth in the natural ejection. And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body. Now besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour 
S. Mat. 15.17.  to have effect in the Sacrament, he affirms that the material part, the type and symbols are the body of Christ, that is, his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner. This is the plain and natural sense of the words of Origen. But he must not mean what he means, if he says any thing in an other place that may make for the Roman opinion. And this is their way of answering objections brought from the Fathers; they use to oppose words to words, and conclude they must mean their meaning, or else they contradict themselves. And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently, and especially Cardinal Perron and from them the lesser Writers: And so it happens in this present argument: for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion. But I demand, are the words more contradictory if they be both drawn to a spiritual sense, than if they be both drawn to a natural. 2. Though we have no need to make use of it, yet it is no impossible thing that the Fathers should contradict one another and themselves too; as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to K. James. 3. But why must all sheaus bow to their sheaf, and all words be wrested to their fancy, when there are no words any where pretended from them, but with less wresting than these must suffer for them, they will be brought by speak against them, or at lest nothing for them? But let us see what other words Origen hath, by which we must expound these. 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ, and the flesh of the word of God is true food; What than? so say we too; but it is Spiritual food, and we drink the blood Spiritually. He says nothing against that, but very much for it; as I have in several places remarked already. 5 But how can this expound the other words? Christian people eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood; therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught, he means, not the body of Christ in his material part, but the accidents of bread, the colour, the taste, the quantity, these are cast out by the belly. Verily a goodly argument; if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude. 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly, it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally. But here he distingnishes a part from a part, one sense from another, the body in one sense from the body in another, therefore these words are to expound the more general, and not they to expound these, unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds, that is, unless the general be a particular, and the particular be a general. 7. Amalarius was so amused with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy, and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into heaven or kept till our death in the body, 
Ep. ad Guitard.  or expired at letting of blood, or exhaled in air, or spit out, or breathed forth, our Lord saying, That which enters into the mouth, descends into the belly, and so goes forth into the draught: The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the real presence, because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum, about the time of Pope Gregory the 4th. where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered, and the article determined, that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ, which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly, is not corrupted, but remaineth unto everlasting life. 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only, and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught, is a device of them that care not what they say; for 1. It makes that the eject amentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity, without any substance. 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents, and so not only one substance to be changed into another, but that accidents are changed into substances, which must be, if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam, and than beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa, a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances, as motion, substantial corruption, alteration, that is, not to be accidents but substances. For matter and form are substances, and those that integrate all physical and compound substances: but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could. Yea but magnitude is a material quality, and ground or subject of the accidents. So it is said; but it is nonsense. For besides that magnitude is not a quality, but a quantiy, neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly; because it is an affection of matter; and however, it is a contradiction to say, that it is the ground of qualities; for an accident cannot be the fundamentum, the ground or subject of an accident; that is the formality and definition of a substance, as every young scholar hath read in Aristotle's Categories: so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude, that is, that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality, but a substance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. An accident always subsists in a subject, says Porphyry. 9 This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen; for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament, he calls it the Symbolical body, which cannot be affirmed of accidents, because there is no likeness between the accidents, the colour, the shape, the figure, the roundness, the weight, the magnitude of the host, or wafer, and Christ's body: and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body, is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol, un unlike similitude, a representment without analogy: But if he means the consecrated bread, the whole action of consecration, distribution, sumption, manducation, this is the Symbolical body, according to the words of S. Paul, He that drinks this cup, and eats this bread, represents the Lord's death; it is the figure of Christ's crucified body, of his passion and our redemption. 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Aristotle, 
Categor. cap. 5.  a body may be called white, but the definition or reason of the accident, can never be affirmed of a body. I conclude, that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour, urged also and affirmed by Origen, do prove that Christ's body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sense, not at all in a Natural, jest that consequent be the event of it; which to affirm of Christ's glorified body in the natural and proper sense were very blasphemy.  
2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christ's departing from this world; his going from us, the ascension of his body and soul into heaven; his not being with us, his being contained in the heavens: So said our blessed Saviour, 
S. joh. 16.7.14.2. Mat. 26.11. Act. 3.21. Philip 3.20.  Unless I go hence, the Comforter cannot come: and I go to prepare a place for you: The poor ye have always, but me ye have not always. S. Peter affirms of him that the heavens must receive him, till the time of restitution of all things. Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his human nature, that is a circumscribed body, and a definite soul, is the question. And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors, and by the Ubiquitaries, whom they call Heretics. These men say Christ's human nature is every where actually, by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where; the Romanists say no: it is not actually every where, but it may be where, and is in as many places as he please: for although he be in heaven, yet so is God too, and yet God is upon earth: eodem modo, says Bellarmine, 
Lib. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo Argumentum.  in the same manner, the Man Christ although he be in heaven, yet also he can be out of heaven, where he please; he can be in heaven and out of heaven. Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility; that is, that Christ's body can be in more places than one: if in two, it may be in 2000, and than it may be every where; for it is not limited, and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite. Against this so seemingly impossible at the veryfirst sight, and relying upon a similitude and analogy that is not far from blasphemy, viz. that as God is in heaven and yet on earth, eodem modo after the same manner is Christ's body; which words it cannot be easy to excuse: against this (I say) (although for the reasons alleged, it be unnecessary to be disproved, yet) I have these things to oppose, 1. The words of Scripture, that affirm Christ to be in heaven, affirm also that he is gone from hence 
* S. john 16.28. . Now if Christ's body not only could, but must be every day in innumerable places on earth, it would have been said that Christ is in heaven, but not that he is not here, or that he is gone from hence. 2. Surrexit, non est hîc, was the Angel's discourse to the enquiring woman at the Sepulchre, he is risen, he is not here: but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schools, they would have denied the consequent; he is risen and gone from hence, but he may be here too. And this indeed might have put the Angels to a distinction: but the women's ignorance rendered them secure. However S. 
Epist. ad Dardan.  Austin is dogmatical in this article, saying, Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum & in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum, & in loco aliquo caeli propter veri corporis modum. Christ as God is every where, but in respect of his body he is determined to a particular residence in heaven, viz. at the right hand of God, that is in the best seat, and in the greatest eminency. And in 30th Treatise of S. john, It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone, but the truth is spread over all. But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their editions to corrupt the place; And in stead of [oportet] have clapped in [potest] in stead of [must be] have foisted in [may be] against the faith of the ancient Canonists and Scholastics; particularly, Lombard, Gratian, Ivo Carnotensis, Algerus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Durand, Biel, Scotus, Cassander, and divers others. To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. 
a Lib. 11. in john c. 3.  He could not converse with his Disciples in the flesh being ascended to his Father. So Cassian 
b Lib. 4. de incarnate. c. 8. , jesus Christ speaking on earth, cannot be in heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead: and 
c Lib. 2. ad Thrasimundum c. 7. Apol. p. 65.  Fulgentius argues it strongly; If the body of Christ be a true body, it must be contained in a particular place: but this place is just so corrupted in their editions, as is that of S. Austin, potest being substituted in stead of oportet; but this doctrine, viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body, and proper to God, was affirmed by the University of Paris in a synod under William their Bishop 1340, and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome itself that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in divers places.  
3. The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension, and of his coming from thence at his appearing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the words have an Antithesis; the heavens till than shall retain him; but than he shall come from thence, which were needless if he might be here and stay there too.  
4. When Christ said, Me ye have not always, and at another time, Lo, I am with you always to the end of the World; It is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction. Christ is with us by his Spirit, but Christ is not with us in body; but if his body be here too, than there is no way of Substantial, real presence, in which those words can be true [me ye have not always.] The Rhemists in their note upon this place, say, that when Christ said, me ye have not always, he means, ye have not me in the manner of a poor man, needing relief; that is, not me so as you have the poor. But this is a trifle; because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministry of Mary Magdalen as a poor man, for it was a present for a Prince, not a relief to necessity, but a Regalo fit for so great a person; and therefore if he were here at all after his departure, he was capable of as noble an usage and an address fit to represent a Majesty, or at lest to express a love. It was also done for his burying, so Christ accepted it, and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode. But besides this, if this could be the interpretation of those words, than they did not at all signify Christ's leaving this world, but only his changing his circumstance of fortune, his outward dress and appendages of person; which were a strange commentary upon [me ye have not always;] that is, I shall be with you still, but in a better condition; but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sense of these words of Christ [loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis etc.] 
Tract. 50. in Johan.  he spoke of the presence of his body, ye shall have me according to my providence, according to Majesty, and invisible grace, but according to the flesh which the word assumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me, therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days he is ascended up into heaven and is not here; If he be here in person, what need he to have sent his Vicar, his holy Spirit in substitution? especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church than he was in the days of his conversation in Palestine; for than he was but in one assembly at once; now he is in thousands every day. If it be said, because although he be here yet we see him not. This is not sufficient, for what matter is it whether we see him or not, if we know him to be here, if we feel him, if we eat him, if we worship him in presence natural and proper? There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape. A friend in the dark, behind a curtain, or to a blind man, is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation, or beheld with the eyes. And than also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person, which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices, and we no greater needs, and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes; for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual, secret, and invisible, our eyes are still without comfort; and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him, than so does our faith do the same thing; for if we believe him there, the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith, and the Spirit is pretended to do not more in this particular, and than his presence also will be less necessary, because supplied by our own act. Add to this; That if after Christ's ascension into heaven, he still would have been upon earth, in the Eucharist, and received properly into our mouths, and in all that manner which these men dream; how ready it had been and easy to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence; by telling them [Although I go to heaven yet fear not to be deprived of the presence of my body, for you shall have it more than before, and much better; for I will be with you, and in you; I was with you in a state of humility and mortality, now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle; I before gave you promises of grace and glory, but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality. And though you will not see me, but under a vail, yet it is certain, I will be there, in your churches, in your pixes, in your mouths, in your stomaches, and you shall believe and worship.] Had not this been a certain, clear, and proportionable comfort to their complaint, and present necessity, if any such thing were intended? It had been so certain, so clear, so proportionable, that it is more than probable, that if it had been true, it had not been omitted. But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt, by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents, the case is plain, that Christ being to departed hence sent his holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his church the office of a Teacher, which he on earth in person was to his disciples; when he went from hence, he was to come not more in person, and therefore he sent his substitute; and therefore to pretend him to be here in person though under a disguise which we see thorough with the eye of Faith, 
Heb. 9.24. 2 Cor. 5.6.8. Phil. 1.23. & 3.20. Coloss. 3.1.2. S. joh. 14.16. & 16.7.  and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity, is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sense of all the say of Christ concerning his departure hence, and the deputation of the holy Spirit. But for this, because it is naturally impossible, they have recourse to the divine omnipotency: God can do it, therefore he does. But of this I shall give particular account in the Sect. of Reason; as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their heads of proper matter.   

SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense.  
1. THat which is one of the firmest pillars upon which all human notices, and upon which all Christian religion does rely, cannot be shaken; or if it be, all Science 
* 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. 1.8. Phys. r. 22.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Basil. ep. 45.   and all religion must be in danger. Now besides that all our notices of things proceed from sense, and our understanding receives his proper objects, by the mediation of material and sensible phantasms, and the soul in all her operations during this life is served by the ministeries of the body, and the body works upon the soul only by sense; besides this, 
1 S. joh. 1. v. 1, 2, 3.  S. John hath placed the whole religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense as upon one unmoveable foundation. That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of life. And the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and bear witness and declare unto you eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us, which we have seen and heard, we declare unto you. Tertullian, in his book de Animâ, uses this very argument against the Marcionites, Recita Johannis testationem; quod vidimus (inquit) quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, & manus nostrae contrect averunt, de Sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur; his testimony was false, if eyes, and ears, and hands be deceived. In Nature there is not a greater argument than to have heard, and seen, and handled.  
Sed quia profundâ non licet luctarier  
Ratione tecum, 
Supplic. Romani Martyr. Prudent.  consulamus proxima:  
Interrogetur ipsa natur alium  
Simplex sine arte sensuum sententia.  
And by what means can an assent be naturally produced, but by those instruments, by which God conveys all notices to us, that is by seeing, and hearing? Faith comes by hearing, and evidence comes by seeing; and if a man in his wits, and in his health, can be deceived in these things, how can we come to believe?  
Corpus enim per se communis deliquat esse  
Sensus: 
Lucret. l. 1.  quo nisi prima fides fundata valebit  
Haud erit occultis de rebus quo referentes  
Confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus.  
For if a Man or an Angel declares God's will to us, if we may not trust our hearing, we cannot trust him: for we know not whether indeed he says what we think he says; and if God confirms the proposition by a miracle, an ocular demonstration, we are never the nearer to the believing him, because our eyes are not to be trusted. But if feeling also may be abused, when a man is in all other capacities perfectly healthy, than he must be governed by chance, and walk in the dark, and live upon shadows, and converse with phantasms and illusions, as it happens; and than at last it will come to be doubted whether there be any such man as himself; and whether he be awake when he is awake, or not rather, than only awake when he himself and all the world thinks him to have been asleep: Oculatae sunt nostrae manus, credunt quod vident.  
Now than to apply this to the present question in the words of S. Austin, Quod ergo vidistis panis est & calix, 
In Serm. apud Bed. in 1 Cor. 10. Sed haec verba citantur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacram. c. 5. ex Serm. de verbis Domini.  quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant. That which our eyes have seen, that which our hands have handled, is bread; we feel it, taste it, see it to be bread, and we hear it called bread, that very substance which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say, our eyes are deceived, our ears hear a false sound, our taste is abused, our hands are mistaken? 
Bellarm. l. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Jam ad Petrum Martyrem.  It is answered, Nay; our senses are not mistaken; For our senses in health and due circumstances cannot be abused in their proper object, but they may be deceived about that which is under the object of their senses; they are not deceived in colour, and shape, and taste, and magnitude, which are the proper objects of our senses; but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents; and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused. For so Abraham, when he saw an Angel in the shape of a human body, was not deceived in the shape of a man, for there was such a shape; but yet it was not a man, and therefore if he thought it was, he was abused; This is their answer: and if this will not serve the turn, nothing will; This therefore must be examined.  
Now this, instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty, does much increase it, and confesses the thing which it aught to have avoided. For 1. the accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation, and notice of the substance, not of themselves, for as the man feels, but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty, so that which is felt is the substance, and the means by which it is felt is the accidents: as the shape, the colour, the bigness, the motion of a man, are manifestative, and declarative of a human substance: and if they represent a wrong substance, than the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance, or a true sign of a false substance: as if an Alchemist should show me brass coloured like gold, and made ponderous, and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while, the deception is, because there is a pretence of improper accidents; true accidents indeed, but not belonging to that substance. But 2. it is true that is pretended, that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused, as the inward; that is, not so much the eye, as the Man; not the sight, but the judgement: and this is it we complain of. For indeed, in proper speaking, the eye, or the hand is not capable of being deceived; but the man by the eye, or by the ear, or by his hand. The eye sees a colour, or a figure, and the inward sense apprehends it, to be the figure of such a substance, and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident: it is so, or it is not so: if it be, there is no deception; if it be not so, than there is a cozenage: there is no lie till it comes to a proposition either explicit, or implicit; a lie is not in the senses; but when a man by the ministry of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object, or the belief of a false proposition: than he is made to believe a lie: and this is our case, when accidents proper to one substance are made the cover of another, to which they are not naturally communicable. And in the case of the holy Sacrament, the matter, if it were as is pretended, were intolerable. For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived, it is his own fault by passing judgement too soon; as if he should judge glass to be Crystal, because it looks like it; This is not any deception in the senses, nor any injury to the man; because he aught to consider more things than the colour to make his judgement whether it be glass, or Crystal, or diamond, or ice; the hardness, the weight, and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence. And if any two things had all the same accidents, than although the senses were not deceived, yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake. If therefore in the Eucharist (as is pretended) all the accidents of bread remain, than all men must necessarily be deceived; If only one or two did remain, one sense would help the other, and all together would rightly inform the understanding. But when all the accidents remain, they cannot but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper; and than the holy Sacrament would be a constant,  deception of all the world, in that which all men's notices are most evident and most relied upon, I mean their senses. And than the question will not be, whether our senses can be deceived or no. But whether or not it can stand with the justice and goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our senses, since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived? there being in this case as much reason to believe a lie, as to believe a truth, if things were so as they pretend. The result of which is this: That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object; but that a man may, about the substance lying under those accidents which are the object proper to that sense, because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he aught, and he aught to have considered other accidents proper to other senses, in making the judgement; as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes; and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain, and desired the painter to draw it aside; they made judgement of the grapes and the curtain, only by colour and figure, but aught to have considered the weight, the taste, the touch, and the smell: so on the other side, if all the senses concur, than not only is it true that the senses cannot be deceived about that object which is their own, but neither aught the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents; because their ministry is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a man's understanding which God hath appointed. 4. Just upon this account it is, that S. John's argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion: for that God was incarnate, that Jesus Christ did such miracles, that he was crucified, that he risen again and ascended into heaven, that he preached these sermons, that he gave such commandments, he was made to believe by sounds, by shapes, by figures, by motions, by likenesses, and appearances of all the proper accidents: and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses; but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents, of what truth or substance could he be ascertained by their ministry? for he indeed saw the shape of a human body; but it might so be, that not the body of a man, but an Angelical substance might lie under it; and so the article of the assumption of human nature is made uncertain. And upon the same account so are all the other articles of our faith which relied upon the verity of his body and nature: all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents, could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes, and heard with the ears, and handled with our hands; but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents, than the understanding can not more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents, than the senses can in the accidents themselves.  
To the same purpose it was that the Apostles were answered concerning the article of the truth of Christ's resurrection. For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing, and thought it had been a Spirit, Christ called them to feel his hands, 
S. Luk. 24.39.  and to show that it was he; For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have; plainly meaning, 
Quod videtur corpus est: quod palpatur corpus est. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 4.  that the accidents of a body were not communicable to a Spirit; but how easily might they have been deceived, if it had pleased God to invest other substances with new and stranger accidents? For though a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, they may represent to the eyes and hands the accidents of flesh and bones: and if it could in the matter of faith stand with the goodness and wisdom of God to suffer it, what certainty could there be of any article of our religion relating to Christ's humanity, or any proposition proved by miracles? To this instance the man that must answer all, I mean Bellarmine, 
L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Resp. ad Calvinum.  ventures something: saying it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour, Handle and see that I am no Spirit: That which is handled and seen is no Spirit: But it is no good argument to say; This is not seen, not handled, therefore it is no body: and therefore the body of Christ may be naturally in the Sacrament, though it is not seen nor handled. To this I reply, 1. That suppose it were true what he said; yet it would also follow by his own words. This is seen-bread, and is handled, so therefore it is bread. Hoc enim affirmatiuè colligitur. This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord, and here confessed to be certain. It being the same collection. It is I, for by feeling and seeing you shall believe it to be so: and it is bread, for by feeling, and seeing, and tasting, and smelling it you shall perceive it to be so. To which let this be added: That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread, as it is called Christ's body. Now than because it cannot be both in the proper and natural sense, but one of them must be figurative and tropical; since both of the appellatives are equally affirmed, is it not notorious that in this case we aught to give judgement on that side which we are prompted to by common sense? If Christ had said only, This is my body, and no Apostle had told us also that it is bread; we had reason to suspect our senses to be deceived, if it were possible they should be: but when it is equally affirmed to be bread, as to be our Lord's body, and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter, shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in casting the balance? The two affirmatives are equal; one must be expounded tropically, which will you choose? Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite than that what you see, and feel, and taste natural and proper, should be judged to be that which you see, and feel, and taste naturally and properly, and therefore that the other be expounded tropically? since you must expound one of the words tropically, I think it is not hard to determine whether you aught to do it against your sense, or with it. But it is also remarkable that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing prove it to be a body: but by proving it was his body, he proved it was himself; that is, by these accidents representing my person, ye are not led into an error of the person, any more than of the kind of substance; See my hands and my feet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is even I myself; this I noted, jest a silly escape be made, by pretending these accidents only proved Christ to be no Spirit, but a body; and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body, meaning the body of Christ; For as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body, so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind, of this person declare this person. For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be himself in particular; and if it were not so, the deceit would pass from one thing to another; and although it had not been a Spirit, yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead, or Moses, or Elias, and not Jesus their dear Lord. Besides, if this had been all that jesus had intended, only to prove he was no spectrum but a body, he had not done what was intended. For put case it had been a Spirit, and had assumed a body, as Bellarmine in the very next Paragraph forgetting himself, or else being entangled in the wildernesses of an inconsistent discourse, affirms, that in Scriptures, the Israelites did sometimes see; and than they were not deceived in touching or seeing a body; for there was a body assumed, and so it seemed to Abraham and Lot; But than, suppose Jesus. Christ had done so, and had been indeed a Spirit in an assumed body, had not the Apostles been deceived by their feeling and seeing, as well as the Israelites were in thinking those Angels to be men that came to them in human shapes? how had Christ's arguments been pertinent and material? how had he proved that he was no Spirit, by showing a body, which might be the case of a Spirit? but that it is not consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to suffer any illusion in any matter of sense relating to an article of faith.  
2. It was the case of the Christian church once, not only to rely upon the evidence of sense for an introduction to the religion, but also to need and use this argument in confirmation of an article of the Creed. For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christ's body to be fantastical, and so denied the article of the incarnation: and if arguments from sense were not enough to confute them, viz. that the Apostles did see and feel a body, flesh and blood and bones, how could they convince these misbelievers? for whatsoever answer can be brought against the reality of bread, in the Eucharist, all that may be answered in behalf of the Marcionites: for if you urge to them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a body; they answer, it was in Scripture called a body, because it seemed to be so; which is the answer Bellarmine gives to all those places of Scripture which call it bread after consecration. And if you object, that if it be not what it seems, than the senses are deceived; 
L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. § Respondent nonnulli.  They will answer (a Jesuit being by and prompting them) the senses were not deceived, because they only saw colour, shape, figure, and the other accidents, but the inward sense and understanding, that is, the man was deceived when he thought it to be the body of a man: for under those accidents and appearances there was an Angel, or a divinity, but no man: and now upon the grounds of Transubstantiation how can they be confuted, I would feign know.  
