Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.

CHAP. I.

Of the Exposition of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY.] The State of the Question in Generall.

BEcause (as a 1.1 Saint Augustine saith of points of faith) It is as manifest an Heresie, in the interpertation of Scriptures, to take figurative spee∣chees properly, as to take proper speeches figuratively (And such is the CAVEAT, which b 1.2 Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you) it will con∣cerne both You and Vs (as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie) to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ; especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS, even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. In the which Disquisition, besides

the Authority of Ancient Fathers, wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours.

And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words, will best appeare in the after-Examination of the di∣vers * 1.3 Consequences of your owne Sence, to wit, your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporall, and c 1.4 Materiall Presence, Pro∣pitiatory Sacrifice, and proper Adoration: All which are Depen∣dants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ. The issue then will be this, that if the words be certainly true, in a Proper and litterall sence, then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause: But if it be necessarily Figurative, then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy, the whole Structure and Fabricke, which you erect thereupon, must needs ruine and vanish. But yet know withall, that we doe not so maintaine a figu∣rative Sence of Christ his Speech, concerning his Body, as to ex∣clude the Truth of his Body, or yet the truly-Receiving thereof; as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare.

That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech [THIS IS MY BODY, &c.] is evinced out of the words themselves; from the Principles of the Romish Schooles.

SECT. I.

THere are two words, which may be unto us as two keyes, to un∣lock the questioned sence of Christ's words, viz. the Pronoune, [THIS] and the Verbe [IS.] We begin with the former.

The State of the Question, about the word [THIS.]

When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church (which a 1.5 holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification) what the Pronoune [THIS] doth demonstrate, then shall We truly inferre an in∣fallible proofe of our figurative sence.

All Opinions concerning the Thing, which the word [THIS] in the divers opinions of Authours, pointeth at, may be reduced to Three heads; namely, to signifie either This Bread, or This Bodie of Christ, or else some Third Thing different from them both. Tell you vs, first, what you hold to be the opinion of Pro∣testants? Lutherans and all Calvinists (saith your b 1.6 Iesuite) thinke that the Pronoune [THIS] pointeth out Bread. But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves, and divided into two principall Opinions. Some of them referre the word [THIS] to Christ's Body, Some to a Third thing, which you call Individuum vagum. In the first place we are to confute both these your Expo∣sitions; and after to confirme our owne.

That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors, of great learning, (re∣ferring the word [THIS] properly to Christ his Body) per∣verteth the sence of Christ his Speech, by the Conses∣sions of Romish Doctors.

SECT. II.

DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note, as well Ie∣suites as others, interpret the word [This] to note the Body of Christ, as it is present in this Sacrament, at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech [Hoc est corpus meum:] Because they are words * 1.7 Practicall, (say they) that is, working that which they signifie (namely) The Body of Christ. And this sence they call Most cleare: and, in their Iudgements, there can be no better then this. So your c 1.8 Stapleton, d 1.9 Sanders, together with e 1.10 Barradius, f 1.11 Salmeron, g 1.12 Chavausius; these last three being Iesuites; to whome you may adde h 1.13 Master Brereley his Answere, saying that these words, Most evidently relate to Christ's Body. As evidently (saith also your Iesuite i 1.14 Malloun) as one pointing at his Booke, should say, This is my Booke.