But Tertullian disputing against them uses the argument of sense, 
L. de animâ cap. 17.  as the only instrument of concluding against them in fallibly: Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare etc. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses, jest the same doubt be made concerning Christ; jest peradventure it should be said, he was deceived when he said, I saw Satan like lightning fall from heaven; or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him; or jest he should be deceived when he touched Peter's wives mother by the hand; or that he smelled another breath of ointment, and not what was offered to his burial, alium postea vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit, or tasted another taste of wine which he consecrated to the memory of his blood. And if the Catholic Christians had believed the substantial, natural presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses, as the Church of Rome at this day does, seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, it had been impudence in them to have reproved Martion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christ's body. And supposing that our eyes could be deceived, and our taste and our smelling, yet our touch cannot: for supposing the organs equally disposed, yet touch is the guardian of truth, and his nearest natural instrument; all sensation is by touch, but the other senses are more capable of being deceived; because though they finally operate by touch variously affected, yet their objects are further removed from the Organ, and therefore many intermedial things may intervene, and possibly hinder the operation of the sense; that is, bring more diseases and disturbances to the action: but in touch the object and the instrument join close together, and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound, and the object proper. And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. de animâ. l. 3. t. 152.  The touch can never be deceived; and therefore a testimony from it, and three senses more cannot possibly be refused: and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years together should be deceived, as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion, and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together: and indeed the fault in this case could not be in the senses: 
L. de anima c. 17. etc. S. Austin. c. 33. de verâ religione.  and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily, and substantially, that the senses could never be deceived, but the understanding aught to assent to what they relate to it or represent: For if any man thinks the staff is crooked that is set half way in the water, it is the fault of his judgement not of his sense; for the air and the water being several mediums, the eye aught to see otherwise in air, otherwise in water; but the understanding must not conclude falsely from these true premises, which the eye ministers: For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow; and when a man in the yellow jaundice thinks every thing yellow, it is not the fault of his eye, but of his understanding; for the eye does his office right, for it perceives just as is represented to it, the species are brought yellow; but the fault is in the understanding, not perceiving that the species are stained near the eye, not further of: When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter, his taste is not deceived, but judges rightly; for as a man that chews bread and aloes together, tastes not false, if he tastes bitterness; so it is in the sick man's case; the jucie of his meat is mingled with choler, and the taste is acute, and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled. The purpose of which discourse is this, that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense; but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses, the fault is in the understanding, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist l. 3. de anim, l. 156. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ibid.  collecting false conclusions from right premises; It follows therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we aught to judge that which our senses tell us; For whatsoever they say is true: for no deceit can come by them; but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us; especially when the organ is perfect, and the object proper, and the medium regular, and all things perfect, and the same always and to all men. For it is observable, that in this case, the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see, and taste, and smell and feel; and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine; but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour; for that we are to learn by faith, that what is bread and wine in nature is by God's ordinance the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Saviour of the world; but one cannot contradict another; and therefore they must be reconciled: both say true, that which Faith teaches is certain, and that which the senses of all men teach always, that also is certain and evident; for as the rule of the School says excellently, Grace never destroys nature but perfects it, 
Aquin. part. 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad. 2.  and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine; in which although we are more to regard their signification than their matter, their holy employment, than their natural usage, what they are by grace rather, than what they are by nature, that they are Sacramental rather than that they are nutritive, that they are consecrated and exalted by religion, rather than that they are mean and low in their natural beings, what they are to the spirit and understanding, rather than what they are to the sense; yet this also is as true and as evident as the other: and therefore though not so apt for our meditation, yet as certain as that which is.  
3. Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread, and that wine is wine; yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not pass for sufficient, an impudent person may without possibility of being confuted, outface any man, that an oyster is a rat, and that a candle is a pig of lead: and so might the Egyptian Soothsayerss have been too hard for Moses: for when they changed rods into Serpents, they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses; But if they had failed to turn the water into blood they needed not to have been troubled, if they could have borne down Pharaoh that though it looked like water, and tasted like water, yet by their enchantment they had made it verily to be blood: And upon this ground of having different substances, unproper and disproportioned accidents, what hinders them but they might have said so? and if they had, how should they have been confuted? But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason, and all science, and all notices of things; and we may as well, conclude snow to be black; and fire cold; and two and two, to make five and twenty.  
But (it is said) although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents, yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape, and blood and flesh hath been pulled out of the mouths of the communicants, and Plegilus the Priest saw an Angel, showing Christ to him in form of a child upon the altar, whom first he took in his arms and kissed; but did eat him up presently in his other shape, in the shape of a Wafer; Speciosa certè pax Nebulonis, ut qui oris praebuerat basium, 
Guil. Malmesbur. de Gestis Regum Anglorum l. 3.  dentium inferres exitium, said Berengarius. It was but a Judas kiss to kiss with the lip, and by't with the teeth. But if such stuff as this may go for argument, we may be cloyed with them in those unanswerable Authors, Simeon Metaphrastes for the Greeks, and Jacobus de Voragine for the Latin, who make it a trade to lie for God and for the interest of the Catholic cause. But however, I shall tell a piece of a true story. In the time of Soter Pope of Rome, there was an Impostor called Mark; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was his appellative: 
Irenae l. 1. c. 9  and he [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] pretending to make the chalice of wine and water eucharistical, saying long prayers over it, made it look read or purple, that it might be thought, that grace which is above all things, does drop the blood into the chalice by invocation.] Such as these have been often done by human artifice or by operation of the Devil, said Alexander of Ales. 
Sum Theod. part. 4. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4 § 3.  If such things as these were done regularly, it were pretence enough to say it is flesh and blood that is in the Eucharist; but when nothing of this is done by God; but heretics and knaves, Jugglers and Impostors hoping to change the Sacrament into a charm by abusing the spiritual sense into a gross and carnal, against the authority of Scripture and the Church, reason or religion, have made pretences of those things, and still the Holy Sacrament in all the times of ministration hath the form and all the perceptibilities of bread and wine: as we may believe those Impostors did more rely upon the pretences of sense than of other arguments, and distrusting them did fly to these as the greater probation: so we rely upon that way of probation, which they would have counterfeited, but which indeed Christ in his institution hath still left in the nature of the symbols, viz. that it is that which it seems to be, and that the other superinduced predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sense which may still consist with that substance, whose proper and natural accidents remain, and are perceived by the mouth and hands and eyes of all men. To which this may be added, that by the doctrine of the late Roman Schools all those pretences of real appearances of Christ's body or blood must be necessarily concluded to be Impostures, or airy phantasms, and illusions; because themselves teach that Christ's body is so in the Sacrament, that Christ's own eyes cannot see his own body in the Sacrament: and in that manner by which it is there, it cannot be made visible, not not by the absolute power of God. Nay it can be neither seen, nor touched, nor tasted, nor felt, nor imagined. It is the doctrine of Suarez in 3 Tho. disp. 53. §. 3. and disp. 52. §. 1. and of Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp. 191. n. 22. which besides that it reproves the whole article, by making it incredible and impossible, it doth also infinitely convince all these apparitions (if ever there were any) of deceit, and fond illusion. I had no more to say in this particular but that the Roman Doctors pretend certain words out of S. Cyrils' fourth mystagogique Catechism, against the doctrine of this Paragraph: pro certissimo habeas etc. Be sure of this, that this bread which is seen of us is not bread, although the taste perceives it to be bread, but the body of Christ; For under the species of bread, the body is given to thee; under the species of wine the blood is given to thee. Here if we will trust S. Cyrils' words, at lest in Beauties and Brerely's sense, and understand of them before you will believe your own eyes, you may. For S. Cyril bids you not believe your sense. For taste and sight tells you it is bread, but it is not. But here is no harm done. 2. For himself plainly explains his meaning, in his next Catechism. Think not that you taste bread and wine (saith he) No, what than? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the antitypes of the body and blood: and in this very place, he calls bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a type, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore it is very ill rendered by the Roman Priests by Species; which signifies accidental forms: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. signifies not such thing, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which is not S. Cyrils' word 3. He says it is not bread, though the taste feel; it so that is, it is not mere bread, which is an usual expression among the Fathers, 
L. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. Psal. 22. homil. 16.  Non est panis communis, says Irenaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Justin Martyr, just as S. Chrysostom says of Baptismal water, it is not common water, and as S. Cyril himself says of the Sacramental bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not mere bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Lord's body. For if it were not that, in some sense or other, it were still mere bread, but that it is not. But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures, that restrained and modificated negatives be propounded in simple and absolute forms. I have given them statutes which are not good. Ezek. 20.25. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Hos. 6.6. They have not rejected thee, but me: 1 Sam. 8.7. It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father. I came not to sand peace, but a sword. S. Mat. 10.20. & 34. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And, If I hear witness of myself my witness is not true. S. John 5.31. which is expressly confronted by S. John 8.14. Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; which shows manifestly that the simple and absolute negative in the former place must in his signification be restrained. So S. Paul speaks usually. Henceforth I know noman according to the flesh, 2 Cor. 5.16. We have no strife against flesh and blood, Ephes. 6.12. And in the ancient Doctors nothing more ordinary, than to express limited senses by unlimited words; which is so known, that I should loose my time, and abuse the reader's patience if I should heap lip. instances. So Irenaeus. He that hath received the Spirit, is no more flesh and blood, but Spirit. And Epiphanius affirms the same of the flesh of a temperate man; It is not flesh, but is changed into Spirit: so we say of a drunken man, and a furious person; He is not a man, but a beast. And they speak thus particularly in the matter of the holy Sacrament, as appears in the instances above reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise. But to return to the present objection, it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread, though the sense suppose it to be so, for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived, which he affirms not, and if he had, we could not have believed him: but he says, [though the sense perceive it to be bread] so that it is still bread, else the taste would not perceive it to be so; but it is more, and the sense does not perceive it; for it is the body of our Lord; here than is his own answer, plainly opposed to the objection; he says, it is not bread, that is, it is not mere bread; and so say we: he says, that it is the body of our Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the antitype of the Lords body, and so say we; He says, the sense perceives it to be bread; but it is more than the sense perceives; so he implies, and so we affirm; and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us, and our understanding too, for all it learns besides. The like to this are the words of S. chrysostom, 
83 Homil. upon S. Mat.  where he says [We cannot be deceived by his words, but our sense is often deceived, look not at what is before us, but observe Christ's words. Nothing sensible is given to us, but things insensible, by things sensible etc. This, and many higher things than this, are in S. chrysostom, not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also. Think not thou receivest the body from a man, but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim; that for the Eucharist: and for Baprisme this; The Priest baptises thee not, but God holds thy head. In the same sense that these admit, in the same sense we may understand his other words; they are Tragical and high, but may have a sober sense; but literally they sound a contradiction; that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament; and yet that nothing insensible should be given, but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here: Only this, the words of S. chrysostom are good counsel, and such as we follow; for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense, or resolve all into it; but we trust it only for so much as it aught to be trusted for; but we do not finally rest upon it, but upon faith, and look not on the things proposed, but attend to the words of Christ, and though we see it to be bread, we also believe it to be his body, in that sense which he intended.   

SECT. XI. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason.  
1. WHen we discourse of mysteries of faith and articles of religion, it is certain that the greatest reason in the world, to which all other reasons must yield, is this, God hath said it, therefore it is true. Now if God had expressly said, This which seems to be bread is my body, in the natural sense, or to that purpose, there had been no more to be said in the affair; all reasons against it had been but sophisms: When Christ hath said, This is my body, no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words, all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith: but since Christ did not affirm that he spoke it in the natural sense, but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices, but in common sense much evidence against it, if reason also protests against the article, it is the voice of God, and to be heard in this question. For, Nunquam aliud natura; 
Juven. Sat. 14.2.  aliud sapientia dicit.  
And this the rather, because there are so many ways to verify the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation, that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason, whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified, if Transubstantiation be condemned: as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true, which in Rome he offered to dispute publicly, that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini, which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms, means, that it may be bread and Christ's body too; or 2ly if Luther's and the ancient Schoolmens way be true, that Christ's body be present together with the bread. In that sense Christ's words might be true, though no Transubstantiation; and this is the sense which is followed by the Greek Church. 3. If Boquinus way be true, that between the bread and Christ's body there were a communication of proprieties, as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour; than as we say, God gave himself for us, and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God, and God suffered and risen again, meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity, so we may say, this is Christ's body, by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united. 4. If our way be admitted, that Christ is there after a real, spiritual manner; the words of Christ are true, without any need of admitting Transubstantiation. 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the 2d Apology of Justin Martyr, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, My body is this, that is, is nourishment Spiritual, as this is Natural. 6. The way of joannes Campanus would afford me a sixth instance, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, meum as it is mea creatura. 7. johannes à Lasco, Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministry, and mean that to be representative of Christ's body. 8. If Rupertus the Abbats way were admitted, which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus, that between Christ's body and the consecrated symbols there was an hypostatical union, than both substances would remain, and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis, this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon; all which, or any of which if it were admitted, the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted: and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation, and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said, Reason is not to be heard against an article of faith; for that this is an article of faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ, which are capable of so many meanings. Therefore reason in this case is to be heard, by them that will give a reason of their faith; as it is commanded in Scripture; much less is that to be admitted which Fisher, or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King james; that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason, therefore it is to be admitted, as if faith were more faith, for being against reason: Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas, non intelligit qui hoc facit, & non Scriptur arum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit, sed suum potiùs objicit veritati: nec quod in eyes, sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit, opponit. He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason, does neither understand himself nor the Scripture. Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular, the more it seems against my reasons, the greater is my obedience in submitting; but that is because my reasons are but Sophisms, since truth itself hath declared plainly against them: but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason, my reason must not be contested, by a pretence of faith but, upon some other account; Ratio cum ratione concertet.  
2. But this is such a fine device that it can (if it be admitted) warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world; For when Christ said [If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out] Here are the plain words of Christ; And [Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of heaven] Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sense: and why do we not do it? because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause, which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments. Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plainwords of Christ, and the greatery our reason is against it, the greater excellency in your obedience; that as Abraham against hope believed in hope, so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason, the Divine revelation: and what can be spoken against this?  
3. 
Prompt. Cath. fer. 3. hebd. Sanct. §. 3. in haec verba. Hoc est corpus meum.  Stapleton confuting Luther's opinion of Consubsubstantiation pretends against in many absurdities drawn from reason; and yet it would have been ill taken, if it should have been answered that the doctrine aught the rather to be believed, because it is so unreasonable; which answer is something like our new Preachers discourse; who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men, because they have no learning, they are to confounded the wise, because they are the weak things of the world, and that they are to be heard the rather, because there is the less reason they should, so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily. But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this article; being contented with this, that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing, they may be reproved by saying, they refuse to hear reason, and it will not be easy for them in despite of reason to pretend faith, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
a Thess. 3.2.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unreasonable men and they that have not faith, are equivalent in S. Paul's expression.  
1. I shall lay this prejudice in the article as relating to the discourses of reason; that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ, but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole; and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body. And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousin fools into a belief of the possibility, they pretend to no instance, but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed, so also are the accidents: sometimes the accident is changed in the same remaining substance; but if the substance be changed, the accidents never remain the same individually; or in kind, unless they be symbolical, that is, are common to both, as in the change of elements, of air into fire, of water into earth. Thus when Christ changed water into wine, the substances being changed, the accidents also were altered, and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water; for than though it had been the stranger miracle, that wine should be wine, and yet look and taste like water, yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person, if he should have offered to prove his mission by such a miracle. For if Christ had said to the guests; To prove that I am come from God, I will change this water into wine; well might this prove his mission: but if while the guests were wondering at this, he should proceed and say, wonder ye not at this, for I will do a stranger thing than it, for this water shall be changed into wine, and yet I will so order it, that it shall look like water, and taste like it, so that you shall not know one from the other: Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous; and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation, if it were at all, and yet that none of these should be seen; for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived? It can prove nothing, nor do any thing, when itself is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh, and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies (which I have seen urged for the credibility of Transubstantiation) The bread as it changes his nature, changes his accidents too, and is flesh in colour, and shape, and dimensions, and weight, and operation, as well as it is in substance. Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us, it is so in the holy Sacrament. For if it be not so, than no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent: for 1. though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body, yet it is always with change of their proper accidents; and than 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended, that one aught to be or can be without the other. For he that says this is the body of a man, says that it hath the substance of a human body, and all his consequents, that is, the accidents; and he that says this is the body of Alexander, says (besides the substance) that it hath all the individuating conditions, which are the particular accidents; and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body, did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance: because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this. Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed, because they see them remain; I might reply, Why will they believe their sense against faith? since there may be evidence, but here is certainty, and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can: and it is certain, that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another, of substance from his usual accidents. This is my body. Hoc, Hîc, Nunc, and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for all the words of our blessed Saviour, why shall not their reason also? or is nothing so certain to the understanding, as any thing is to the eye? If therefore it be unreasonable to say that the accidents of bread are changed against our sense, so it will be unreasonable to say, that the substance is changed against our reason; Not but that God can, and does often change one substance into another, and it is done in every natural production of a substantial form; but that we say it is unreasonable that this should be changed into flesh (not to flesh simply, for so it is when we eat it, nor into Christ's flesh simply, for so it might have been, if he had, as it is probable he did, eaten the Sacrament himself, But) into that body of Christ which is in heaven he remaining there, and being whole and impassable, and unfrangible, this we say is unreasonable and impossible: and that's now to be proved.  
2. In this question when our adversaries are to cousin any of the people, they tell them, the Protestants deny Gods omnipotency, for so they are pleased to call, our denying their dreams: And this device of theirs to escape is older than their doctrine of Transubstantiation, for it was the trick of the Monarchians, the Eutichians, the Apollinarists, the Arrians when they were confuted by the arguments of the Catholics, to fly to God's omnipotency; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says 
* Orat. 51. Theodor. dial. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tertull. contr. Praxeam. p. 10.  Nazianzen and it was very usually by the Fathers called the Sanctuary of Heretics: potentia (inquiunt) ei haec est ut falsa sint vera: mendaois est ut falsum dicat verum, 
79 vet. & Nou. Testament.  quod Deo non competit, saith S. Austin. They pretend it to belong to God's power to verify their doctrine, that is to make falsehood truth; that is not power, but a lie, which cannot be in God, and this was an older than the Arrians; it was the trick of the old Tragedians; So Plato told them; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
De nature. Deor. l. 1. Plato in Cratylo.  which Cicero rendering, says, cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad Deum. When you cannot bring your argument about, you fly to the power of God. But when we say this is impossible to be done, either we mean it naturally or ordinarily impossible, that is, such a thing which cannot without a miracle be done; as a child cannot with his hands break a giant's arm, or a man cannot eat a Millstone, or with his finger touch the Moon. Now in matters of religion, although to show a thing to be thus impossible is not enough to prove it was not at all, if God said it was; for although to man it be impossible, yet to God all things are possible; yet when the question is of the sense of the words of Scripture which are capable of various interpretations, he that brings an argument ab impossibili against any one interpretation, showing that it infers such an ordinary impossibility as cannot be done without a miracle, hath sufficiently concluded (not against the words, for nothing aught to prejudice them, but) against such an interpretation as infers that impossibility. Thus when in Scripture we found it recorded that Christ was born of a Virgin, to say this is impossible is no argument against it, because although it be naturally impossible (which I think is demonstrable against the Arabian Physicians) yet to him that said it, it is also possible to do it. But than if from hence any man shall obtrude as an article of faith, that the blessed Virgin Mother was so a Virgin that her holy Son came into the world without any aperture of his mother's womb, I doubt not but an argument ab impossibili is a sufficient conviction of the falsehood of it; though this impossibility be only an ordinary and natural; because the words of Scripture affirming Christ to be born of a virgin, say only that he was not begotten by natural generation; not that his egression from his Mother's womb made a Penetration of dimensions. To instance once more: The words of Scripture are plain, That Christ is man, That Christ is God; Here are two natures and yet but one Christ; No impossibility aught to be pretended against these plain words, but they must be sophisms, because they dispute against truth itself. But now if a Monothelite shall say that by this unity of nature, God hath taught an unity of wills in Christ, and that he had but one will, because he is but one person; I do not doubt but an argument from an ordinary and natural impossibility will be sufficient to convince him of his heresy; and in this case the Monothelite hath no reason to say that the orthodox Christian denies God's omnipotency, and says that God cannot unite the will of Christ's humanity to the will of his Divinity. And this is true in every thing which is not declared minutely, and in his particular sense. There is ordinarily not greater argument in the world, and none better is commonly used, nor any better required, than to reduce the opinion to an impossibility; for if this be not true without a miracle, you must prove your extraordinary, and demonstrate your miracle; which will be found to be a new impossibility. A sense that cannot be true without a miracle to make it so, it is a miracle if it be true; and therefore let the literal sense in any place be presumed and have the advantage of the first offer or presumption; yet if it be ordinarily impossible to be so, and without a miracle cannot be so, and the miracle not where affirmed, than to affirm the literal sense is the hugest folly that can be in the interpretation of any Scriptures.  
But there is an impossibility which is absolute, which God cannot do, therefore because he is almighty; for to do them, were impotency and want of power; as God cannot lie, he cannot be deceived, he cannot be mocked, he cannot dye, he cannot deny himself, nor do unjustly: And I remember that Dionysius brings in (by way of scorn) Elymas the Sorcerer finding fault with S. Paul for saying, God could not deny himself; as if the saying so, were denying God's omnipotency; so Elymas objected; as is to be seen in the book de Divin. Nom. c. 8. And by the consent of all the world it is agreed upon this expression, That God cannot reconcile contradictions; that is, It is no part of the divine omnipotency to make the same proposition true and false at the same time, in the same respect; It is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time, that the same thing so constituted in his own formality should loose the formality or essential affirmative; and yet remain the same thing. For it is absolutely the first truth that can be affirmed in Metaphysical notices. Nothing can be and not be. This is it in which all men and all Sciences, and all religions are agreed upon as a prime truth in all senses, and without distinctions. For if any thing could be and not be at the same time, than there would be something whose being were not to be. 
Quest. in Phys. l. 3. q 4.  Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expressly that not only those things cannot be done by God which intrinsically, formally, and expressly infer two contradictories, but those also which the understanding at the first proposal, does by his natural light dissent from, and can by no means admit; because that which is so repugnant to the understanding, naturally does suâ naturâ repugnare, is impossible in the nature of things; and therefore when it is said in S. Luke, nothing is impossible with God, it is meant; Nothing is impossible, but that which naturally repugns to the understanding.  
Now to apply this to the present question; Our adversaries do not deny, but that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation there are a great many impossibilities, which are such naturally and ordinarily; but by divine power they can be done; but that they are done they have no warrant, but the plain literal sense of the words of Hoc est corpus meum: Now this is so far from proving that God does work perpetual miracles to verify their sense of it, that the working of miracles aught to prove that to be the sense of it. Now the probation of a proposition by miracles, is an open thing, clear as thunder, and being a matter of sense, and consequently more known than the thing which they intent to prove, aught not to be proved by that which is the thing in question. And therefore to say that God will work a miracle rather than his words should be false, is certain but impertinent: For concerning the words themselves there is no question, and therefore now, not more need of miracles to confirm them; concerning the meaning of them is the question; They say this is the meaning. Quest. How do you prove it since there are so many impossibilities in it naturally and ordinarily? Ans. Because God said it, therefore it is true: Resp. Yea, that God said the words we doubt not, but that his words are to be understood in your sense, that I doubt; because if I believe your sense I must admit many things ordinarily impossible. Ans. Yea, but nothing is impossible to God. Resp. True, nothing that can be done, exceeds his power; but supposing this absolutely possible, yet how does it appear that God will do a miracle to verify your sense, which otherwise cannot be true; when without a miracle the words may be true in many other senses? I am dic Posthume: for it is hard that men by a continual effort and violence should maintain a proposition against reason and his unquestionable maxims, thinking it sufficient to oppose against it God's omnipotency; as if the crying out a miracle, were a sufficient guard against all absurdity in the world: as if the wisdom of God did arm his power against his truth, and that it were a fineness of Spirit to be able to believe the two parts of a contradiction; and all upon confidence of a miracle which they cannot prove. And indeed it were something strange, that thousands and thousands of times, every day for above 1500 years together, the same thing should be done, and yet this should be called a miracle, that is, a daily extraordinary; for by this time it would pass into nature and a rule, and so become a supernatural natural event, an extraregular rule, an extraordinary ordinary, a perpetual wonder, that is, a wonder and no wonder: and therefore I may infer the proper corollaries of this argument, in the words of Scotus, whose opinion it was pity it could be overborne by tyranny. 1. 
Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. tit. b.  That the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation. And this I have already proved. 2. The substance of bread under the accidents is more a nourishment than the accidents themselves, and therefore more represents Christ's body in the formality of Spiritual nourishment. And indeed, that I may add some weight to these words of Scotus which are very true and very reasonable; 1. It cannot be told why bread should be chosen for the symbol of the body, but because of his nourishing faculty, and that the accidents should nourish without substance, is like feeding a man with music, and quenching his thirst with a Diagram. 2. It is fantastical and Mathematical bread not natural, which by the doctrine of Transubstantiation is represented on the table, and therefore unfit to nourish or to typify that which can. 3. Painted bread might as well be symbolical as the real, if the real bread become no bread: for than that which remains is nothing but the accidents, as colour and dimensions etc. But Scotus proceeds. 3. That understanding of the words of institution that the substance of bread is not there, seems harder to be maintained, and to it more inconveniences are consequent, than by putting the substance of bread to be there. 4. Lastly, it is a wonder why in one article which is not a principal article of faith, such a sense should be affirmed, for which faith is exposed to the contempt of all that follow reason: and all this is because in Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities. In hâc conversione sunt plura difficiliora quàm in creatione, 
3. q. 75. art. 2. ad 3.  said Aquinas, There are more difficulties in this conversion of the Sacrament, than in the whole Creation.  
But than because we are speaking concerning what may be done by God, it aught to be considered that it is rash and impudent to say that the body of Christ cannot by the power of God (who can do all things) be really in the Sacrament without the natural conversion of bread into him. God can make that the body of Christ should be de novo in the Sacrament of the altar, without any change of itself, and without the change of any thing into itself, yet some change being made about the bread, or something else. They are the words of Durand 
* Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. . Cannot God in any sense make this proposition true; This bread is the body of Christ, or this is bread and Christ's body too? If they say he cannot, than it is a clear case, who it is that denies God's omnipotency. If God can, than how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation? This also would be considered.  
But now concerning impossibilities, if it absolute can be evinced that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions, than it is not only an intolerable prejudice against the doctrine, as is the ordinary and natural impossibility; but it will be absolutely impossible to be true, and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion, and much more to adopt it into the body of faith. And therefore when S. Paul had quoted that place of Scripture; He hath put all things under him; he adds, It is evident, that he is excepted who did put all things under him; for if this had not been so understood, than he should have been under himself, and he that gave the power should be lessened, and be inferior to him that received it; which because they infer impossibilities, like those which are consequent to Transubstantiation, S. Paul makes no more of it but to say, The contrary is manifest against the unlimited literal sense of the words. Now for the eviction of this, these two mediums are to be taken. The one, that this doctrine affirms that of the essence, or existence of a thing which is contrary to the essence or existence of it, and yet that the same thing remains; that is, that the essence remains without the essence, that is, without itself. The other, that this doctrine makes a thing to be and not to be at the same time: I shall use them both but promiscuously, because they are reducible to one.  
The doctrine of Transubstantiation, is against the nature and essence of a body. 
Lib. 3. Euch. c. 2. §. ult.  Bellarmine seems afraid of this; for, immediately before, he goes about to prevaricate about the being of a body in many places at once, he says, that if the essence of things were evidently and particularly known, than we might know what does, and what does not imply a contradiction; but, id non satis constat, there is no certainty of that; by that pretended uncertainty making way as he hopes to escape from all the pressure of contradictions that lie upon the prodigious philosophy of this Article: But we shall make a shift so far to understand the essence of a body, as to evince this doctrine to be full of contradictions.  
1. For Christ's body, his Natural body is changed into a Spiritual body, and it is not now a Natural body but a Spiritual; and therefore cannot be now in the Sacrament after a natural manner, because it is so no where, and therefore not there; It is sown a natural body, it is raised a Spiritual body. And therefore though this Spirituality be not a change of one substance into another, yet it is so a change of the same substance, that it hath lost all those accidents which were not perfective nor constitutive, but imperfect and separable from the body; and therefore in no sense of nature can it be manducated. And here is the first contradiction. The body of Christ is in the Sacrament. The same body is in heaven. In heaven it cannot be broken naturally; In the Sacrament they say it is broken naturally and properly; therefore the same body is and is not, it can and it cannot be broken. To this they answer, that it is broken under the Species of bread; Not in itself; Well! is it broken or is it not broken? let it be broken under what it will, if it be broken, the thing is granted. For if by being broken under the Species, it be meant that the Species be broken alone, and not the body of Christ, than they take away in one hand what they reach forth with the other. This being a better argument, The Species only are broken, the Species are not Christ's body, therefore Christ's body is not broken: better I say than this, The body of Christ is under the Species, the Species alone are broken, therefore the body of Christ is broken. For how can the breaking of Species or accidents, infer the breaking of Christ's body, unless the accidents be Christ's body, or inseparable from it? or rather, How can the breaking of the accidents infer the breaking of Christ's body when it cannot be broken? To this I desire a clear and intelligible answer. Add to this, how can Species, that is, accidents, be broken, but when a substance is broken? for an accident properly, such as smell, colour, taste, hath of itself no solid, and consistent, nor indeed any fluid parts, nothing whereby it can be broken, and have a part divided from a part; but as the substance in which the accident is subjected becomes divided, so do the inherent accidents; but no otherwise: and if this cannot be admitted, men cannot know what one another say or mean, they can have no notices of things or regular propositions.  
2. But I demand, When we speak of a body, what we mean by it? For in all discourses and intercourses of mankind by words, we must agreed concerning each others meaning; when we speak of a body, of a substance, of an accident, what does mankind agreed to mean by these words? All the Philosophers and all the wise men in the world, when they divide a substance from an accident, mean by a substance that which can subsist in itself without a subject of inherence.  
But an accident is, that whose very essence is to be in another: 

Aristot. lib. 1. posterior. cap. 6. & lib. 2. cap. 10. Metaph. lib. 6. cap. 4.  
Idem significatur per ipsum nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod abit cum substantiâ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, receptum scilicet in subjecto. Accidens quod accidit.   When they speak of a body and separate it from a Spirit, they mean that a Spirit is that which hath no material, divisible parts, physically; that which hath nothing of that which makes a body, that is, extension, limitation by lines, and superficies and material measures. The very first notion and conception of things teaches all men, that what is circumscribed and measured by his proper place is there and no where else. For if it could be there and be in another place, it were two and not one. A finite Spirit can be but in one place, but it is there without circumscription; that is, it hath no parts measured by the parts of a place, but is there after another manner than a body, that is, it is in every part of his definition or spiritual location. So it is said, a soul is in the whole body; not that a part of it is in the hand, and a part of it in the eye, but it is whole in the whole, and whole in every part; and it is true that it is so, if it be wholly immaterial: because that which is spiritual and immaterial, cannot have material parts. But when we speak of a body, all the world means that, which hath a finite quantity, and is determined to one place. This was the philosophy of all the world, taught in all the schools of the Christians and Heathens, even of all mankind, till the doctrine of Transubstantiation was to be nursed and maintained, and even after it was born, it could not be forgotten by them who were bound to keep it. And I appeal to any man of the Roman persuasion, if they can show me any ancient Philosopher, Greek, or Roman, or Christian of any Nation, who did not believe it to be essential to the being of a body to be in one place: 
Plaut. Amphitr. act. 2. sc. 1.  and Amphitruo in the old Comedy had reason to be angry with Sosia upon this point. Tun' id dicere audes, quod nemo unquam homo antehac vidit, nec potest fieri, tempore uno, Homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit? And therefore to make the body of Christ to be in a 1000 places at once, and yet to be but one body, To be in heaven and to be upon so many altars, to be on the altar in so many round wafers, is to make a body to be a spirit, and to make a finite to be infinite; for nothing can be so but an infinite Spirit.  
Neither will it be sufficient to fly here to God's omnipotency: for God can indeed make a body to be a Spirit; but can it consist with the divine being to make an infinite substance? can there possibly be two Categorematical, that is, positive substantial infinites? or can it be that a finite should, remaining finite, yet not be finite, but indefinite and in innumerable places at once 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plotin. l. de anim. apud Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 15. ? God can new created the body and change it into a Spirit; But can a body, remaining a body, be at the same time a Spirit? or can it be a body, and yet not be in a place? is it not determined so, that remaining in a place it cannot be out of it? if these things could be otherwise, than the same thing at the same time could be a Body and a Spirit, limited and unlimited, wholly in a place, and wholly out of it, finite and infinite, a body and yet no body, one and yet many, the same and not the same, that is, it should not be itself. Now although God can change any thing from being the thing it is, to become another thing, yet is it not a contradiction to say, it should be the same it is, and yet not the same? These are the essential, immediate consequents of supposing a body remaining a body, whose essence it is to be finite and determined in one place, can yet so remaining be in a thousand places.  
3. The Socinians teach that our bodies at the resurrection shall be (as they say Christ's body now is) changed substantially. For corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal, natural and spiritual, are substantial differences: and now our bodies being natural, corruptible, and mortal, differ substantially from bodies spiritual, immortal and incorruptible, as they shall be hereafter, and as the body of our Lord now is. Now I am sure the Church of Rome allows not of this doctrine in these; neither have they reason for it; But do not they admit that in hypothesi which they deny in thesi? For is it not a perfect change of substance that a body from finite is changed to be at lest potentially infinite, from being determined in one place to be indesinite and indeterminable? To loose all his essential proprieties must needs infer a substantial change 
a Quomedo erit Sol splendore privatus? vel quomodo erit splendour, nisi Sol sit à quo defluat? Ignis verò quomodo crit calore carens? vel calor unde manabit nisi ab igne? Cyril. Alex. l. 1. in 1. c. joh. ; and that it is of the essence of a body to be in one place, at lest an essential propriety, they will not I suppose be so impudent as to deny, since they fly to the divine omnipotency and a perpetual miracle to make it be otherwise: which is a plain demonstration that naturally it is so; this therefore they are to answer if they can.  
But let us see what Christian philosophy teaches us in this particular. S. Austin is a good probable Doctor, and may be trusted for a proposition in Natural philosophy. These are his conclusions in this article. 
b Serm. Dom. monte. c. 9  Corpora quae non possunt esse nisi in loco. Body's cannot be but in their place. 
c In Psal. 86.  Angustias omnipotentiae corpord patiuntur, nec ubique possunt esse, nec semper; Divinitas autem ubique praestò est. The Divinity is present every where, but not bodies, they are not omnipotent: meaning, it is a propriety of God to be in many places, an effect of his omnipotence. But more plainly yet, 
d Ep. 57  Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt, if you take from bodies the spaces of place, they will be not where, and if they be not where, they will not be at all: and to apply this to the present question, he affirms, 
* Tract. 31. in johan.  Christus homo secundùm corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est. Christ as man according to the body is in a place and goes from a place, and when he comes to another place is not in the place from whence he came. For besides that so to do is of the verity of Christ's body, that it should have the same affections with ours; according as it is insisted upon in divers places of the Scripture, particularly, S. Luke 24.39. it is also in the same place, and in the story apparent, that the case was not altered after the resurrection, but Christ moved finitely by dimensions, 
Dial. 2.  and change of places. So Theodoret, Dominicum corpus incorruptibile resurrexit & impatibile & immortal, & divinâ gloriâ glorificatum est, & à coelestibus adoratur potestatibus; corpus tamen est, priorem habens circumscriptionem. Christ's body even after the resurrection is circumscribed as it was before. And therefore as it is impious to deny God to be invisible: so it is profane, not to believe and profess the son of God in his assumed humanity to be visible, 
Lib. de essent. Divinit.  corporeal, and local after the resurrection: It is the saying of S. Austin.  
And I would feign know how it will be answered, that they attribute to the body of Christ, which is his own creature, the incommunicable attribute of ubiquity, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stob. tit. 3.  either actually or potentially. For let them say; is it not an attribute of God to be unlimited and to be undefined by places? S. Austin says it, and it is affirmed by natural reason, and all the world attributes this to God, as a propriety of his own. If it be not his own, than all the world hath been always deceived till this new generation arose. If it be let them fear the horrid consequent of giving that to a creature which is the glory of the Creator. And if they think to escape by saying, that they do not attribute to it actual ubiquity, but potential, that is, that though he be not, yet he may be every where; let it be considered; if the argument of the Fathers was good (by which they proved the Divinity of the holy Ghost) This is every where, therefore this is God; is it not also as good to say, This may be every where, therefore this may be God? And than it will be altogether as bad as any thing can be imagined, for it makes the incommunicable attribute of God, to be communicable to a creature; and not only so, but it is worse, for it makes, that an actual creature may be a potential God, that is, that there can be a God which is not eternally a God, that is not a pure act, a God that is not yet, but that shall have a beginning in time.  
4 There was not in all School Divinity, nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place circumscriptiuè, destinitiuè, repletiuè. The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament circumscriptively, because there he could be but in one altar, in one wafer. It is not there definitively for the same reason, because to be definitely in a place is to be in it so as to be there, and no where else. And both these are affirmed by their own Turrecremata; 
Super Decret. 3. part. de consecrat. d. 2. cap. Quid sit.  It remains, that it must be repletiuè in many places, which we use to attribute to God only, and it is that manner of being in a place, by which God is distinguished from his creatures; But now a fourth word must be invented, and that is Sacramentalitèr, Christ's body is Sacramentally in more places than one: which is very true, that is, the Sacrament of Christ's body is: and so is his body figuratively, tropically, representatively in being, and really in effect and blessing. But this is not a natural, real being in a place, but a relation to a person; the other three are all the manners of location which the soul of Man could yet ever apprehended.  
5 It is essential to a body to have partem extra partem, one part without the other, answering to the parts of his place; for so the eyes stand separate from the hands, and the ears from the feet, and the head from the belly. But in Transubstantiation the whole body is in a point, in a minimum naturale, in the lest imaginable crumb of consecrated bread: how than shall nose and eyes, and head and hands, be distinct? unless the mutiny of the members be reconciled, and all parties pleased, because the feet shall be the eyes, and the leg shall be the head, and possess each others dimension and proper cells of dwelling. Quod ego non credo, 
In Decret. de council. dist. 2. ubi pars in Glossâ.  said an ancient Gloss: I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces: viz. Whether Christ's whole body be so there, that the prepuce is not wanting? Suarez supposing that as probable, 
In Thom. tom. 3. disp. 51.  others denying it, but disputing it fiercely; Neither will I make scrutiny concerning eating Christ's bones, guts, hair, and nails; nor suppose the Roman Priests to be such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to have such saws in their mouths: these are appendages of their persuasion, but to be abominated by all Christian and modest persons, who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts, and not to devour, but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation, and much more in the union with his divinity. But that which I now insist upon is, that in a body there cannot be indistinction of parts, but each must possess his own portion of place; and if it does not, a body cannot be a body, nor distinguished from a Spirit.  
6. When a body is broken into half, one half is separate from another and remains divided; but in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the wafer which they say is Christ's whole body, if it be broken, is broken into two whole ones, not into the halfs of one; and so there shall be two bodies, if each half make one, and yet those two bodies are but one and not two. Add to this, if each wafer be Christ's body whole, and the fraction of it makes that every part is whole Christ; than every communicant can consecrated as well as the Priest, for at his breaking the host in his mouth, why the body should not also become whole to each part in the mouth, as well as to each part in the hand is one of the unintelligible secrets of this mystery.  
Aquinas says that The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, in the manner of a body, but of a substance, and so is whole in the whole: Well; suppose that for a while: yet 1. Those substances which are whole in the whole, are by his own doctrine neither divisible nor multiplicable, and how than can Christ's body be supposed to be 
* 
Corpus Christi est multiplicatum ad omne punctum hostiae. Tho. Waldens. tom. 2. c. 55.  
Multiplicatio. corporis Christi facta est substantialitèr ad omne punctum hostiae. Id.   multiplicable (for there are no other words to express my meaning, though no words can speak sense according to their doctrine, words not signifying here as every where else, and among them as they did always in all mankind) how can it, I say, be multiplied by the breaking of the wafer or bread upon the account of the likeness of it to a substance that cannot be broken, or if it could, yet were not multipliable? But 2. If Christ's body be there according to the manner of a substance, not of a body, I demand according to the nature of what substance, whether of a material or an immaterial? If according to the nature of a material substance, than it is commensurate by the dimensions of quantity, which he is now endeavouring to avoid. If according to the nature of an immaterial substance, than it is not a body, but a Spirit; or else the body may have the being of a Spirit, whilst it remains a body, that is, be a body and not a body at the same time. But 3. to say that a body is there, not according to the nature of a body, but of a substance, is not sense: for besides that by this answer, it is a body without the nature of a body, it says that it is also there determined by a manner, and yet that manner is so far from determining it, that it makes it yet more undetermined and general than it was. For [Substance] is the highest Genus in that Category: and corpus or body is under it, and made more special by a superadded difference. To say therefore that a body is there after the manner of a substance, is to say, that by being specificated, limited, and determined it becomes not a Species but a Genus, that is, more unlimited by limitations, more generical by his specification, more universal by being made more particular. So impossible it is for wise men to make sense of this business. 3. But besides all this, to be in a place after the manner of a substance, is not to be in a place at all; for substantia hath in it no relation to a place till it be specificated to a Body or a Spirit; For substantia dicit solùm formalitatem substandi accidentibus & subsistendi per se; but the capacity of, or relation to a place is by the specification of it by some substantial difference. 4. Lastly, to explicate the being in a place, in the manner of a substance by being whole in the whole, and whole in every part is to say, that every substance is so; which is notoriously false: for corporal substances are not so; whether spiritual be, is a question not proper for this place.  
Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole, 
In 4 Sent. d. 44. q. 2. art. 2. q. 3.  saying that one body cannot be in divers places localitèr, but Sacramentalitèr, not locally, but Sacramentally. But first I wish the words were sense, and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally, and not locally, unless a thing can be in a place and not in a place, that is, so to be in, that it is also out: but so long as it is a distinction it is no matter, it will amuse and make way to escape, if it will do nothing else. But if by being Sacramentally in many places is meant figuratively (as before I explicated it) than I grant Aquinas' affirmative; Christ's body is in many places Sacramentally, that is, it is represented upon all the holy Tables or Altars in the Christian Church. But if by Sacramentally he means naturally, and properly, than he contradicts himself, for that is it he must mean by localitèr if he means any thing at all. But it matters not what he means, for it is sufficient to me that he only says it and proves it not; and that it is not sense; and lastly, 
Lib. 3. Euch. c. 3. § Quidam tamen. Ibid. § Add quod.  that Bellarmine confutes it as not being home enough to his purpose, but a direct destruction of the fancy of Transubstantiation; Si non possit esse unum corpus localitèr in duobus locis, quia divideretur à seipso, profectò non esse possit Sacramentalitèr eâdemratione. I might make advantage of this contestation between two so great patrons of Transubstantiation, if I did need it. For Aquinas says, that a body cannot be in two places at once locally. Bellarmine says than neither can it Sacramentally; it were easy than to infer that Therefore it is in two places no way in the world. But I shall not need this.  
7. For there is a new heap of impossibilities, if we should reckon that which flows from the multiplication of totalities; I mean of the body of Christ, which is one continual substance, one in itself and divided from every thing else, as all unity is; and yet every wafer consecrated is the whole body of Christ, and yet that body is but one, and the wafers which are not one, are every one of them Christ's body. And how is it possible that Christ's body should be in heaven, and between it and us are many other bodies interposed, and his body is in none of the intermedials, and that his body should be also here, and yet not joined to that, either by continuity or contiguity, and the same body should be a thousand miles of, and ten thousand bodies between them, and yet all this be but one: that is, How can it be two and yet be one? For how shall any man reckon two? How can he know that two glasses of wine are not one? We see them in two places, their continuity divided, there is an intermedial distance and other bodies interposed, and therefore we silly men usually say they are two; but it is strange to see, a man may be confident and yet without reason when he hath not wit enough to tell two. But than there is not in nature any way for a man to tell two, if this principle be taken from us.  
It will also be an infinite, impossible contradiction which follows the being of a body in two places at once; upon this account. For it will infer that the same body is at the same time, in the same respect, in order to the same place, both actually and potentially, that is, possessed and not possessed of it, and may go to that place where it is already. For suppose a body at S. Omers, and the same body at the same time at Douai, than that body which is actually at S. Omers may yet at the same time be going from Douai thither, and than he is at the same time there and not there, at his journey's end, and yet on the way thither; that is, in disposition and tendency to that place where he is already actually, and whether he is arrived before he set out and began his journey; and goes away from Douai, before he leaves it.  
Add to this, that to be in two places at once, makes the same thing which is contained in divers places to be contained in none. For as to be in a place like a body, is to be contained in that place; so to be contained in that place is to be terminated or bounded by that place; but whatsoever is bounded by a thing, is not without or beyond that bounds; it follows therefore that if a body can be entirely without or beyond that place in which it is contained, that is without the bounds, than it is bounded and not bounded, it is contained and not contained; that is, it is contained by divers, and it is contained by none.  
But how can any thing be divided from itself wholly? for either it must be where it is not, or else it must be two. The wit of man cannot device a shift to make this seem possible. 
Euch. l. 3. c. 3. §. Sed haec ratio etc. 4. §. Sed media via.  But Bellarmine can; for he says there is a double indivision or unity or being: an  and an , a local, and an essential; Now of these, one can be without the other: and though a body have but one unity essential, because it can be but one body, yet it may have more  or local beings. This is the full sense of his device, if at lest there be any sense in it. But besides that this distinction is not where taught in any Philosophy, a child of his own still born, not offered to be proved or made credible; it is, if it be brought into open view from without the curtains of a formal distinction, just as if he had said; Whereas you object that one thing can be but in one place, for whatsoever is in two places is two bodies; you are deceived; for it is true, that one body can be but one; but yet it may be two in respect of place; that is, it is but one in nature, but it may be in two places, and so you are confuted. But than if I should reply, This answer is but to deny the conclusion, and affirms the thing in question; there were no more to be said. For that one thing in nature cannot have two adequate places at the same time, was the conclusion of my argument; and the answer is, It can have two, and this is all is said. 2. But than I would feign know what warrant there is for the real distinction of esse essentiale and esse locale of bodies, 
Substantias enim facis, quibus loca assignas. Tertul. c. 41. contr. Hermog.  as if they were two distinct separable beings; whereas quantity is inseparable from bodies, and measure from continual quantities, and to be in a place is nothing but to have his quantity measured. 3. To be in a place, is the termination or limit of a quantitative body, and makes it not to be infinite: and if this can be separated by a distinction from a finite body, than something is said; but if a finite body must be finite and not infinite, than to be determined by a place, the proper determination or definition of a quantitative body, is not separable from it. 4. If any man should say that one person cannot be together in two several times, not more than in two several places; This distinction would fetch him in, to be of two times together; for there is a double indivision, one in respect of essence, the other, in respect of duration, that , this ; though one man or body hath but one being or essence  and essential, yet he may have more , accidental and temporary. And really the case, as to this distinction, is all one, and so it is to the argument too: for as two times cannot be together because of their successive nature, so neither can two places be adapted at once to one body, because of their continual and united nature: unity and quantity continual being as essential to quantitative bodies, as succession is to them who are measured by time. 5. If one body may possess and fill two places circumscriptively, that it is commensurate to both of them, or to as many more as it shall chance to be in, than suppose a body of five foot long, is in a place at Rome, at Valladolid, at Paris, and at London, in each of these places it must fill a space of five foot long, because it is always commensurate to his place: it will follow, that a body but of five foot long shall fill up the room of twenty foot; which whether it implies not a contradiction that the same body should be but five foot long, and yet at the same time be twenty foot long of the same measure, let all the Geometricians judge. This is such a device, that as one said of the witty drunkenness and arts of the Symposiac among the Greeks, that amongst them a dunce could not be drunk: So in this device a man had need be very cunning to speak such nonsense, and make himself believe those things which are against the conceptions of all men in the world, till this new doctrine turned their brains and make new propositions and new affirmatives out of old impossibilities. But these people in all this affair, deal with mankind, as if they were beasts, and not reasonable creatures; or as if all their disciples were babies, or fools, and that to them it is lawful to say any thing, and having no understanding of their own, they are to efform them as they please.  
But to this objection it is answered, that it may have a double sense: That a body of five foot long may fill the space of five foot. One; So as the magnitude of such a body should be commensurate to that place, and so a body of five foot cannot fill up the spaces of twenty foot: but another way is, so as the magnitude of the body should not be commensurate, but only to the space of five foot, but yet the same magnitude may be twice, or thrice put to such a space, 
Euch. l. 3. c. 4. §. Respondeo duplicitèr potest intelligi etc.  and this may be done. This is Bellarmine's answer; That is, If you consider a body of five foot long, so as it can but fill five foot space, in that sense it cannot fill twenty. But if you consider it so as it is commensurate to a space, that is, twenty foot, so it cannot be, being but of five foot long. That this is the sense of his answer, I appeal to all men that can understand common sense. But though it be but of five foot long, yet it may be placed twice or thrice in a space of five foot long, and what than? Than it fills still but a place of five foot long. True in one place, but if it fills five foot at Rome, and at the fame time five foot at Valladolid, and five foot at Paris, and five foot at London, I pray are not four times five twenty? As although the Sun have but force to drink up five measures of water in Egypt; and at the same time as much in Arabia, and as much in Ethiopia, and as much in Greece, he at the same time drinks up twenty measures, though his whole force in one place be but to drink five, and yet still it is but one Sun. But besides all this, that the same body be put twice or thrice into a space of five foot at the same time, is that unreasonable thing, which all the natural and congenite notices of men cry down, and therefore aught not to be said confidently, in a distinction without proof; as if the putting it into a nonsense distinction, could oblige all the world to believe it.  
8. But I proceed: Valentia 
a De verâ Christi p●aesentiâ l. 1. c. 12.  affirms that the Fathers prove the divinity of the holy Ghost by his ubiquity: and it is certain they do so, as appears in S. Athanasius 
b Contr. Arium. disp. inter opera S. Athanas. , S. Basil 
c De Spir. S. l. 1. c. 22. , S. Ambrose 
d De Spit. S. l. 1. c. 7. , Didymus of Alexandria 
e De Spir. S. l. 1. , S. Cyril of Alexandria 
f De Spir. S. Quod non sit creatura. , S. Austin 
g Contra Maxim. Arian. ep. l. 3. c. 31. ; and divers others: and yet these men affirm that a body may be in many places, and therefore may be in all, and that it is potentially infinite; is it not evident that they take from the Fathers the force of the argument, because ubiquity is communicable to something that is not God; or if it be not, why do they give it to a creature? That which can be in many places, can be in all places; for all the reason that forbids it to be in 2000 forbids it to be in two; and if those cannot determine it to one place, it cannot be determined at all; I mean, the nature of a body, his determination to places, his circumscription, continuity, unity, quantity, dimensions. Nay, that which is not determined by place, by continuity nor by his nature, but may be any where, is in his own nature uncircumscribed, and indefinite, which is that attribute of God upon which his omnipresence does rely; and that Christ's body is not every where actually, as is the holy Ghost, it says nothing against this; because he being a voluntary agent can restrain the measure of his presence, as God himself does the many manners of his presence. However, that nature is infinite that can be every where, and therefore if it can be communicated to a body, to be so, is not proper to God, nor can it prove the holy Ghost so to be. Of the same nature is that other argument used frequently by the primitive Doctors, proving two natures to be in Christ, the Divine and the Human, and the difference between them is remarked in this, that the Divine is in many places, and in all: but the Human can be but in one at once. This is affirmed by Origen 
a In S. Matth. hom. 33. , S. Hilary 
b Lib. 10. de Trinit. , S. Hierome 
e Ad Marcel. de 4 quaest. , S. Austin 
d Tract. 39 in Johan. , Gelasius 
e Disp. contr. Sab. Ar. Phot. , Fulgentius 
f Lib. 2. ad Thrasim. c. 17. , and Ven. Bede 
g Homil. invent. crucis. . But this is but variety of the same dish; if both these can prevail together, than either of them aught to prevail singly.  
Against all this, and whatsoever else can be objected, it is pretended, that it is possible for a body to be in many distant places at once. For Christ who is always in heaven, yet appeared to S. Paul on earth, and to many other Saints, as to S. Peter, to S. Antony, to S. Tharsilla, S. Gregory and I cannot tell who. To this I answer; 1. That in all this there is nothing certain, but that Christ appeared to S. Paul; for it may be, he appeared to him in heaven, S. Paul being on earth: for so he did to S. Stephen, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: 
Acts 7.55.  and from heaven there might only come a voice and a light. 2. It may be S. Paul saw Christ when he was wrapped up into the third heavens: for, that Christ was seen by him, himself affirms; but he says not that he saw him at his conversion; and all that he says he saw than, was that he saw a great light and heard a voice. 3. That, in case Christ did appear corporally to Saul on earth, 
Acts 9.3.22.6.  it follows not, his body was in two places at once. I have the warrant of him that is willing enough otherwise that this argument should prevail: 
Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 3. §. Confirmatur.  Quia non est improbabile Christum privatìm & ad breve tempus descendisse de coelopost ascensionem. It is not unlikely that Christ might privately and for a short time descend from heaven after his ascension; For when it is said in Scripture that the heavens must receive him till the day of restitution of all things, it is to be meant, ordinarily and as his place of residence; but that hinders not an extraordinary commigration; as a man may be said to devil continually in London, and yet sometimes to go into the country to take the air. For the other instances of S. Peter and S. Antony, and the rest, if I were sure they were true. I would say the same answer would also serve their turn; but as they are, it is not material whether it does or no.  
Another way of answering is taken from the examples of God and the reasonable soul. Concerning the soul, I have these things to say; 1. Whether the soul be whole in every part of the body and whole in the whole is presumed by most men, but substantially proved by none, but denied by a great many, and those of the first rank of learned men. 2. If it were, it follows not that it is in two places or more: because not the hand nor the foot is the adequate place of the soul, but the whole body; and therefore the usual expression of Philosophy, saying, The soul is whole in every part is not true positively, but negatively, that is, the soul being immaterial, cannot be cantonized into parts by the division of the body; but positively it is not true. For the understanding is not in the foot, nor the will in the hand; and something of the soul is not arganical or depending upon the body: viz. The pure acts of volition, some little glimpses of intuition, reflection, and the like. 3. If it were, yet to allege this, is impertinent to their purpose: unless whatsoever is true concerning a spirit, can also be affirmed of a body. 4. When the body is divided into parts, the soul is not multiplied into fantastic or real numbers, as it is pretended in Transubstantiation; and therefore, although the foul were whole in every part it could do no service in this question; unless it were so whole in each part as to be whole when each part is divided, for so it is said to be in the Euchrist; which because we say is impossible, we require an instance in something where it is so; but because it is not so in the soul, this instance is not home to any of their purposes. 
L. 3. Euch. c. 3. §. ad hoc argumentum.  But Bellarmine says, God can make it to be so, that the soul shall remain in the member that is discontinued and cut of. I answer that God ever did do so, nor he nor any man else can pretend, unless he please to believe S. Winifred's and S. Denies walking with their heads in their hands after their decollation; but since we never knew that God did so, and whether it implies a contradiction or not, that it should be so, God hath no where declared, it is sufficient to the present purpose that it is as much a question, and of itself not more evident, than that a body can be conserved in many places: and therefore being as uncertain as the principal question, cannot give faith to it, or do any service. But this is to amuse unwary persons, by seeming to say something, which indeed is nothing to the purpose.  
But that the Omnipresence of God should be brought to prove it possible that a body may be in many places, truly though I am hearty desirous to do it, if I could justly, yet I cannot found any colour to excuse it from great impiety. But this I shall add, that it is so impossible that any body should be in two places, and so impossible to justify this from the immensity of God; that God himself, is not in proper manner of speaking in two places, he is not capable of being in any place at all, as we understand being in a place; he is greater than all places, and fills all things: and locality, and place; and beings, and relations are all from him: and therefore they cannot comprehend him. But than although this immensity of God is beyond the capacity of place, and he can not more be in a place, than all the world can be in the bottom of a well, yet if God could be limited and determined, it were a contradiction to say that he could be in two places; just as it is a contradiction to say there are two Gods. So that this comparison of Bellarmine's, as it is odious up to the neighbourhood, and similitude of a great impiety, so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is against that Philosophy whereby we understand any of the perfective notices of God. But these men would feign prevail by all means, they care not how.  
But why may we not believe as well the doctrine of Transubstantiation in defiance of all the seeming impossibilities, as well as we believe the doctrine of the Trinity in defiance of greater? To this I answer many things. 1. Because the mystery of the Trinity is revealed plainly in Scripture, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against it: as I suppose myself to have plainly proved. So that if there were a plain revelation of Transubstantiation than this argument were good; and if it were possible for 10000 times more arguments to be brought against it, yet we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all; but when so much of revelation is against it, and nothing for it, it is but vain to say we may believe this, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity; for so we may as well argue for the heresy of the Manichees; why may we not as well believe the doctrine of the Manichees in despite of all the arguments brought against it; when there are so many seeming impossibilities brought against the holy Trinity? I suppose the answer that I have given, would be thought reasonable to every such pretence. 2. As the doctrine of the holy Trinity is set down in Scripture, and in the Apostles Creed and was taught by the Fathers of the first 300 years, I know no difficulties it hath; what it hath met withal since, proceeds from the too curious handling of that which we cannot understand. 3. The Schoolmen have so pried into this secret, and have so confounded themselves and the articles, that they have made it to be unintelligible, inexplicable, indefensible in all their minutes and particularities; and it is too sadly apparent in the arguments of the Antitrinitarians, whose sophisms against the article itself, although they are most easily answered, yet as they bring them against the minutiae and impertinences of the school, they are not so easily to be avoided. But. 4. there is not the same reason; because concerning God we know but very few things, and concerning the mysterious Trinity that which is revealed is extremely little; and it is general, without descending to particulars: and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that, being taken from our Philosophy, and the common manner of speaking, cannot be apportioned and fitted to so great a secret; neither can that at all be measured by any thing here below. But I hope we may have leave to say we understand more concerning bodies; and their nature than concerning the persons of the holy Trinity: and therefore we may be sure in the matter of bodies to know what is, and what is not possible; when we can know no measure of truth or error in all the mysteriousnesses of so high and separate, superexalted secret, as is that of the holy Trinity. 5. Because when the Church for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learning, as person, hypostasts, consubstantiality, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like, the words of themselves were apt to change their signification, and to put on the sense of the present school. But the Church was forced to use such words as she had, the highest, the nearest, the most separate and mysterious. But when she still kept these words to the same mystery, the words swelled or altered in their sense; and were exacted according to what they did signify amongst men in their low notices; this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity. For better words she had none, and all that which they did signify in our Philosophy could not be applied to this mystery, and therefore we have found difficulty; and shall for ever, till in this article the Church returns to her ancient simplicity of expression. For these reasons I conceive the case is wholly different, and the difficulty and secret of one mystery, which is certainly revealed, cannot warrant us to admit the impossibilities of that which is not revealed. Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and make public amendss. The like also is to be said in the matter of Incarnation.  
But if two bodies may be in one place, than one body may be in two places. 
In 4. dist. 44. q. 2. ●. 2.  Aquinas denies the consequent of this argument; but I for my part am careless whether it be true or no. But I shall oppose against it this, If two bodies cannot be in one commensurate place, than one body cannot be in two places; Now concerning this, it is certain it implies a contradiction that two bodies should be in one place, or possess the place of another till that be cast forth: 
Quod nisi inania sint; 
Lucr. l. 1.  quâ possent corpora quaeque  
Transire, haud ullâ fieri ratione. videres.  And the great dispute between the Scholars of Epicurus and the Peripatetics concerning vacuity, was wholly upon this account. Epicurus saying there could be no motion unless the place were empty. All the other Sects saying that it was enough that it was made empty by the coming of the new body; all agreeing that two bodies could not be together, 
Arist. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All agreed that two bodies could not be together, and that the first body must be thrust forth by the intromission of the second.  
— Quae si non esset inane  
Non tam sollicito motu privata carerent, 
Lucret. l. 1.   
Quàm genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent,  
Undique materies quoniam stipata quiescet.  
For the contrary says that two bodies are one. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Basil. Seleuc. homil. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For the proper dimensions of a quantitative body are length, breadth, and thickness: Now the extension of the body in these dimensions is measured by the place: For the place is nothing else, but the measuring and limiting of the thing so measured and limited by these measures and limitations of length, breadth, and thickness. Now if two bodies could be in one place, than they must both have one superficies, one length, one thickness; and than either the other hath none, or they are but one body and not two, or else though they be two bodies, and have two superficies, yet these two superficies are but one, all which are contradictions. 
De Euch. l. 3. c. 5 §. Secundò observandum.  Bellarmine says, that to be coextended to a place, is separable from a magnitude or body, because it is a thing that is  and consequent to the  extension of parts, and being later than it, is by divine power separable. But this is as very a sophism as all the rest. For if whatever in nature is later than the substance, be separable from it, than fire may be without heat, or 
* Quod non possit alterum sine altero intelligi, quemadmodum neque aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore. Irenae. lib. 2. c. 14.  water without moisture; a man can be without time, for that also is in nature after his essence; and he may be without a faculty of will or understanding, or of affections, or of growing to his state or being nourished; and than he will be a strange man, who will neither have the power of will, or understanding, of desiring, or avoiding, of nourishment, or growth, or any thing that can distinguish him from a beast, or a tree, or a stone. For these are all later than the essence, for they are essential emanations from it. Thus also quantity can be separated from a substantial body, if every thing that is later than the form can be separated from it. And therefore nothing of this can be avoided by saying to fill a place is 
† Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 7. §. Ad secundum Petri.  an act, but these other instances are faculties and powers, and therefore the act may better be impeded by divine power, the thing remaining the same, than by the ablation of faculties. This I say cannot justify the trick. 1. Because to be extended into parts is as much an act as to be in a place; and yet that is inseparable from magnitude, and so confessed by Bellarmine. 2. 
L. 3. Euch. c. 5. §. Secundò obser.  To be in a place is not an act at all, any more than to be created, to be finite, to be limited; and it was never yet heard of, that esse locatum, or esse in loco was reducible to the predicament of action. 3. An act is not more separable than a faculty is, when the act is as essential as the faculty; now for a body to be in a place, is as essential to a body as it is for a man to have understanding; for this is 
* Ibid. c. 7. §. Deinde etiam.  confessed to be separable by divine power, and the other cannot be more; it cannot be naturally. 4. If to be in a place be an act, it is no otherwise an act, than it is an act, for a Father actually to have a son, and therefore is no more separable this than that; and you may as well suppose a Father and no child, as a body and no place. 5. It is a false proposition to say, that place is  to a quantitative body; and it relies upon the definition Aristotle gives of it in the fourth book of his Physics, that place is the superficies of the ambient body; which is as absurd in nature as any thing can be imagined; for than a stone in the bottom of a river did change his place (though it lie still) in every instant, because new water still washes it; and by this rule it is necessary (against Aristotle's great grounds) that some quantitative bodies should not be in a place, or else that quantitative bodies were Categorematically infinite. For either there is no end, but body encloses body for ever, or else the ultimate or outmost body, is not enclosed by any thing, and so cannot be in a place. To which add this; that if Epicurus his opinion were true, and that there were some spaces empty, which at lest by a divine power can become true, and he can take the air out from the enclosure of four walls; In this case if you will suppose a man sitting in the midst of that room, either that man were in no place at all, which were infinitely absurd, or else (which indeed is true) circumscription or superficies were not the essence of a place. Place therefore is nothing but the Space to which quantitative bodies have essential relation and finition: that, where they consist, and by which they are not infinite: and this is the definition of place which S. Austin gives in his fourth book Exposit. of Genes. ad literam chapt. 8.  
God can do what he please, and he can reverse the laws of his whole creation, because he can change or annihilate every creature, or altar the manners and essences; but the question now is, what laws God hath already established, and whether or not essentials can be changed, the things remaining the same? that is, whether they can be the same, when they are not the same? He that says God can give to a body all the essential properties of a Spirit, says true, and confesses God's omnipotency; but he says also, that God can change a body from being a body, to become a Spirit; but if he says, that remaining a body it can receive the essentials of a Spirit, he does not confess God's omnipotency, but makes the article difficult to be believed, by making it not to work wisely, and possibly. God can do all things, but, are they undone when they are done? that is, are the things changed in their essentials, and yet remain the same? than how are they changed, and than what hath God done to them?  
But as to the particular question. To suppose a body not coextended to a place, is to suppose a man alive not coexistent to time; to be in no place, and to be in no time, being alike possible 
* Paschasias' Diaconus Eccles. Rom. A.D. 5●0. l. 1. de Spir. S. cap. 12. : and this  extension of parts, is as inseparable from the , as an  duration is from time. Place and Time being nothing but the essential manners of material complete substances, these cannot be supposed such as they are, without time and place: because quantitative bodies in their very formality suppose that; For place without a body in it, is but a notion in Logic, but when it is a reality it is a Ubi, and time is Quando; and a body supposed abstractedly from place, is not real but intentional, and in notion only, and is in the Category of substance, but not of quantity. But it is a strange thing that we are put to prove the very principles of nature, and first rudiments of art, which are so plain that they can be understood naturally, but by all devices of the world cannot be made dubitable.  
But against all the evidence of essential and natural reason, some overtures of Scripture must be pretended. For that two bodies can be in one place appears, because Christ came from his mother's womb, it being closed; into the assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut; out of the grave, the stone not being rolled away; and ascended into heaven, through the solid orbs of all the firmament. Concerning the first and the last the Scripture speaks nothing, neither can any man tell whether the orbs of heaven be solid or fluid, or which way Christ went in. But of the heavens opening the Scripture sometimes makes mention. And the Prophet David spoke in the Spirit saying, Lift up your heads O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. The stone of the Sepulchre was removed by an Angel, so saith S. Matthew. 
S. Mat. 28.2.  But why should it be supposed the Angel rolled it away after Christ was risen, or if he did, why Christ did not remove it himself, (who loosed all the bands of death by which he was held) and there leave it when he was risen? or if he had passed through and wrought a miracle, why it should not be told us, or why it should not remain as a testimony to the soldiers and Jews and convince them the more, when they should see the body gone, and yet their seals unbroken? or if it were not, how we should come to fancy it was so, I understand not; neither is there ground for it. There is only remaining that we accounted concerning Jesus his entering into the assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut: To this I answer, that this infers not a penetration of bodies, or that two bodies can be in one place. 1. Because there are so many ways of effecting it without that impossibility. 2. The door might be made to yield to his Creator as easily as water which is fluid be made firm under his feet; for consistence or lability, are not essential to wood and water. For water can naturally be made consistent as when 'tis turned to ice; and wood that can naturally be petrified, can upon the efficiency of an equal agent be made thin or labile or inconsistent. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  3. This was done on the same day in which the Sea yielded to the children of Israel, that is, the seventh day after the Passeover, and we may allow it to be a miracle, though it be no more than that of the waters, that is, as these were made consistent for a time.  Suppositúmque rotis solidum mare. 
So the doors apt to yield to a solid body. 
— possint namque omnia reddi  
Mollia, quae fiant, aer, aqua, terra, vapores  
Quo pacto fiant & quâ vi cunque gerantur.  4. How easy was it for Christ to pass his body through the pores of it, and the natural apertures if he were pleased to unite them, and thrust the matter into a greater consolidation? 5. Wood being reduced to ashes possesses but a little room, that is, the crass impenetrable parts are but few, the other apt for session, which could easily be disposed by God as he pleased. 6. The words in the text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the past tense; the gates or doors having been shut; but that they were shut in the instant of his entry, it says not; they might, if Christ had so pleased, have been insensibly opened, and shut in like manner again; and if the words be observed it will appear that S. 
Chap. 20.19.  John mentioned the shutting the doors in relation to the Apostles fear; not to Christ's entering: he intended not (so far as appears) to declare a miracle. 7. But if he had, there are ways enough for him, to have entered strangely, though he had not entered impossibly. Vain therefore is the fancy of those men who think a weak conjecture able to contest against a perfect, natural impossibility. For when a thing can be done without a penetration of dimensions, and yet by a power great enough to beget admiration, though without contesting against the unalterable laws of nature, to dream it must be this way, is to challenge confidently, but to be careless of our warrant; I conclude, that it hath never yet been known that two bodies ever were at once, in one place.  
I found but one objection more pretended, and that is, that place is not essential to bodies: because the utmost heaven is a body, and yet is not in a place; because it hath nothing without it, that can circumscribe it. To this I have already answered in the confutation of Aristotle's definition of a place. But besides; 
Num. 28.  I answer, that what the utmost heaven is, our Philosophy cannot tell or guess at; But it is certain that beyond any thing that Philosophy ever dreamt of, there are bodies. For Christ is ascended for above all heavens, and therefore to say it is not in a place, or that there is not a place where Christ's body is, is a ridiculous absurdity. But if there be places for bodies above the highest heavens, than the highest heaven also is in a place, or may be for aught any thing pretended against it. In my Father's house are many mansions, said Christ, many places of abode; and it is highly-probable, that that pavement where the bodies of Saints shall tread to eternal ages, is circumscribed, though by something we understand not. Many things more might be said to this. But I am sorry that the series of a discourse must be interrupted with such trifling considerations.  
The sum is this; as substances cannot subsist without the manner of substances; 
Vide Boeth. in Praedicam. Aristot.  no more can accidents, without the manner of accidents; quantities, after the manner of quantities; qualities, as qualities; for to separate that from either, by which we distinguish them from each other, is to separate that from them, by which we understand them to be themselves. And four may as well cease to be four and be reduced to unity, as a line cease to be a line, and a body a body, and a place a place, and a quantum or extensum to be extended in his own kind of quantity or extension: and if a man had talked otherwise, till this new device arose, all sects of Philosophers of the world, would have thought him mad; and I may here use the words of Cotta in Cicero l. 1. De naturâ Deorum: Corpus quid sit, sanguis quid sit, intelligo, quasi corpus & quasi sanguis quid sit, nullo prorsus modo intelligo. But concerning the nature of bodies and quantities these may suffice in general. For if I should descend to particulars and insist upon them, I could cloy the Reader with variety of one dish.  
10. By this doctrine of Transubstantiation, the same thing is bigger and less than itself: for it is bigger in one host, than in another; for the wafer is Christ's body, and yet one wafer is bigger than another: therefore Christ's body is bigger than itself. The same thing is above itself, and below itself, within itself, and without itself: It stands wholly upon his own right side, and wholly at the same time upon his own left side; it is as very a body as that which is most divisible, and yet it is as indivisible as a Spirit; and it is not a Spirit but a body, and yet a body is no way separated from a Spirit, but by being divisible. It is a perfect body, in which the feet are further from the head, than the head from the breast, and yet there is no space between head and feet at all; So that the parts are further of and nearer, without any distance at all; being further and not further, distant, and yet in every point. By this also, here is magnitude without extension of parts; for if it be essential to magnitude to have partem extra partem, that is, parts distinguished, and severally sited, than where one part is, there another is not, and therefore the whole body of Christ is not in every part of the consecrated wafer; and yet if it be not, than it must be broken into parts when the wafer is broken, and than it must fill his place by parts. But than it will not be possible that a bigger body, with the conditions of a body should be contained in a thing lesle than itself, that a man may throw the house out at the windows: and if it be impossible that a magnitude should be in a point, and yet Christ's body be a magnitude and yet in a point, than the same thing is in a point, and not in a point, extended and not extended, great and not divisible, a quantity without dimension, something and nothing. * By this doctrine the same thing lies still and yet moves, it stays in a place and goes away from it, it removes from itself, and yet abides close by itself, and in itself, and out of itself; It is removed and yet cannot be moved, broken and cannot be divided; * passes from East to West through a middle place, and yet stirs not. * It is brought from heaven to earth, and yet is no where in the way, nor ever stirs out of heaven. * It ceases to be where it was, and yet does not stir from thence, not yet cease to be at all. * It is removed at the motion of the accidents, and yet does not fall when the host falls: it changes his place but falls not, 
Bellarm. Euch. l. 3. c. 10. §. respondeo corpus.  and yet the changing of place was by falling. * It supposes a body of Christ which was made of bread, that is, Not born of the Virgin Mary; 
Suarez in 3. Tho. 9 76. art. 7. disp. 53. §. 4.  * it says that Christ's body is there without power of moving, or seeing, or hearing, or understanding, he can neither remember nor foresee, save himself from robbers or vermin, corruption or rottenness; * it makes that which was raised in power to be again sown in weakness; 
Quomodo potest Deus alibi esse vivus, alibi mortuus? Lact. l. 1. c. 1.  * it gives to it the attribute of an idol, to have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, a nose and not to smell, feet and yet cannot walk. * It makes a thing contained, bigger than the continent, and all Christ's body, to go into a part of his body; his whole head into his own mouth, if he did eat the Eucharist, as it is probable he did, and certain that he might have done. These are the certain consequents of this most unreasonable doctrine; in relation to motion and quantity. I need not instance in those collateral absurdities which are appendent to some of the foregoing particulars; as how it should be credible, that Christ in his sumption of the last supper should eat his own flesh; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Simplicius 
* In Categ. cap. de substant. ; Nothing can receive itself, nothing can really participate of itself, and properly; figuratively and Sacramentally this may be done; but not in a natural and physical sense; for as S. Cyril of Alexandria argues; 
In S. Joh. 9  Si verè idem est quod participate & quod participatur, quid opus est participatione? What need he partake of himself? what need he receive a part of that which he is already whole? and if the partaker, and the thing partaken be naturally the same, than the Sacrament did as much eat Christ, as Christ did eat the Sacrament. 
* In Categ. cap. de substant.  It would also follow from hence, that the soul of Christ should enter into his body, though it were there before it entered; and yet it would now be there twice, at the same time; for it is but one soul, and yet enters after it is there, it never having gone forth. 
* In Categ. cap. de substant.  Nay further yet, upon supposition that Christ did eat the Sacrament, as it is most likely he did, and we are sure he might have done, than the soul of Christ, which certainly wentalong with his body which surely was than alive, should be in his body in two contrary and incompatible manners; by one of which, he does operate freely, and exercise all the actions of life, by the other he exercises none; by one he is visible, by the other invisible, by one movable, by the other , by one after the manner of a body, by the other after the manner of a Spirit. The one of these being evident in itself, the other by their own affirmation. But these are by the by; there are whole Categories of fond and impossible consequents from this doctrine.  
11. But if I should also consider the change of consecration: i e. the conversion of bread into Christ's body, and their rare stratagems and devices in ridiculous affirmatives and negatives as to that particular, it would afford a new heap of matter.  
For this conversion is not generation, it is not corruption, it is not creation, because Christ's body already is, and cannot be produced again; it is not after the manner of natural conversions, it differs from the supernatural: there is no change of one form into another, the same first matter does not remain under 
* Sola enim mutari transformarique in se possunt quae habent unius materiae commune subjectum. Both. de duab. nat. Christi.  several forms, first of bread, than of Christ's body. It is turned into the substance of Christ's body, and yet nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the body of Christ. It is turned into Christ, and yet it is turned into nothing: the substance is not annihilated, (for than it were not turned into Christ's body) and yet it is annihilated or turned to nothing, for it does not become Christ's body; it is determined upon Christ's body, and yet does not become it, though it be changed into it: for if bread could become Christ's body, than bread could receive a greater honour than any of the servants of Christ; for it could be glorified with the biggest glorification, it would be exalted far above all Angels, bread should reign for ever, and be King of all the world, which are honours not communicable to mere man, and by no change can be wrought upon him: and if they may upon bread, than bread is exalted higher than the sons of men; and yet so it is if it be naturally and substantially changed into the body of Christ. * I cannot insist upon any thing of this, the absurdity being so vast, the labour would be as great, as needless: Only I shall transcribe part of a disputation by which Tertullian proves the resurrection of our bodies by such words which do certainly confute the Roman fancies of Transubstantiation. Cap. 55. the resurrectione Carnis. Discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis etc. Change must be distinguished from Perdition. But they are not distinguished if the flesh be so changed that it perishes. As that which is lost is not changed, so that which is changed is not lost, or perished. For it suffered change, not perdition; for to perish is wholly not to be that which it was; but to be changed is only to be otherwise: Moreover while it is otherwise, it can be the same thing, or itself: for it hath his being which did not perish. Now how it is possible that these words should be reconciled with Transubstantiation, in which they affirm the bread to be changed, and yet totally to have perished, that is, that nothing of it remains, neither matter nor form, it concerns them to take care; for my part, I am satisfied that it is impossible: and I choose to follow the philosophy of Tertullian, by which he fairly confirms the article of the resurrection; rather than the impossible speculations of these men, which tender all notices of men to be mere deceptions, and all articles of faith, in many things uncertain; and nothing to be certain, but that which is impossible. This consideration so moved Durand 
a In 4. d. 11 q. 3. §. 5. , and their Doctor Fundatissimus Egidius Romanus 
b Theor. 1.2. , that they thought to change the word Transubstantiation, and instead of it that they were obliged to use the word of Transformation simply, affirming that other to be unintelligible. But I proceed. By this doctrine Christ's body is there where it was not before, and yet not by change of place; for it descends not: nor by production; for it was produced before: not by natural mutation; for Christ himself is wholly immutable: and though the bread be mutable, it can never become Christ. 
* Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4.  That which is now, and was always, gins to be, and yet it cannot begin, which was so long before. And by this doctrine, is affirmed that which even themselves 
* Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4.  judge to be simply and absolutely impossible. For if after a thing hath his being, and during the first being, it shall have every day many new beginnings, without multiplying the beings, than the same thing is under two times at the same time; it is but a day old, and yet was six days ago, and six ages, and sixteen. 
* Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4.  The body of Christ obtains to be what it was not before, and yet it is wholly the same without becoming what it was not. 
* Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4.  It obtains to be under the form of bread, and that which it is now and was not before, is neither perfective of his being, nor destructive, nor alterative, nor augmentative, nor diminutive, nor conservative. It is as, it were a production, as it were a creation, as a conservation, as an adduction: that is, it is as it were just nothing; for it is not a creation, not a generation, not an adduction, not a conservation. It is not a conversion productive; for no new individual is produced. It is not a conversion conservative; That's a child of Bellarmine's: but it is perfect nonsense; for it is (as he says) a conversion in which both the terms remain, in the same place; that is, in which there are two things not converted, but not one that is: but it is a thing of which there never was any example. But than if we ask what conversion it is? after a great many fancies and devices, contradicting each other, at last it is found to be adductive, and yet that adductive does not change the place, but signifies a substantial change; and yet adduction is no substantial change, but accidental; and yet this change is not accidental, but adductive ana substantial. O rem ridiculam, Cato, 
Bellarm. de missa l. 1. c. 27. §. 3. propositio. L. 3. de Euch. c. ult. §. ad tertiam.  & jocosam! It is a succession, not a conversion, and Transubstantiation; for it is Corpus ex pane confectum, a body made of bread, and yet it was made before the bread was made: but it is made of it as day of night, not tanquam ex materiâ, but tanquam ex termino, not as of matter, but as of a term, from whence, say they, but that is, a direct motion or succession, not a substantial change. For that I may use the words of Faventinus; 
Scotus 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Faven. in 4. disp. 35. c. 6.  What is the formal term of this action of Transubstantiation, or conversion? Not the body of Christ; for that is the material term: the formal term is, that Christ's body should be contained under the Species of bread and wine: Hoc autem totum est accidentale & nihil addit in re nisi praesentiam realem sub speciebus. But all this is accidental, and nothing real, but that he becomes present there. For since the body of Christ relates to the accidents only accidentally, it cannot in respect of them, have any substantial manner of being, different from that which it had before it was Eucharistical. And it is no otherwise than if water on the ground were annihilated, or removed, or corrupted, and some secret way changed from thence, and in the place of it Snow should descend from heaven, or Honey, or Manna, it were hard to call this Conversion, or Transubstantiation: Just as if we should say, that Augustus Caesar was converted into his successor Tiberius, and Moses into Joshua, and Elias into Elisha, or the Sentinel is substantially changed into him that relieves him.  
12. Lastly, if we consider the changes that are incident to the accidents of bread and wine, they would afford us another heap of incommodities: for besides that accidents cannot subsist without their proper subjects, and much less can they become the subjects of other accidents 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Metaph. lib. 4. cap. 4.1. , for what they cannot be to themselves, they cannot be to others, in matter of supply and subsistence; it being a contradiction to say, insubsistent subsistencies. Besides this (I say) If Christ's body be not invested with these accidents, how do they represent it, or to what purpose do they remain? If they be the investiture of Christ's body, than the body is changed, by the mutation of the accidents. But however, I would feign know whether an accident can be sour, or be burnt, as 
* In Leu. cap. 8.  Hesychius affirms they used in Jerusalem to do to the relics of the holy Sacrament; or can accidents make a man drunk, as Aquinas supposes the Sacramental wine did the Corinthians, of whom S. Paul says, One is hungry, and another is drunken? I am sure if it can it is not the blood of Christ; for Mr. Blands' argument in Queen mary's time, concluded well in this instance. That which is in the chalice can make a man drunk; But Christ's blood cannot make a man drunk: Therefore that which is in the chalice is not Christ's blood. To avoid this they must answer to the mayor, and say that it does not supponere universalitèr, for every thing in the chalice does not make a man drunk, for in it there are accidents of bread, and the body besides, and they do inebriate not this; that is to say, a man may be drunk with colour 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. l. 3. de anim. c. 12.  and quantity, and a smell, when there is nothing that smells 
b Est enim hic co●●…, & sapor qualitas & quantitas, cùm nihil in alterutro sit coloratum, & sapidum, quantum & quale. Innocent. 3. de offic. Missae l. 3. c. 21. ; for indeed if there were a substance to be smelled, it might; but that accidents can do it alone, is not to be supposed; unless God should work a miracle to make a man drunk, which to say I think were blasphemy. But again can an accidental form kill a man? but the young Emperor of the house of Luxemburgh was poisoned by a consecrated wafer, and Pope Victor the third had like to have been, and the Archbishop of York was poisoned by the chalice, say Matthew Paris and Malmesbury: and if the body be accidentally moved at the motion of accidents, 
* Bellar. l. 3. c. 10. de Euchar. §. Respondeo corpus.  than by the same reason it may accidentally become mouldy, or sour, or poisonous; which me thinks to all Christian ears should strike horror to hear it spoken. I will not heap up more instances of the same kind of absurdities, and horrid consequences of this doctrine: or consider how a man, or a mouse can live upon the consecrated wafers: (as Aimonius tells that Lewis the fair did for forty days together live upon the Sacrament, and a Jew, or a Turk, could live on it without a miracle, if he he had enough of it) and yet cannot live upon accidents; it being a certain rule in philosophy, Ex iisdem nutriuntur mixta ex quibus fiunt; and a man may as well be made of accidents, and be no substance, as well as be nourished by accidents without substance: Neither will I inquire how it is possible that we should eat Christ's body without touching it; or how we can be said to touch Christ's body, when we only touch and taste the accidents of bread; or lastly, how we can touch the accidents of bread, without the substance, so to do, being impossible in nature: Tangere n. & tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res, said Lucretius, and from him Tertullian in his 5 chapped. of his book De animâ. These and divers other particulars, I will not insist upon: But in stead of them, I argue thus from their own grounds; If Christ be properly said to be touched, and to be eaten, because the accidents are so, than by the same reason, he may be properly made hot, or cold, or mouldy, or dry, or wet, or venomous, by the proportionable mutation of accidents: if Christ be not properly taken and manducated, to what purpose is he properly there? so that on either hand there is a snare. But it is time to be weary of all this, and inquire after the doctrine of the Church, in this great question; for thither at last with some seeming confidence they do appeal. Thither therefore we will follow.   

SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church.  
COncerning this Topick or Head of argument I have some things to premise.  
1. In this question it is not necessary that I bring a catalogue of all the ancient writers, for although to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Catholic, it is necessary by Vincentius Lirinensis his rules and by the nature of the thing, that they should all agreed; yet to show it not to have been the established, resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary. Because although no argument can prove it Catholic, but a consent; yet if some, as learned, as holy, as orthodox do dissent, it is enough to prove it not to be Catholic. As a proposition is not universal if there be one, or three, or ten exceptions; but to make it universal, it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it must take in all.  
2. None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way, because our way contains a Spiritual sense; which to be true our adversaries deny not, but say, it is not sufficient, but there aught to be more. But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome, and are not so capable of an answer for them.  
3. When the saying of a Father is brought, out of which his sense is to be drawn by argument, and discourse, by two, or three remote uneasy consequences; I do not think it fit, to take notice of those words, either for, or against us: because than his meaning is as obscure, as the article itself: and therefore he is not fit to be brought, in interpretation of it. And the same also is the case, when the words are brought by both sides; for than it is a shrewd sign, the Doctor is not well to be understood, or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire; and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example, who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article, or rather not to be against them.  
4. All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general, indefinite, and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question, must in this question pass for nothing; and therefore when the Fathers say, that in the Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, that there is the body of our Lord, that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere bread, but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ, truly his flesh, truly his blood, these and the like say, are not more than the words of Christ, This is my body, and are only true in the same sense of which I have all this while been giving an account: that is, by a change of condition, of sanctification, and usage. We believe that after consecration, and blessing, it is really Christ's body, which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lord's supper; And upon this account, we shall found that many, very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alleged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing. For we speak their sense, and in their own words, the Church of England 
* See article 28. of the Church of England.  expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words; and we are so certain that to eat Christ's body Spiritually is to eat him really, that there is no other way for him to be eaten really, than by Spiritual manducation.  
5. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys c. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. vit. Author Onon. Id. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & reliquis observare est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suidas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Author vitae Chrysost anon. c. 52. & de corpore Chrysostomi dixit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumen. in 1. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. storm. 4. Idem. l. 3. Paedag. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  When the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the symbols in the holy Sacrament, they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church: conversion, mutation, transition, migration, transfiguration, and the like in the Latin; but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions, not proper, natural and substantial. Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversy; 
Chapt. 5.  yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it, without my trouble or his; and that is, by the confession of a Jesuit, and of no mean fame or learning amongst them. The words of Suarez, whom I mean, are these; 
In 3. disp. 50. §. 3.  Licet antiqui Pp. etc. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names, yet all they are either general, as the names of conversion, mutation, transition; or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change, as the name of Transfiguration, and the like: only the name of Transelementation, which Theophylact did use, seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery, because it signifies a change even of the first elements; yet that word is harder, and not sufficiently accommodate: For it may signify the resolution of one element into another, or the resolution of a mixed body into the elements. He might have added another sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation. 
Theoph. in S. Luc. 24. & in S. Joh. 6.  For Theophylact uses the same words to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds: But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signify the passage and conversion of the whole substance, into the whole substance. So that by this discourse we are quitted, and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation, conversion, transition, or passage, or transelementation, transiguration, and the like, of the bread into the body of Christ; these do or may only signify an accidental change; and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation; and it is as if Suarez had said [the words which the Father's use in this question, make not for us, and therefore we have made a new word for ourselves, and obtruded it upon all the world.] But against it, I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine, 
De Sacramentis in. genere. c. 7. §. ex quibus.  that is not ill. The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church, because out of new words, by little and little, new things arise, while it is lawful to coin new words, in divine affairs.  
6. To which I add this, that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christ's body, than they have done, and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed, yet this word would so little have helped the Roman cause, that it would directly have overthrown it. For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another, but a local succession of Christ's body into the place of bread. A change of the Ubi was not used to be called a substantial conversion. But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; they were not used to such curious nothings, and intricate falsehoods, and artificial nonsense, with which the Roman Doctors trouble the world in this question. But they spoke wholly another thing, and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not; If they did not, than it makes nothing for them, or against us. But if they did mean a proper substantial change, than, for so much as it comes to, it makes against us, but not for them; for they must mean a change of one substance into another, by conversion, or a change of substances, by substitution of one in the place of another. If they meant the latter, than it was no conversion of one into another; and than they expressed not what they meant; for conversion which was their word, could signify nothing of that: but if they meant the change of substance into substance, properly by conversion, than they have confuted the present doctrine of Transubstantiation; which though they call a substantial change, yet an accident is the terminus mutationis, that is, it is by their explication of it, wholly an accidental change, as I have before discoursed; for nothing is produced but Ubiquity or Presentiality, 
Vide §. 11. n. 34.  that is, it is only made present where it was not before. And it is to be observed, that there is a vast difference between Conversion, and Transubstantiation; the first is not denied; meaning by it a change of use, of condition, of sanctification; as a Table is changed into an Altar; a House, into a Church; a Man, into a Priest; Mathias, into an Apostle; the Water of the River, into the Laver of Regeneration; but this is not any thing of Transubstantiation. For in this new device, there are three strange affirmatives, of which the Fathers never dreamt. 1. That the natural being of bread is wholly ceased, and is not at all, neither the matter nor the form. 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject, their proper subject being annihilated, and they not subjected in the holy body. 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread, which is not changed into it, but is succeeded by it. These are the constituent propositions of Transubstantiation, without the proof of which, all the affirmations of conversion sigfie nothing to their purpose, or against ours.  
7. When the Fathers use the word Nature in this question, sometimes saying the Nature is changed, sometimes that the Nature remains, it is evident that they either contradicted each other, or that the word Nature hath amongst them divers significations. Now in order to this, I suppose, if men will be determined by the reasonableness of the things themselves, and the usual manners of speech, and not by prejudices, and prepossessions, it will be evident, that when they speak of the change of Nature, saying that bread changes his nature, it may be understood of an accidental change: for that the word Nature is used for a change of accidents, is by the Roman Doctors contended for, when it is to serve their turns, (particularly in their answer to the words of Pope Gelasius:) and it is evident in the thing; for we say, a man of a good nature, that is, of a loving disposition. It is natural to me to love, or hate, this, or that; and it is against my nature, that is, my custom, or my affection. But than, as it may signify accidents, and a Natural change, may yet be accidental, as when water is changed into ice, wine into vinegar; yet it is also certain that Nature may mean substance: and if it can by the analogy of the place or the circumstances of speech, or by any thing be declared, when it is that they mean a substance by using the word, nature; it must be certain, that than, substance is meant, when the word nature is used distinctly, from, and in opposition to accidents: or when it is explicated by and in conjunction with substance; which observation is reducible to practise, in the following testimonies of Theodoret, Gelasius and others; Immortalitatem dedit, 
Ad Dardanum.  naturam non abstulit. says S. Austin.  
8. So also; Whatsoever words are used by the ancient Doctors seemingly affirmative of a substantial change, cannot serve their interest, that now most desire it; because themselves being pressed with the words of Natura and Substantia against them, answer, that the Father's using these words, mean them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not naturally, but Theologically, that is, as I suppose, not properly but Sacramentally: by the same account when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christ's body, they may mean the change of substance not naturally, but sacramentally; so that this aught to invalidate the greatest testimony which can be alleged by them; because themselves have taken from the words that sense which only must have done them advantage; for if Substantia and Natura always mean naturally, than their sentence is oftentimes positively condemned by the Fathers: if this may mean Sacramentally, than they can never without a just answer, pretend from their words to prove a Natural, Substantial change.  
9 But that the words of the Fathers in their most hyperbolical expressions, aught to be expounded Sacramentally and Mystically, we have sufficient warrant from themselves, affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. S. Cyprian affirms ut significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis censeantur, 
Serm. de Unit.  the same words represent the sign and the thing signified. 
Vide infra n. 30.  The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epistle ad Bonifacium. Now upon this declaration of themselves, and of Scripture, whatsoever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration, we are by themselves warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sense; for if they call the sign by the name of the thing signified, and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure, and the figure by the name of the thing, than no affirmative of the Fathers can conclude against them, that have reason to believe the sense of the words of institution to be figurative; for their answer is ready; the Fathers, and the Scriptures too, call the figure, by the name of the thing figurated; the bread by the name of flesh, or the body of Christ, which it figures, and represents.  
10. The Fathers in their alleged testimonies, speak more than is allowed to be literally and properly true, by either side, and therefore declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretention. 
Hom. 83. in S. Mat. Hom. 60. & 6. add Antioch. pop.  Such are the words of S. Chrysostom. Thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, and thy tongue is made bloody, by this admirable blood, thy teeth are fastened in his flesh, they teeth are made read with his blood: and the Author of the book de coenâ Domini, attributed to S. Cyprian, Cruci haeremus etc. We stick close to the cross, we suck his blood, and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer: and under this head may be reduced very many other testimonies; now how far these go beyond the just positive limit, it will be in the power of any man to say, and to take into this account, as many as he please, even all that go beyond his own sense and opinion, without all possibility of being confuted.  
11. In vain will it be for any of the Roman Doctors to allege the words of the Father's proving the conversion of bread into Christ's body or flesh, and of the wine into his blood; since they say the same thing of us, that we also are turned into Christ's flesh, and body and blood. So S. chrysostom, 
Homil. 88 in S. Mat. Ad Clér. Const.  He reduces us into the same mass, or lump, neque id fide solùm sedreipsâ; and in very deed makes us to be his body. So Pope Leò. In mysticâ distributione Spiritualis alimoniae, hoc impartitur & sumitur, ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transcamus. And in his 24 sermon of the Passion. Non alia igitur participatio corporis quàm ut in id quod sumimus transeamus. There is no other participation of the body than that we should pass into that which we receive. In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken, that we receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, may pass into his flesh who became our flesh. 
De instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.  And Rabanus makes the analogy fit to this question. Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus & bibimus: sic & nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter & piè vivimus. As that [Christ's body] is converted into us while we eat it, and drink it, so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously. 
Orat. Catech. 37.  So Gregory Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The immortal body being in the receiver, changes him wholly into his own nature; and Theophylact useth the same word. He that eateth me, liveth by me, whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me, and is transelementated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or changed into me. Now let men of all sides do reason, and let one expound the other, and it will easily be granted, that as we are turned into Christ's body, so is that into us, and so is the bread into that.  
12. Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this, they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament, and of the Sacramentals, or rituals of the Church. It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria. As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is not longer common bread, but it is the body of Christ: so this holy unguent is not longer mere and common ointment, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of Christ [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it uses to be mistaken, the Chrism for the Grace or gift of Christ] and yet this is not spoken properly, as is apparent; but it is in this, as in the Eucharist; so says the comparison. Thus S. chrysostom says, that the Table, or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid; that the Priest is a Seraphim, and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the Altar. But that which I instance in, is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ: of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num. 10. etc. As hearing is eating, as the word is his flesh, so is the bread after consecration, in a Spiritual sense. 2. That which comes most fully home to this, is their affirmative concerning Baptism, to the same purposes, and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament. S. Ambrose 
a L. 4. de Sacram. & lib. de iis qui initiantur myster. c. 9  speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem, the nature of them is changed by blessing; and S. Cyril of Alexandria 
b Lib. 2. in Johan. c. 42.  saith. By the operation of the holy Spirit, the waters are reform to a divine nature, by which the baptised cleanse their body. For in these, the ground of all their great expressions is, that which S. Ambrose expressed in these words: Non agnosco usum naturae, nullus est hic naturae ordo, ubi est excellentia gratiae: Where grace is the chief ingredient, there the use, and the order of nature, is not at all considered. But this whole mystery is most clear in S. Austin 
c Ad infantes apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. , affirming; That we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism we are made members of Christ; and are not estranged from the followship of that bread and chalice, although we die before we eat that bread and drink that cup. 
Lib. de Bapt.  Tingimur in passione Domini; We are baptised into the passion of our Lord; says Tertullian; into the death of Christ, saith S. Paul: for by both Sacraments we show the Lords death.  
13. Upon the account of these premises we may be secured against all the objections, or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity, which are pretended for Transubstantiation; for either they speak that which we acknowledge, as that it is Christ's body, that it is not common bread, that it is a divine thing, that we eat Christ's flesh, that we drink his blood, and the like; all which we acknowledge and explicate, as we do the words of institution; or else they speak more than both sides allow to be literally true; or speak as great things of other mysteries which must not, cannot be expounded literally; that is, they speak more, or less, or divers from them, or the same with us: and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bellarmine, in Coccius, and Perron, that is pertinent to this question, but may be made invalid, by one, or more of the former considerations. But of those, if there be any, of which there may be a material doubt, beyond the cure of these observations, I shall give particular account in the sequel.  
But than for the testimonies which I shall allege against the Roman doctrine in this article, they will not be so easily avoided. 1. Because many of them are not only affirmative in the Spiritual sense, but exclusive of the natural and proper. 2. Because it is easy to suppose they may speak hyperboles, but never that they would undervalue the blessed Sacrament: for an hyperbole is usual, not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the lessening a mystery; that may be true, this never; that may be capable of fair interpretations, this can admit of none; that may breed reverence, this contempt. To which I add this, that the heathens slandering the Christians to be worshippers of Ceres or Liber, because of the holy bread and chalice (as appears in S. Augustine's 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee) had reason to advance the reputation of Sacramental signs to be above common bread and wine, not only so to explicate the truth of the mystery, but to stop the mouth of their calumny: and therefore for higher expressions there might be cause, but not such cause for any lower than the severest truth; and yet let me observe this by the way: S. Austin answered only thus: We are far from doing so, Quamvis panis & calicis Sacramentum ritu nostro amplectamur. S. Austin might have further removed the calumny, if he had been of the Roman persuasion; who adore not the bread, nor eat it at all in their Synaxes until it be no bread, but changed into the body of our Lord. But he knew nothing of that. Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical. Indeed Mr. Brerely hath got an ignorant fancy by the end, which I am now to note, and wipe of. He says that the Primitive Christians were scandalised by the Heathen to be eaters of the flesh of a child, which in all reason must be occasioned by their doctrine of the manducation of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament; and if this be true, than we may suspect that they to wipe of this scandal might remove their doctrine as far from the objection as they could, and therefore might use some lessening expressions. To this I answer, that the occasions of the report were the sects of the Gnostics, and the Peputians. The Gnostics, as Epiphanius reports, bruised a new born infant in a mortar, and all of them did communicate by eating portions of it; and the Montanists having sprinkled a little child with meal let him blood, and of that made their Eucharistical bread; and these stories the Jews published to disrepute, if they could, the whole religion; but nothing of this related to the doctrine of the Christian Eucharist, though the bell always must tinkle as they are pleased to think. But this turned to advantage of the truth, and to the clearing of this article. For when the scandal got foot, and run abroad, the Heathens spared not to call the Christians Cannibals, and to impute to them anthropophagy, or the devouring human flesh, and that they made Thyestes Feast, who by the procurement of Atreus eat his own children. Against this the Christian Apologists betook themselves to a defence. Justin Martyr says the false devils had set on work some vile persons, to kill some one or other, to give colour to the report. 
Legat. pro Christian.  Athenagoras in a high defiance of the infamy, asks, Do you think we are murderers? for there is no way to eat man's flesh, unless we first kill him. Octavius in Minutius Felix confutes it, upon this account: We dye not receive the blood of beasts, into our food or beverage; therefore we are infinitely distant from drinking man's blood. And this same, 
Cap. 9  Tertullian in his Apologetic presses further, affirming that to discover Christians, they use to offer them a black pudding, or something in which blood remained, and they chose rather to die, than do it; and of this we may see instances in the story of Sanctus and Blandina in the ecclesiastical histories. Concerning which it is remarkable, what Oecumenius in his Catena upon the 2 chap. of the first Epistle of S. Peter reports out of Irenaeus; the Greeks having taken some servants of Christians, pressing to learn something secret of the Christians, and they having nothing in their notice, to please the inquisitors, except that they had heard of their Masters, that the divine communion is the blood, and body of Christ; they supposing it true, according to their rude natural apprehensions, tortured Sanctus and Blandina, to confess it. But Blandina answered them thus: How can they suffer any such thing in the exercise of their Religion, who do not nourish themselves with flesh that is permitted? All this trouble came upon the act of the foremention'd heretics; the report was only concerning the blood of an infant, not of a man, as it must have been if it had been occasioned by the Sacrament; but the Sacrament was not so much as thought of in this scrutiny, till the examination of the servants gave the hint in the torture of Blandina. Cardinal Perron perceiving much detriment likely to come to their doctrine by these Apologies of the primitive Christians upon the 11. anathematisme of S. Cyril, says, that they deny anthropophagy, but did not deny The anthropophagy, saying, that they did not eat the flesh, or drink the blood of a mere man, but of Christ who was God and Man; which is so strange a device as I wonder it could drop from the pen of so great a wit. For this would have been a worse, and more intolerable scandal, to affirm that Christians eat their God, and sucked his blood, and were devourers not only of a man, but of an immortal God. But however let his fancy be confronted with the extracts of the several apologies which I have now cited, and it will appear, that nothing of the Cardinal's fancy can come near their sense, or words: for all the business was upon the blood of a child which the Gnostics had killed, or the Montanists tormented; and the matter of the Sacrament, was not in the whole rumour so much as thought upon.  
Lastly, Unless there be no one objection of ours, that means as it says, but all are shadows, and nothing is awake but Bellarmine, in all his dreams; or Perron in all his laborious excuses; if we be allowed to be in our wits, and to understand Latin, or Greek, or common sense; unless the Fathers must all be understood according to their new nonsense answers, which the Primitive Doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of, that besides, that it is next to impudence to suppose they could mean them, their own Doctors in a few ages last passed, did not know them, but opposed, and spoke some things contrary, and many things divers from them: I say unless we have neither sense, nor reason, nor souls like other men, it is certain, that not one, nor two, but very many of the Fathers, taught our doctrine most expressly in this article, and against theirs. * And after all, whether the testimonies of the Doctors be ancient, or modern, it is advantage to us, and inconvenient for them: For if it be ancient, it shows their doctrine not to be from the beginning; if it be modern, it does it more; for it declares plainly, the doctrine to be but of yesterday: now I am very certain, I can make it appear, not to have been the doctrine of the Church, not of any Church whose records we have, for above a thousand years together.  
But now in my entry upon the testimonies of Fathers, I shall make my way the more plain and credible, if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman Doctors in this business. And the first I shall name, is Bellarmine himself, who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself; 
L. 2. Euch. c. 25. §. Hic verò.  but yet he says; Non esse mirandum etc. It is not to be wondered at, if S. Austin, Theodoret, and others of the ancients, spoke some things which in show seem to favour the heretics, when even from Jodocus some things did fall, which by the adversaries were drawn to their cause. Now though he lessens the matter by quaedam and videantur and in speciem, seemingly, and in show and some things] yet it was as much as we could expect from him; with whom visibilitèr, if it be on our side, must mean invisibilitèr, and statuimus must be abrogamus. But I rest not here: 
De haer. l. 8. v. Indulgentia.  Alphonsus à Castro says more. De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio. The ancient Writers seldom mention the change of the substance of bread into the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world's their own. But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transubstantiation to be ancient, so says Henriquez. 
Sum. l. 8. c. 23. De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Unum tamen.  Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. So said Scotus himself, as Bellarmine citys him; and some of the Fathers of the Society in England in their prison affirmed Rem Transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem; 
Discourse modest. p. 13.  that the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter of Transubstantiation: and it was likely so, because Peter Lombard, whose design it was, 
Lib. 4. Sent. dist. 11. lit. a.  to collect the sentences of the Fathers into heads of articles, found in them something to the purpose of Transubstantiation, that he professed he was not able to define, whether the conversion of the Eucharistical bread were formal or substantial, or of another kind. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, the substance is changed into the substance. Quibusdam, & videtur, it seems, and that not to all neither, but to some; for his part he knows not whether they are right or wrong, therefore in his days the doctrine was not Catholic. And me thinks it was an odd saying of Vasquez and much to this purpose; 
In 3. Tho. to. 3. disp. 183. c. 1. n. 1.  that as soon as ever the later Schoolmen heard the name of Transubstantiation, such a controversy did arise concerning the nature of it (he says not, of the meaning of the word, but the nature of the thing,) that by how much the more they did endeavour to extricate themselves, by so much the more they were entangled in difficulties. It seems it was news to them, to hear talk of it, and they were as much strangers to the nature of it, as to the name; it begat quarrels, and became a riddle which they could not resolve; but like Achelous his horn sent forth a river of more difficulty, to be waded through, than the horn was to be broken. And amongst these Schoolmen Durandus maintained an heretical opinion (says Bellarmine) saying that the form of bread was changed into Christ's body: 
Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 1.  but that the matter of bread remained still; by which also it is apparent that than this doctrine was but in the forge; it was once stamped upon, at the Lateran Council, but the form was rude, and it was feign to be cast again, and polished at Trent; the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint. But now I proceed to the trial of this Topick.  
I shall not need to arrest the Reader, with consideration of the pretention made by the Roman Doctors, out of the passions of the Apostles, which all men condemn for spurious and Apocryphal; particularly the passion of S. 
S. Andrew. Annal. to. 1. A. D. 44. num. 42.  Andrew said to be written by the Priests, and Deacons of Achaia. For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baronius, censured for such by Gelasius, by Philastrius, and Innocentius; they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions, and detractions; and yet if they were genuine, and uncorrupted, they say nothing, but what we profess: 
Vide etiam Whitum Diacoes. Martyr. fol. 3.  [although the holy Lamb truly sacrificed, and his flesh eaten by the people, doth nevertheless persevere whole and alive] for no man, that I know of, pretends that Christ is so eaten in the Sacrament, that he dies for it; for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith, and that is the most true manducation of Christ's body, the flesh of the holy Lamb: and this manducation breaks not a bone of him; but than how he can be torn by the teeth of the communicants and yet remain whole, is a harder matter to tell; and therefore these words are very far from their sense; they are nearer to an objection: But I shall not be troubled with this any more; save that I shall observe that one White of the Roman persuasion quoting part of these words which Bellarmine, 
Diacosion Mart. fol. 3.  and from him the under-writers object; [Ego omnipotenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacrifico] of these words in particular affirms that without all controversy they are apocryphal.  
Next to him is S. Ignatius who is cited to have said something of this question in his epistle ad Smyrnenses, 
S. Ignatius.  speaking of certain heretics [They do not admit of Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us.] They that do not confess it, let them be anathema: for sure it is, as sure as Christ is truth: but quomodo is the question, and of this S. Ignatius says nothing. But the understanding of these words perfectly, depends upon the story of that time. Concerning which, we learn out of Tertullian and Irenaeus that the Marcosians, the Valentinians and Marcionites, who denied the incarnation of the son of God, did nevertheless use the Eucharistical Symbols, though, I say, they denied Christ to have a body. Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresy, (for to what purpose should they celebrated the Sacrament of Christ's body, if he had none?) therefore it is that S. Ignatius might say: They did not admit the Eucharist, because they did not confess it to be the flesh of Christ: for though in practice they did admit it, yet in theory they denied it, because it could be nothing, as they handled the matter. For how could it be Christ's flesh Sacramentally, if he had no flesh really? And therefore they did not admit the Euchcharist, as the Church did, for in no sense would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ; not the figure, not the Sacrament of it; jest admitting the figure they should also confess the substance: But besides, if these words had been against us, it had signified nothing; because these words are not in S. Ignatius; they are in no Greek copy of him; but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material, than what I have accounted: for I only took them in by the by, because they are great names, and are objected sometimes.  
But I shall descend to more material testimonies, and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several Fathers supposing that the others are invalid, upon the account of the premises; or if they were not, yet they can but pass for single opinions, against which themselves, and others, are opposed at other times.  
Tertullian is affirmative in that sense of the article which we teach. 
Tertullian. adv. Martion. l. 4. c. 40.  Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suis, Christus corpus suum meum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus i.e. figura corporis mei. He proves against the Marcionites that Christ had a true real body in his incarnation, by this argument; because in the Sacrament he gave bread, as the figure of his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Fisher in his answer to the 9th. question propounded by K. James, and he from Card. Perron say it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and answers to this place, that Figura corporis mei, refers after Tertullia's odd manner of speaking, to Hoc, not to corpus meum, which are the words immediately preceding, and so most proper for the relation; and that the sense is: This figure of my body, is my body: that is, this which was a figure in the old Testament, is now a substance. To this I reply, 1. It must mean, this which is present is my body, not this figure of my body which was in the old Testament, but this which we mean in the words of consecration; and than it is no hyperbaton, which is to be supplied with quod erat; This, which was; for the nature of a hyperbaton is, to make all right, by a mere transposition of the words; as, Christus mortuus est, i e. unctus; place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect; but it is not so here: without the addition of two words, it cannot be; and if two words may be added, we may make what sense we please. But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc, yet it is to be remembered that Hoc, in that place, is one of the words of the institution, or consecration, and than it can have no sense to evacuate the pressure of his words. 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended, than the sense will be; This figure of my body, is my body, the consequent of which, is that which we contend for: that the same which is called his body, is the figure of his body: the one is, the subject; the other, the predicate: and than it affirms all that is pleaded for: as if we say: Haec effigies est homo, we mean it is the effigies of a man; and so in this, This figure of my body, is my body, by the rule of denominatives, signifies, This is the figure of my body. 4. In the preceding words; Tertullian says, the Pascha was the type of his passion: this Pascha he desired to eat; This Pascha was not the lamb (for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten) professus se concupiscentiâ concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) he would eat the Passeover of his own, figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat, he desired to fulfil the figure, that is, to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood: Now this was by eating the Paschal lamb, that is, himself; for the other was not to be eaten that night. Now than if the eating, or delivering himself to be eaten that night, was implere figuram sanguinis sui, he than did fulfil the figure of his blood, therefore figura corporis mei in the following words, must relate to what he did that night; that therefore was the figure, but the more excellent, because the nearest to the substance, which was given really the next day: this therefore as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms was the most excellent figure, the Paschal lamb itself being figura figurae, the figure of a figure, as I have quoted him in the sequel. And it is not disagreeing from the expression of Scripture, saying, 
Heb. 1. v. 1.  that the law had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a shadow, but not the very image: that was in the ceremonies of the law, this in the Sacraments of the Gospel: Christ himself was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing itself; but the image was more than the shadow, though less than the substance; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word by which the Fathers expressed this nearer configuration. 5. Whereas it is added, it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus, to my sense clears the question; for therefore Christ's body, which he was clothed withal, was a true body, else this could not be a figure of it; But therefore this which was also a figure, could not be the true body, of which it was a figure. 6. That which Fisher adds, that Tertullia's drift was to show, that whereas, in the old Testament, bread was the figure of the body of Christ (as appears by the words of the Prophet, Mittamus lignum in panem ejus, i e. crucem in corpus ejus) Christ in the new Testament made this figure really to be his body; This I conceive to make very much against Tertullia's design. For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body; that was no new thing, for it was so also in the old figure; and therefore may be so now: but that this was no more than a figure, he adds, If therefore he made bread to be his body, because he wanted a true body, than bread was delivered for us; and it would advance the vanity of Martion, that bread was crucified. Not, this could not be; but therefore he must mean, that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passeover, so now in the last supper, he gave the same figure, and therefore that which was figured was real, viz. his crucified body. Now suppose we should frame this argument out of Tertullia's medium, and suppose it to be made by Martion. The body of Christ, was delivered for the sins of the world, etc. you Catholics say that bread is the body of Christ, therefore you say, that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world, and that bread was crucified for you, and that bread is the son of God; what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian, but by expounding the minor proposition figuratively? we Catholics say that the Eucharistical bread, is the body of Christ in a figurative sense, it is completio or consummatio figurarum, the last and most excellent of all figures. But if he should have said according to the Roman fancy, that it is the natural body of Christ, it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Martion. But that there may be no doubt in this particular, hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question. 
Lib. 5. cont. Martion. c. 8.  Proinde panis & calicis Sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantasma Marcionis. Against the phantasm of Martion we have proved the verity of Christ's body, and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine. 7. This very answer I found to be Tertullias own explication of this affair: 
Lib. 3. c. 19  for speaking of the same figurative speech of the prophet jeremy, and why bread should be called his body; he gives this account: Hoc lignum & jeremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Iudaeis, Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus, utique in corpus; sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, cujus retro corpus in panem prophetes figuravit ipso Domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo. For so God revealed in your Gospel, calling bread his body, that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the figure of his body, whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread, afterwards the Lord himself expounding the Sacrament. Nothing needs to be plainer. By the way, let me observe this, that the words cited by Tertullian out of jeremy are expounded, and recited too, but by allusion. For there are no such words in the Hebrew text: which is thus to be rendered. Corrumpamus veneno cibum ejus, and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament, unless you will suppose that he foresignified the poisoning the Emperor, by a consecrated wafer. But as to the figure, this is often said by him; for in the first book against Martion he hath these words again [nec reprobavit] panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris. He refused not bread by which he represents his own body, wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator. For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to persuade Martion, that the bread was really and properly Christ's body; but that he really delivered his body on the cross, that both in the old Testament, and here, himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine, for that was it which the Marcionites denied, saying, on the cross no real humanity did suffer; and he confutes them by saying these are figures, and therefore denote a truth. 8 However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them, and serve their turn, yet some of their fellows, great Clerks as themselves, did shrink under the pressure of it, as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer. 
Art. 12. S. 9  For Harding against jewel hath these words speaking of this place [which interpretation is not according to the true sense of Christ's words, although his meaning swerve not from the truth] And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader, De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmatis, seems to confess this to be Tertullia's error. Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ, jam olim condemnatus, The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure, is now long since condemned. But Garetius 
a De verâ praes. clas. 1. p. 19 , Bellarmine 
b Lib. 3. Euch. c. 20. , justinian 
c In 1 Cor. 11. , Coton 
d Du Sacr. de la Mes. c. 17. , Fevardentius 
e In Irenae. l. 4. c. 34. , Valentia 
f De Transub. l. 2. c. 3. , and Vasquez 
g T. 3. in 3 disp. 180. n. 21. , in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian, very fairly leave out the words that pinch them, and which clears the article: and bring the former words for themselves, without the interpretation of id est, figura corporis mei. I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side, against whose plain words no real exception can lie, himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sense of this mystery.  
Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph, 
Origen.  and other places casually, and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
Justin M.  And the same also of justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth, number 9 Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question, on which the whole depends, whither I refer the Reader. Only concerning justin Martyr, I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon. Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis— facere praecepit. The bread of the Eucharist was a figure, which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion.  
Clemens Alexandrinus saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The blood of Christ is twofold; 
Clemens Alexandrinus paed. l. 2. c. 2.  the one is carnal, by which we are redeemed from death; the other spiritual, viz. by which we are anointed. And this is to drink the blood of jesus, to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit, as blood is of the flesh. Therefore in a moderated proportion, and convenience, wine is mingled with water, as the Spirit with a man. And he receivs in the Feast [viz. Eucharistical] tempered wine unto faith. But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption, but the mixture of both, viz. of drink, and the word, is called the Eucharist, which is praised, and is a good gift or [grace] of which they who are partakers by faith, are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist, Spiritual blood; and without repeating, the whole discourse is easy and clear. And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning, he disputes in the same chapter, against the Encratites, who thought it not lawful to drink wine. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. For be ye sure he also did drink wine, for he also was a man, and he blessed wine when he said, Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is my blood, the blood of the vine, for that word [that was shed for many for the remission of sins] it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that the thing which had been blessed was wine, he shown again, saying to his disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it new with you in my father's kingdom. Now S. Clement proving by Christ's sumption of the Eucharist, that he did drink wine, must mean, the Sacramental symbol to be truly wine, and Christ's blood allegorically, that holy stream of gladness, or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites. Upon which account these words are much to be valued, because by our doctrine in this article, he only could confute the Encratites; as by the same doctrine explicated, as we explicate it, Tertullian confuted the Marcionites, and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians, and Eutychians; if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true, these four heresies had by them, as to their particular arguments relating to this matter, been unconfuted.  
S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius, Harding, Bellarmine, 
S. Cyprian.  and Lindan cite, hath these words, Dedit itaque Dominus noster etc. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples, with his own hands gave bread and wine, but on the cross, he gave to the soldiers his body to be wounded, that in the Apostles the sincere truth, and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood, and by what reasons causes might agreed with effects, and divers names, and kinds (viz. bread and wine) might be reduced to one essence, and the signifying, and the signified, might be reckoned by the same words: and in his third Epistle he hath these words, Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, wine by which Christ's blood is shown or declared: Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground, Quid clariùs dici potuit? But I forbear; being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph. But I will use it thus far, that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini, by Bellarmine, by the Rhemists, by the Roman Catechism, by Perron, and by Gregory de Valentiâ. The words are these, Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro, & sicut in personâ Christi etc. The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed, not in shape, but in nature, being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word; and as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity lay hid, so in the visible Sacrament, the divine essence, after an ineffable manner, pours itself forth, that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion, and that a more sincere entrance may be opened to the truth whereof the body and blood are Sacraments, even unto the participation of the Spirit, not unto the consubstantiality of Christ. This testimony (as Bellarmine says) admits of no answer. But by his favour, it admits of many: 1. Bellarmine citys but half of those words, and leaves out that which gives him answer. 2. The words affirm, that that body and blood are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth; but if it were really, and naturally, Christ's body, than it were itself, veritas & corpus, and not only a Sacrament. 3. The truth [of which these are Sacramental] is the participation of the Spirit; that is, a Spiritual communication. 4. This does not arrive ad consubstantialitatem Christi, to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ, which it must needs do, if bread were so changed in nature, as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are under the name also of Arnoldus Abbot of Bonavilla in the time of S. Bernard, as appears in a M.S. in the Library of All soul's College of which I had the honour sometime to be a Fellow. However, it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians, and who is the Father of it, if Arnoldus be not, cannot be known; neither his age nor reputation. His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery, being direct Friars latin, as appears by his honorificare, amaricare, injuriare, demembrare, sequestrare, attitulare, spiritalitas, te supplico, and some false latin besides, and therefore he aught to pass for nothing; which I confess I am sorry for, as to this question; because to my sense he gives us great advantage in it. But I am content to loose what our cause needs not. I am certain they can get nothing by him. For if the authority were not incompetent; the words were impertinent to their purpose, but very much against them: only let me add out of the same sermon these words. Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento educt a & visibilibus sacr amentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum & non tam corporali quàm spiritualt transitione nos cum Christo uniri. That common bread being changed into flesh and blood, procures life and increment to our bodies; therefore our infirmity being helped with the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument, that the effect of eternal life, is in visible Sacraments, and that we are united to Christ, not so much by a corporal, as by a Spiritual change. If both these discourses be put together let the authority of the writer be what it will, the greater, the better.  
In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus, or thereabouts, 
A. D. 190. Maximus.  Origen is brought in speaking thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If, as the Marcionites say, Christ had neither flesh nor blood, of what flesh or of what blood did he, giving bread and the chalice as images, command his disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made?  
To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Eusebius. Lib. 8. de monst. evang. c. 1. Lib. 1. c. ult.  He gave to his disciples the symbols of divine economy, commanding the image or type of his own body to be made: and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament, to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body, and healthful blood.  
S. Ephrem the Syrian, Patriarch of Antioch, 
S. Ephrem. De sacris Antioch. legibus apud Phot. l. 1. co. 229. Scotus Jesuita exponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur, contra sensum loci.  is dogmatical and decretory in this question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance, and is undivided from a spiritual grace. He adds the similitude and parity of baptism to this mystery; for even baptism being wholly made Spiritual, and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance, I mean of water, saves, and that which is born doth not perish. I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I allege, for if of their own natural intent they do not teach our doctrine, I am content they should pass for nothing.  
S. Epiphanius affirming man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
S. Epiphan. in Ancorato.  in some image or similitude, not according to Nature, illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament; We see that our Saviour took into his hands as the Evangelist hath it, that he arose from supper, and took those things, and when he had given thanks he said, This is mine, and this; we see it is not equal, it is not like, not to the image in the flesh, not to the invisible Deity, not to the proportion of members, for this is a round form, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and cannot perceive any thing, or [is insensible according to power or faculty] and he would by grace say, This is mine, and this, and every man believes the word that is spoken, for he that believeth not him to be true, is fallen from grace, and salvation. Now the force of Epiphanius his argument, consisting in this, that we are like to God after his image, but yet not according to nature, as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ, it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ, and his blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the image or representment, not according to Nature, but according to Grace.  
Macarius' his words are plain enough, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Macarius. homil. 27.  In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood, and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ.  
S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha saith, 
S. Gregoy Naz. orat. 2. in Pasc.  I am potestatis participes erimus etc. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper, but still in figure though more clear than in the old law. For the legal Passeover (I will not be a afraid to speak it) was a more obscure figure, of a figure.  
S. 
S. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5.  Ambrose is of the same persuasion. Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi. Make this ascribed oblation, reasonable, and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
C. 4. ibid.  And again, Mira potentia etc. it is a wondered power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing. And again, How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were, and yet be changed into another? and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ] Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi; Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda, 
De consecdist. 2. panis est.  ita solvit Hugo, saith the Gloss in Gratian; which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible. But because these words pinch severely; they have retrenched the decisive words; and leave out, [& sint] and make them to run thus [that the things be— changed into another] which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius, Guitmond, Bertram, Algerus, Ivo Carnotensis, Gratian and Lombard. But in another place he calls the mystical chalice The type of the blood; 
In 1 Cor. 11.  and that Christ is offered here, in imagine, in type, image, or representation; in coelo, in veritate, the truth, 
De offic. l. 1. c. 48. Lib. de initiat. c. 9  the substance is in heaven. And again, This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh. Our Lord jesus himself says, this is my body. Before the blessing by the words it was named another species (or kind;) after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified.  
S. chrysostom is brought on both sides, 
S. Chrysost.  and his rhetoric hath cast him on the Roman side, but it also bears him beyond it; and his divinity, and sober opinions have fixed him on ours. How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses, is easy, by the use of rhetoric and customs of the words: 
Ep. ad Caesar. count. haeres. Apollinarii citat. per Damascen. & per. collect. sent. pp. contrà Severianos edit. per Turrian.  But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words [For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread, but the divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread, but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body, although the nature of bread remains in it. To the same purpose are those words on the 22d Psalm published amongst his works, though possibly they were of some other of that time, or before, or after; it matters not to us, but much to them: for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholic, (as it is certain he was and the man a while supposed to be S. chrysostom) it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine. The words are these: That table hath he prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight, that he might every day show us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedec bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the homilies of whoever is the author of that opus imperfectum upon S. 
Hom. 11. in S. Mat.  Mat. Si igitur haec vasa etc. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is contained; how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies etc. Now against these testimonies, they make an outcry that they are not S. Chrysostom's works, and for this last, the book is corrupted, and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius' scholars; for they cannot tell. Feign they would believe it; but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield, but to proceed against all evidence; for that this place is not corrupted, but was originally the sense of the Author of the homilies, is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the public Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular; but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies, were no great wonder, though I do not found they did, but that they foisted in a marginal note, affirming that these words are not in all old copies: an affirmation very confident, but as the case stands, to very little purpose. But upon this account nothing can be proved from say of Fathers. For either they are not their own works but made by another, or 2. They are capable of another sense, or 3. The places are corrupted by heretics, or 4. It is not in some old copies; which pretences I am content to let alone, if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sense. 5. It matters not at all what he is, so he was not esteemed a heretic; and that he was not, it is certain, since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. chrysostom, and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service. All that I infer from hence is this, that whensoever these books were writ, some man esteemed a good Catholic was not of the Roman persuasion in the matter of the Sacrament; therefore their opinion is not Catholic. But that S. chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places; in his 23 homily upon the first of the Corinthians, which are undoubtedly his own; he saith [As thou eatest the body of the Lord, so they (viz. the faithful in the old Testament) did eat Manna: as thou drinkest blood, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which are made be sensible, yet they are given spiritually, not according to the consequence of nature, but according to the grace of a gift, and with the body they also nourish the soul, leading unto faith.  
The next I produce for evidence in this cases, 
S. August.  is S. Austin, concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this article, that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it; and upon equal terms not man's mind in the world can be known; for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcileable to Transubstantiation, I know no reason but it may be possible, but a witty man may pretend when I am dead, that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church. I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them, and let them do by themselves as much as they can. 
Ep. ad Bonifac.  Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem etc. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they were no Sacraments at all. But from this similitude, for the most part they receive the things themselves. As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ: so the Sacrament of faith is. Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Roman doctors, a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently, and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstances of the place, I would desire reasonably to be answered on which side he would conclude S. Austin to be of? if in any other place he speaks words contrary; that is his fault or forgetfulness: but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his religion and communion, as so openly to have declared a contrary sense to the same article. 
a In Psal, 98.  Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturiestis etc. you are not to eat this body which you see (so he brings in Christ speaking to his disciples) or to drink that blood which my crucifyers shall pour forth; I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you; * 
b In Psal.  and Christ] brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and bloud* For he did not doubt to say 
a Cont. Adimant. c. 12. , This is my body when he gave the sign of his body. * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur 
b Lib. 10. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 2.  etc. That which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice, in which the flesh of Christ, after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances. But concerning S. Augustine's doctrine, I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied, to no other record than their own Canon law. 
c De consecrat. d. 2.  Which not only from S. Austin but from divers others produces testimonies so many, so pertinent, so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation, that it is to me a wonder why it is not clapped into the Indices expurgatorii, for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses: which they have changed and altered several times. But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer, his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question, that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the bald had upon occasion of the dispute which than began to be hot and interested in this question, read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence, and upon occasion of that his being persuaded so by S. Austin, Paschasius Ratherdus wrote to him, as of a question than doubted of by many persons, as is to be seen in his epistle to Frudegardus. I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine; Locutio praeceptiva etc. 
Lib. 3. c. 15, 16.  A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative; but if it seems to command a crime, or forbidden a good, than it is figurative. Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man etc. Seems to command a wickedness, it is therefore a figure commanding us to communicate with the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis & sanguinis, the Eucharist of the body and blood, by Irenaeus; corpus symbolicum & typicum, by Origen; In typo sanguis, by S. Jerome; similitudo, figura, typus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, images, aenigmaes, representations, expressions, exemplars of the Passion by divers others: that which I shall note here is this; 
A. D. 754. of 338. B. B.  that in the council of Constantinople it was publicly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not by nature but by representment; for so it is expounded. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the holy image of it, 
Vide Concil. general. tom. 3. p. 599. edit. Rom.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A figure or image delivered by God, of his flesh; and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the 3 tom. of the 6. action of the second Nicene council where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christ's body; that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, antitypes, before consecration, he grants; but after consecration, they are called, and are, and are believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly: which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Iconoclasts would not endure the word Type, or Image to be used concerning the holy Sacrament; for they would admit no other Image but that: he in defiance of them who had excommunicated him for a worshipper of images, and a half-Sarazin, would admit any image but that; but denied that to be an image or type of Christ [de fide l. 4. c. 14.] For Christ said not, this is the type of my body, but it is it. But however this new question began to brand the words of Type and Antitype, and the manner of speaking began to be changed, yet the article as yet was not changed. For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype, and Image &c. to exclude the natural sense of the Sacramental body; and Damascen, and Anastasius Sinaita, and some others of that age began to refuse those words, jest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality, nothing but an image. And that this really was the sense of Damascen, appears by his words recited in the acts of the second council of Nice, affirming that the divine bread is made Christ's body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spirit of Christ, in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration. But however they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly, yet in the Roman edition of the Counsels, the Publishers and Collectors were wiser, and put on this marginal note: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration; particularly by 
a In Apolog. & orat. funebr. pro Gorg.  Greg. Naz. and 
b Mystag. Catech 5.  S. Cyril of Jerusalem. I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many bishops, that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images, and therefore not to be trusted in any other article. So Bellarmine (as I remember) But this is just as if I should say that I aught to refuse the Lateran Council because they were worshippers of Images, or defenders of Purgatory. Surely if I should, I had much more reason to refuse their sentence, than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence; nay for doing that which for aught appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high measure: so that in effect they are refused for being good Christians. But after this, it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament, by the Emperor Charles the great, his Tutor Alcuinus, and the assembly at Franckfort; but it was in opposition to the Council of Constantinople that called it the true image of Christ's body, and of the Nicene Council who decreed the worship of images; for if the Sacrament were an image, as they of CP. said, than it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some images; for although these two Synods were enemies to each other, yet the proposition of one, might serve the design of the other; but therefore the Western doctors of that age, speaking against the decree of this, did also mislike the expression of that: meaning that the Sacrament is not a type or image, as a type is taken for a prefiguration, a shadow of things to come, like the legal ceremonies, but in opposition to that is a body, and a truth; yet still it is a Sacrament of the body, a mystery which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type etc. for 750 years together. And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperor Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod, Our Lord hath given the bread and the chalice in figurâ corporis sui & sui sanguinis, in the figure of his body and blood. But setting the authority aside, for if these men of CP. be not allowed, yet the others are, and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin Fathers call them signs, similitudes, figures, types, images, therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great outcry, and insupportable prejudice of so great, so clear authority. After many trials; as that by antitypes they mean exemplars, that it is only before consecration, not after, and such other little devices, of which they themselves quickly grew weary; at last the craftiest of them came to this, that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the sign of the same body and blood, as it was on the cross; 
De Euch. l. 2. c. 15.  so Bellarmine; That's the answer; and that they are hard put to it, you may guess by the meanness of the answer. For besides that nothing can be like itself, Idem non est simile; the body, as it is under the Species, is glorified, immortal, invisible, impassable, indivisible, insensible; and this is it which he affirms to be the sign, 
Nemo est sui ipsius imago. S. Hilar. lib. de Synod. Quod simile est non est illud cui est simile. S. Athanas. lib. contr. hypocr. Meleti.  that is, which is appointed to signify and represent a body that was humbled, tormented, visible, mortal, sensible, torn, bleeding, and dying; So that here is a sign nothing like the thing signified, and an invisible sign of a visible body, which is the greatest absurdity in nature, and in the use of things, which is imaginable; but besides this, this answer, if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing, yet it is besides the mark; for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signs, that is, that bread and wine, or the whole Sacrament is a sign of that body, which is exhibited in effect and Spiritual power: they dreamt not this dream; it was long before themselves did dream it: they that were but the day before them, having, as I noted before, other fancies. I deny not but the Sacramental body is the sign of the true body crucified: but that the body glorified, should be but a sign of the true body crucified, is a device fit for themselves to fancy. To this sense are those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper. Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus: Caro viz. carnis, & sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis, carne & sanguine utroque invisibili & intelligibili & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae & divinae majestatis. That is, It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament, and under the form of wine we drink his blood: Now that you may understand his meaning, he tells you this is true in the Sacramental or Spiritual sense only; for he adds, flesh is the Sacrament of flesh, and blood of blood; by both flesh and blood which are invisible, intelligible, and Spiritual, is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and divine majesty. In which words here is a plain confutation of their main article, and of this whimsy of theirs. For as to the particular, 
Ubi suprà.  whereas Bellarmine says, that Christ's body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified, S. Austin says, that the natural body is a type of that body which is glorified, not the glorified body of the crucified. 2. That which is a type, is flesh in a spiritual sense, not in a natural; and therefore it can mean nothing but this, that the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the real: 
De consecrat. d. 2. c. Hoc est quod.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this thing is noted by the Gloss of Gratian. Caro, i e. species carnis, sub qua latet corpus Christi etc. The flesh, that is, the Species of it under which it lies are the Sacrament of the flesh. So that the being of a Sacrament of Christ's body, is wholly relative to the Symbols, not to the body; as if the body were his own sign and his own Sacrament.  
Next to this heap of testimonies, I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius, 
Theodoret.  which though known in this whole question, yet being plain, certain and unanswerable, relying upon a great article of the religion, even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of substances, must be as sacred and untouched by any trifling answer, as the article itself aught to be preserved. The case was this: The Eutychian heretics denied the natures of Christ to be united in one person, that is, they denied him to be both God and Man, saying, 
Alphons. à Castro de haeres. Eutych.  his humanity was taken into his divinity after his ascension. The Father's disputing against them, say, the substances remain entire, though joined in the person. The Eutychians said this was impossible. But as in the Sacrament the bread was changed into Christ's body, so in the ascension was the humanity turned into the divinity. To this Theodoret answers in a dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox: 
Dial. 1. c. 8.  Christ honoured the symbols and signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he says there is no change made, but only grace superadded; in all things else the things are the same. And again: 
Dial. 2. c. 24.  For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, figure and form, and may be seen and touched etc. So the humanity of Christ: and a little after: So that body of Christ hath the ancient form, figure, superscription, and (to speak the sum of all) the substance of the body, although after the resurrection it be immortal and free from all corruption: Now these words spoken upon this occasion, to this purpose, in direct opposition to a contradicting person, but casting his article wholly upon supposition of a substantial change, and opposing to him a ground contrary to his, upon which only he builds his answer, cannot be eluded by any little pretence. Bellarmine and the lesser people from him, answer, that by nature he understands the exterior qualities of nature, such as colour, taste, weight, smell, etc. 1. I suppose this, but does he mean so by Substantia too? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Does he by substance mean accidents? but suppose that a while, yet 2. If he had answered thus, how had Theodoret confuted the Eutychians? For thus says Eranistes, As the bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ, so is the humanity into the divinity: yea but, says Theodoret according to Bellarmine; The substance of bread is not changed; for the colour, the shape, the bigness and the smell remain: or thus, the accidents remain which I call substance; for there are two sorts of substances; substances and accidents; and this latter sort of substances remain; but not the former; and so you are confuted, Eranistes. But what if Eranistes should reply, if you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents, than my argument holds: for I only contend that the substance of the humanity is changed, as you say the substance of bread is: To this nothing can be said, unless Theodoret may have leave to answer as other wise men must. But now Theodoret answered, that the substance of bread is not changed, but remains still, and by substance, he did mean substance, and not the accidents; for if he had, he had not spoken sense. Either therefore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries, or the argument of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places opposes Nature to Grace, and says, all remains without any change but of Grace. 4. He also explicates Nature by Substance, so that it is a Substantial Nature he must mean. 5. He distinguishes substance from form and figure, and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure, as Bellarmine dreams. 6 He affirms concerning the body of Christ, that in the resurrection it is changed in accidents, being made incorruptible and immortal, but affirms that the substance remains; therefore by substance, he must mean as he speaks without any prodigious sense affixed to the word. 7. Let me observe this by the way, that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the persuasion of the heretic, the Eutychian Eranistes, but denied by the Catholic Theodoret; So that if they will pretend to antiquity in this doctrine, their plea is made ready and framed by the Eutychian, from whom they may, if they please, derive the original of their doctrine, or if they please, from the elder Marcosites; but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence, as if it had been a Catholic ground; reason we might have had to suppose it, if the Catholic had not denied it. But the case is plain: as the Sadduces disputed with Christ about the article of no Spirits, no resurrection, though in the Church of the Jews the contrary was the more prevailing opinion: so did the Eutychians upon a pretence of a Substantial conversion in the Sacrament, which was than their fancy, and devised to illustrate their other opinion: But it was disavowed by the Catholics.  
Gelasius was engaged against the same persons in the same cause, 
31. Gelasius de duabus naturis cont. Eutychetem & Nestorium.  and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but to describe his words For they must have the same efficacy with the former, and prevail equally. Certè Sacramenta etc. Truly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing, for that by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. These are his words; concerning which this only is to be considered, beyond what I suggested concerning Theodoret; that although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek which we tender substantia, might be apt to receive divers interpretations, though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning (as appears above) yet in Gelasius who was a Latin Author the word substantia is not capable of it: and I think there is no example where substantia is taken for an accidental nature. It may, as all other words can, suffer alterations by tropes and figures, but never signify grammatically any thing but itself, and his usual significations: and if there be among us any use of Lexicons or Vocabularies, if there be any notices conveyed to men by forms of speech, than we are sure in these things: and there is no reason we should suffer ourselves to be outfaced out of the use of our senses and our reason, and our language. It is usually here replied, that Gelasius was an obscurer person, bishop of Caesarea and not Pope of Rome, as is supposed. I answer, that he was bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are taken, is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP. approved by the Theological faculty in Paris 1576: and Massonius de Episcopis urbis Rome, in the life of Pope Gelasius, saith, that Pope john cited the book de duabus naturis, and by Fulgentius it is so too. 2. But suppose he was not Pope, that he was a Catholic bishop is not denied; and that he lived above a 1000 years ago; which is all I require in this business. For any other bishop may speak truth, as well as the bishop of Rome; and his truth shall be of equal interest and persuasion. But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions that they will, in despite of all sense and reason, say something to every thing, and that shall be an answer whether it can or no.  
After all this, it is needless to cite authorities from the later ages; It were indeed easy to heap up many, and those not obscure either in their name, or in their testimony. Such as Facundus bishop of Hermian in Africa in the year 552. in his 9th. book and last chapter written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest. etc. hath these words, The Sacrament of his body and blood, we call his body and blood: not that bread is properly his body, or the cup his blood, but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood. Isidore bishop of Sevil says, 
Isidorus Hisp. l. 1. de offic. c. 18.  Panis quem frangimus etc. The bread which we break is the body of Christ, who saith, I am the living bread. But the wine is his blood, and that is it which is written, I am the true vine. But bread, because it strengthens our body, therefore it is called the body of Christ, but wine because it makes blood in our flesh, therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the divine body. Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ calls the Church his body; and by her as a man he ministers; but as he is God he receives what is offered. But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood, sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits. Symbola, i e. Signa, says the Latin version. The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his blood. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so Suidas. Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms, 
L. 20. in Levit. c. 8.  Quòd simul panis & caro est, It is both bread and flesh too. Fulgentius saith, 
Fulgentius.  Hic calix est novum Testamentum, i.e. Hic calix quem vobis trado, novum Testamentum significat. This cup is the new Testament, that is, it signifies it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius of Gaza. 
In Gen. 49.  He gave to his disciples the image of his own body; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite; 
In Eccles. hier. c. 3.  These things are symbols, and not the truth, or verity; and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his author (whom he explicates) taught in that chapter; 
Dionys. Eccl. hier. c. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The divine symbols being placed upon the altar by which Christ is signified and participated. But this only I shall remark, that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine, that it was among Catholics fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the bald, about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion; Rabanus maintained the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus, 
A.D. 880.  and in his writing to Abbot Egilo. There lived in the same time in the court of Charles the Emperor, a countryman of ours john Scot, called by some joannes Erigena, who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament; He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred, and was surnamed the wise, 
Apparat: tit. Johannes cognimento Sapiens.  and was a martyr saith Possevinus, and was in the Roman Calendar; his day was the fourth of the Ideses of November, as is to be seen in the martyrologue published at Antwerp 1586. But when the controversy grew public and noted, Charles the bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to writ upon the question, being of the Monastery of Corbey: he did so, and defended our doctrine against Paschasius: the book is extant, and may be read by him that desires it; but it is so entire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius, that Turrian gives this account of it, To cite Bertram, 
1599 A D. 1571 Antwerp.  what is it else, but to say that Calvin's heresy is not new? and the Belgic expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other catholic writers, in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them, and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sense to them when they are opposed in disputation, and this they do jest the heretics should talk that they forbidden and burn books that make against them. You see the honesty of the men; and the justness of their proceed; But the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly, with a penitus auferatur.  
I shall only add this, that in the Church of England, Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer; and till Lanfrancks' time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius. And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan, 
Osbernus vitâ Odonis.  and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck, he says, that in Odo's time, some Clergy men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance, and to be Christ's body only in figure; and tells how the Archbishop prayed, and blood dropped out of the host over the chalice, and so his Clerks which than assisted at Mass, and were of another opinion, were convinced. This though he writes to please Lansranck (who first gave authority to this opinion in England) and according to the opinion which than prevailed, yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed article in Odo's time; no Catholic doctrine, no article of faith, nor of a good while after: for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets, by the Gospels and Epistles; yet his successor, he that was the fourth after him, I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Alban 
* Capgrave calls him Abbot of S. Alban Malmesb. saith, he was of Malmesbury. A.D. 996.  and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Saxon homily written above 600 years since, disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence, not natural, or substantial. The book was printed at London by John Day, and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose. His words are these: That housel, (that is, the blessed Sacrament) is Christ's body, not bodily, but spiritually, not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body. And in a writing to the Archbishop of York he said, The Lord] halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in. I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon law, 
De consecrat. d. 2. Hoc est. Lugduni. 1518.  Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo scil. non rei veritate, sed significatimysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, i.e. significatur; The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ; but improperly, therefore it is said (meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin) after the manner, to wit, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of that which is signified; so that the meaning is, it is called Christ's body, that is, Christ's body is signified; which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient hymn: 
Sub duabus speciebus  
Signis tantùm & non rebus  
Latent res eximiae.  Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs, not the things whereof they are signs. But the Lateran Council struck all dead: before which, Transubstantio non fuit dogma fidei, said Scotus, it was no article of faith; and how it can be afterwards since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our faith, and therefore all faith was delivered from the beginning, is a matter of highest danger and consideration. But yet this also I shall interpose, if it may do any service in the question or help to remove a prejudice from our adversaries, who are borne up by the authority of that Council; That the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not determined by the great Lateran Council. The word was first invented by Stephen bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100 or a little after, in his book De Sacramento Altaris; and the word did so please Pope Innocentius 3. that he inserted it into one of the 70 Canons which he proposed to the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. which Canons they heard read, but determined nothing concerning them, as Matthew Paris, Platina, and Nauclerus witness. But they got reputation by being inserted by Gregory 9 into his Decretals, which yet he did not in the name of the Council, but of Innocentius to the Council. But the first that ever published these Canons under the name of the Lateran Council was Joannes Cochlaeus A. D. 1538. But the article was determined at Rome 36 years after that Council, by a general Council of 54 Prelates and no more. And this was the first authority or countenance it had; Stephen christened the article, and gave the name, and this Congregation confirmed it.   

SECT. XIII. Of adoration of the Sacrament.  
WHen a proposition goes no further than the head and the tongue, it can carry nothing with it but his own appendages, viz. to be right or to be wrong, and the man to be deceived or not deceived in his judgement: But when it hath influence upon practice, it puts on a new investiture, and is tolerable or intolerable, according as it leads to actions good or bad. Now in all the questions of Christendom nothing is of greater effect or more material event, than this. For since by the decree of the Council of Trent 
* Sess. 13. c. 5. , they are bound to exhibit to the Sacrament the same worship which they give to the true God, either this Sacrament is jesus Christ, or else they are very Idolaters; I mean materially such even while in their purposes they decline it. I will not quarrel with the words of the decree commanding to give divine worship to the Sacrament; 
Tantum ergo Sacramentum adoremus cernui. Hymn. in Miss.  which by the definition of their own Schools is an outward visible sign of an inward Spiritual grace, and so they worship the sign and the grace with the worship due to God: But that which I insist upon, is this. That if they be deceived in this difficult question, against which there lie such infinite presumptions and evidence of sense, and invincible reason, and grounds of Scripture, * and in which they are condemned by the primitive Church, * and by the common principles of all Philosophy, and the nature of things, * and the analogy of the Sacrament, * for which they had no warrant ever, till they made one of their own, * which themselves so little understand, that they know not how to explicateit, * nor agreed in their own meaning, nor cannot tell well what they mean * If I say, they be deceived in their own strict article, besides the strict sense of which there are so many ways of verifying the words of Christ, upon which all sides do rely; than it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature, which is the image, the Sacrament, and representment of the body of Christ: and at lest, it is not certain that they are right; there are certainly very great probabilities against them which aught to abate their confidence in the article; and though I am persuaded that the arguments against them are unanswerable; for if I did not think so, than I should be able to answer them, and if I were able to answer, I would not seek to persuade others by that which does not persuade me; yet all indifferent persons, that is, all those who will suffer themselves to be determined by something besides interest and education, must needs say they cannot be certain they are right, against whom there are so many arguments that they are in the wrong: The Commandment to worship God alone is so express; The distance between God and bread dedicated to the service of God is so vast, the danger of worshipping that which is not God, or of not worshipping that which is God, is so formidable, that it is infinitely to be presumed, that if it had been intended that we should have worshipped the holy Sacrament, the holy Scripture would have called it, God, or Jesus Christ, or have bidden us in express terms to have adored it; that either by the first, as by a reason indicative, or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid a divine worship. Now that there is no implicit warrant in the Sacramental words of [This is my body] I have given very many reasons to evince, by proving the words to be Sacramental and figurative. Add to this; that supposing Christ present in their senses, yet as they have ordered the business, they have made it superstitious and Idololatrical; for they declare that the divine worship does belong also to the symbols of bread and wine, as being one with Christ; they are the words of Bellarmine; 
L. 4. de Euch. c. 29. Tom. 3. in 3. Thom. disp. 65. Sect. 1.  That even the Species also with Christ are to be adored; So Suarez: which doctrine might upon the supposal of their grounds be excused; if, as Claudius de Saints dreamt, they and the body of Christ had but one existence; but this themselves admit not of, but he is confuted by Suarez. But than let it be considered, that since those species or accidents are not inherent in the holy body, nor have their existence from it, but wholly subsist by themselves, (as they dream) since between them and the holy body there is no substantial, no personal union, it is not imaginable how they can pass divine worship to those accidents which are not in the body, nor the same with the body, but by an impossible supposition subsist of themselves, and were proper to bread, and now not communicable to Christ, and yet not commit idolatry: especially since the Nestorians were by the Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or worshippers of a man, because they worshipped the humanity of Christ, which they supposed, not to be personally, but habitually united to the divinity.  
But 2. suppose that the article were true in thesi, and that the bread in consecration was changed as they suppose; yet it is to be considered that that which is practicable in this article, is yet made as uncertain and dangerous as before. For by many defects secret and insensible, by many notorious and evident, the change may be hindered, and the symbols still remain as very bread and wine as ever, and rob God of his honour. For if the Priest errs in reciting the words of consecration, by addition, or diminution, or alteration, or longer interruption; if he do but say, Hoc est corpus meum, for corpus meum, or meum corpus for corpus meum, or if he do but as the Priest that Agrippa tells of, that said, 
De vanit. Scient. c. 3.  Haec sunt corpora mea, jest consecrating many hosts he should speak false Latin: if either the Priest be timorous surprised, or intemperate, in all these cases the Priest and the People too, worship nothing but bread. And some of these are the more considerable, I mean, those defectibilities in pronunciation because the Priest always speaking the words of consecration in a secret voice not to be heard. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 9 Ledesmo ait Sacerdotem isto Canone prohiberi clarâ voce eloqui verba consecrationis descriptor: quâvis linguâ non legendis—  None of the people can have any notice whether he speaks the words so sufficiently as to secure them from worshipping a piece of bread. If none of all these hap, yet if he do not intent to consecrated all, but some and yet know not which to omit, * if he do intent but to mock, * if he be a secret atheist, * a Moor, * or a Jew, * if he be an impious person and laugh at the Sacrament, * if he do not intent to do as the Church does, * that is, if his intention be neither actual, nor real: than in all these cases the people give divine worship to that which is nothing but bread; * But if none of all this hap, yet if he be not a Priest, quod saepe accidit, saith Pope Adrianus VI in quaest. quodlib. q. 3. it often happens that the Priest feigns himself to celebrated, and does not celebrated, or feigns himself to celebrated and is no Priest, * if he be not baptised rightly, * if there was in his person, as by being Simoniac, or irregular, a bastard, or bigamus, or any other thing which he can or cannot know of; if there was any defect in his baptism, or ordinations, or in the baptism and ordination of him that ordained him, or in all the succession from the head of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Apostles that first began the Series, in all these cases it cannot but be acknowledged by their own doctrine, that the consecration is invalid and ineffective, the product is nothing, but a piece of bread is made the object of the divine worship. Well! suppose that none of all this happens, yet there are many defects in respect of the matter also: as if the bread be corrupted, * or the wine be vinegar, * if it be mingled with any other substance but water, * or if the water be the prevailing ingredient, or if the bread be not wheat, or the wine be of sour or be of unripe grapes, in all these cases nothing is changed; but bread remains still, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mere bread and mere wine, and yet they are worshipped by divine adoration.  
3. When certain of the Society of Jesuits were to dye by the Laws of England in the beginning of King james his reign; it was asked them, whether if they might have leave to say Mass, they would to the people standing by, for the confirmation of their doubt and to convert them, say these words, [unless this whole Species you see in the chalice be the same blood which did flow out of the side of the Crucifix, or of Christ hanging on the Cross, let there be no part for me in the blood of Christ, or in Christ himself to eternal ages] and so with these words in their mouths yield to death; They all denied it, none of them would take such a Sacrament upon them. And when Garnet that unhappy man was tempted to the same sense; he answered, that a man might well doubt of the particular. 
* Vide Bonavent. in 3. dist. 24. a. 1. q. 1,  No man was bound to believe that any one Priest in particular, now, or at any one certain time does consecrated effectively; But that the bread is transubstantiated some where or other, at some time or other, 
Bishop Andrew's Resp. ad apolog. Bellar. p. 7.  by some Priest or other. This I receive from the relation of a wise Prelate, a great and a good man, whose memory is precious, and is had in honour. But the effect of this is, that Transubstantiation, supposing the doctrine true, (as it is most false) yet in practice is uncertain; but the giving it divine worship is certain; the change is believed only in general, but it is worshipped in particular; concerning which, whether it be any thing more than bread, it is impossible without a revelation they should know. These than are very ill; and deeply to be considered; for certain it is, God is a jealous God, and therefore will be impatient of every encroachment upon his peculiar. And than for us; as we must pray with faith, and without doubting, so it is fit we should worship; and yet in this case and upon these premises, no man can choose but doubt; and therefore he cannot, he aught not to worship; Quod dubitas ne feceris.  
4. I will not censure concerning the men that do it, or consider concerning the action, whether it be formal idolatry or no. God is their Judge and mine, and I beg he would be pleased to have mercy upon us all; but yet they that are interested, for their own particulars aught to fear and consider these things. 1. That no man without his own fault, can mistake a creature so far, as to suppose him to be a God. 2. That when the heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon, they did it upon their confidence that they were Gods, and would not have given to them divine honours if they had thought otherwise. 3. That the distinction of material and formal idolatry though it have a place in Philosophy, because the understanding can consider an act with his error, and yet separate the parts of the consideration; yet it hath no place in Divinity; because in things of so great concernment it cannot but be supposed highly agreeable to the goodness and justice of God, that every man be sufficiently instructed in his duty and convenient notices. 4. That no man in the world upon these grounds, except he that is malicious and spiteful, can be an Idolater; for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him, he can be no Idolater; if he have not, he is spiteful and malicious; and than all the heathens are also excused as well as they. 5. That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take of the crime, than the persecutors that killed the Apostles thinking they did God good service, and Saul in blaspheming the religion and persecuting the servants of jesus, and the Jews themselves in crucifying the Lord of life, who did it ignorantly as did also their Rulers, have met with their excuse upon the same account. And therefore it is not safe for the men of the Roman communion to take anodyne medicines and narcotics to make them insensible of the pain; for it will not cure their disease. Their doing it upon the stock of error and ignorance I hope will dispose them to receive a pardon: But yet that also supposes them criminal; And though I would not for all the world be their accuser, or the aggravator of the crime, yet I am not unwilling to be their remembrancer, that themselves may avoid the danger. For though jacob was innocent in lying with Leah in stead of Rachel, because he had no cause to suspect the deception; yet if Penelope who had not seen Ulysses in 20 years should see one come to her nothing like Ulysses, but saying he were her husband, she should give but an ill account of her chastity if she should actually admit him to her bed, only saying, if you be Ulysses, or upon supposition that you are Ulysses, I admit you. For if she certainly admits him, of whom she is uncertain if he be her husband, she certainly is an adulteress: Because she having reason to doubt, aught first to be satisfied of her question. Since therefore besides the insuperable doubts of the main article it self, in the practice and the particulars there are acknowledged so many ways of deception, and confessed that the actual failings are frequent (as I shown before out of Pope Adrian) it will be but a weak excuse to say, I worship thee if thou be the Son of God, but I do not worship thee, if thou be'st not consecrated, and in the mean time, the divine worship is actually exhibited to what is set before us. At the best we may say to these men, as our blessed Saviour to the woman of Samaria, Ye worship ye know not what; but we know what we worship. For concerning the action of adoration, this I am to say, That it is a fit address in the day of solemnity with a Sursum corda with our hearts lift up to heaven, where Christ sits (we are sure) at the right hand of the Father, for Nemo dignè manducat nisi priùs adoraverit, said S. Austin No man eats Christ's body worthily, but he that first adores Christ. But to terminate the divine worship to the Sacrament, to that which we eat, is so unreasonable 
a Vide Theodoret quaest. 55. in Genes. & q. 11. in Levit.  and unnatural, and withal so scandalous, that Averro observing it to be used among the Christians with whom he had the ill fortune to converse, said these words. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret q. in Gen. q. 55.  Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. Since Christians worship what they eat, let my soul be with the Philosophers. If the man had conversed with those who better understood the article, and were more religious and wise in their worshippings, possibly he might have been invited by the excellency of the institution to become a Christian. But they that give scandal to Jews by their Images, and leaving out the second Commandment from their Catechisms, give offence to the Turks by worshipping the Sacrament, and to all reasonable men by striving against two or three Sciences and the notices of all mankind. We worship the flesh of Christ in the mysteries (saith S. Ambrose) as the Apostles did worship it in our Saviour. 
De Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12.  For we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ; So that we worship it in the sumption, and venerable usages of the signs of his body. But we give no divine honour to the signs: We do not call the Sacrament our God. And let it be considered; whether if the Primitive Church had ever done or taught that the divine worship aught to be given to the Sacrament, it had not been certain that the heathen would have retorted most of the arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images. The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands, to which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and than by certain forms consecrated them and made by invocation (as they supposed) a divinity to devil there. They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor move, nor understand: that which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injury of Rats, and Mice, of Worms and creeping things, that can be taken by enemies, and carried away, that is kept under lock and key for fear of Thiefs and sacrilegious persons. Now if the Church of those ages had thought and practised as they have done at Rome in these last ages, might not they have said, Why may not we as well as you? do not you worship that with divine honours, and call it your God which can be burnt, and broken, which yourselves form into a round or a square figure, which the Oven first hardens, and than your Priests consecrated and by invocation make to be your God, which can see not more, nor hear, nor smell, than the silver and gold upon our Images? Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat, which can grow mouldy, and sour, which you keep under locks and bars, for fear your God be stolen? Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your God to the Sultan of Egypt, insomuch that to this day the Egyptian escutcheons by way of triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it: True it is, that if we are beaten from our cities, we carry our Gods with us; but did not the Jesuits carry your Host (which you call God) about their necks from Venice in the time of the Interdict? And now why do you reprove that in us which you do in yourselves? What could have been answered to them if the doctrine and accidents of our time had furnished them with these or the like instances? In vain it would have been to have replied; Yea but ours is the true God, and yours are false gods. For they would easily have made a rejoinder; and said, that this is to be proved by some other argument; in the mean time all your objections. against our worshipping of Images, return violently upon you. Upon this account, since none of the witty and subtle adversaries of Christianity ever did, or could make this defence by way of recrimination, it is certain there was no occasion given; and therefore those trifling pretences made out of some say of the Father's pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament, must needs be Sophistry, and illusion, and can need no particular consideration. But if any man can think them at all considerable, 
L. 4. c. 4. de la Cene du Signeur.  I refer him to be satisfied by Mich. le Faucheur in his voluminous confutation of Card. Perron. I for my part am weary of the infinite variety of argument in this question; and therefore shall only observe this, that antiquity does frequently use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, venerable, adorable, worshipful to every thing that aught to be received with great reverence, and used with regard: to Princes, to Laws, to Baptism, to Bishops, to Priests, to the ears of Priests, the Cross, the Chalice, the Temples, the words of Scripture, the Feast of Easter; and upon the same account by which it is pretended that some of the Fathers taught the adoration of the Eucharist, we may also infer the adoration of all the other instances. But that which proves too much, proves nothing at all.  
These are the grounds by which I am myself established, and by which I persuade or confirm others in this article.  
I end with the words of the Fathers in the Council of CP. 
A. D. 745.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ commanded the substance of bread to be offered, not the shape of a man, jest Idolatry should be introduced.  
Gloria Deo in excelsis:  
In terris pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.    

A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, London.  

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol.  
The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D.D. in two volumes in 4ᵒ.  
Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scriptures & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum. Authore Henrico Hammond. in 4ᵒ.  
A Letter of Resolution of six Quaere's, in 12ᵒ.   

The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D.D. viz.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the Year; Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, sacredness, and Separation of the Office Ministerial, in fol.  
2. Episcopacy asserted, in 4ᵒ.  
3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, 2d Edit. in fol.  
4. The Liberty of Prophesying, in 4ᵒ.  
5. An Apology for authorised and Set-forms of Liturgy; in 4ᵒ.  
6. A Discourse of Baptism, its institution and efficacy upon all Beleivers, in 4ᵒ.  
7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12ᵒ.  
8. The Rule and exercises of holy dying, in 12ᵒ.  
9 A short Catechism for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion, in 12ᵒ.   

Certamen Religiosum, or a Conference between the late King of England, and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion, at Ragland Castle; Together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause, by Chr. Cartwright in 4ᵒ.  
The Psalter of David, with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm, by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton, in 12ᵒ.  
Boanerges and Barnabas, or Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls, in several Soliloquies, by Francis Quarles, in 12ᵒ.  
The life of Faith in Dead Times, by Chr. Hudson in 12ᵒ.  
Motives for Prayer upon the seven days of the Week, by Sir Richard Baker Knight, in 12ᵒ.  
The Guide unto True Blesledness, or a Body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures, directing man to the saving knowledge of God, by Sam. Crook, in 12ᵒ.  
Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions, preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne, in 4ᵒ.  
The Dipper dipped, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4ᵒ.  
Hermes Theologus, or a Divine Mercury: new descants upon old Records, by Theoph. Wodnote, in 12ᵒ.  
Philosophical Elements, concerning Government and Civil society: by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, in 12º,  
An Essay upon Statius, or the five first books of Publ. Papinius Statius his Thebais, by Tho. Stephen's Schoolmaster in S. Edmondsbury, in 8ᵒ.  
Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis, per F. Gregory, in 8ᵒ.  
Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae, in 8ᵒ.  
A Discourse of Holy Love, by Sir Geo. Strode Knight, in 12ᵒ.  
The Saint's Honeycomb full of Divine Truths, by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. Gorge in Somersetshire, in 8ᵒ.  
Devotion digested, into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer: Together with additional Exercitations upon Baptism, The Lord's Supper, Heresies, Blasphemy, The Creatures, Sin, The souls pant after God, The Mercies of God, The souls complaint of its absence from God; by Peter Samwaies, Fellow lately resident in Trinity College, Cambridge, in 12ᵒ.  
Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 12ᵒ.  
Directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures, by John White M. A. in 8ᵒ.  
The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9 the most worthy women of the world, 3 Jews, 3 Gentiles, 3 Christians, by Tho. Heywood, in 4ᵒ.  
The Saints Legacies, or a Collection of promises out of the Word of God, in 12ᵒ.  
Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solemni Lega & Foedere, Juramento Negativo etc. in 8ᵒ.  
Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Jasper maine D. D. in 4ᵒ.  
Janua Linguarum Reserata, sive omnium Scientiarum & Linguarum seminarium, Auctore Cl. Viro J. A. Comenio, in 8ᵒ.  
A Treatise concerning Divine providence, very seasonable for all Ages, by Tho. Morton Bishop of Duresme, in 8ᵒ.  
Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan, with some Observations upon Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, by Alex. Rosse, in 12ᵒ.  
Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine John Donne, in fol.  
Wits-Common-wealth, in 12ᵒ.  
The Banquet of Jests new and old, in 12ᵒ.  
Balzac's Letters the fourth part, in 8ᵒ.  
Quarles Virgin Widow a Play, in 4ᵒ.  
Solomon's Recantation, in 4ᵒ. by Francis Quarles.  
Amesii antisynodalia, in 12ᵒ.  
Christ's Commination against Scandalisers, by John Tombs in 12o.  
Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountain's Letter, in 4ᵒ.  
A Tract of Fortifications, with 22 brass cuts, in 4ᵒ.  
Dr. Griffiths Sermon preached at S. Paul's, in 4ᵒ.  
Blessed birthday, printed at Oxford, in 8ᵒ.  
A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical, in 4ᵒ.  
An Account of the Church Catholic where it was before the Reformation, by Edward Boughen D.D. in 4ᵒ.  
An Advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching Witches, written by the Author of the Observations up-Mr. Hobbs Leviathan, in 4ᵒ.  
Episcopacy and Presbytery considered, by Hen. Fern D.D. in 4ᵒ.  
A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before His Majesty, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4ᵒ.  
The Commoners Liberty or the Englishman's Birthright, in 4ᵒ.  
An Expedient for composing Differences in Religion, in 4ᵒ.  
A Treatise of Self-denial, in 4ᵒ.  
The holy Life and Death of the late Vi-countesse Falkland, in 12ᵒ.  
Certain Considerations of present Concernment: Touching this Reformed Church of England, by Hen. Fern, in 12ᵒ.  
England's Faithful Reprover and Monitour, in 12ᵒ.  
A Contemplation of Heaven, together with an exercise of Love and a Meditation upon the Prayer in the Garden, written by a Catholic Gentleman.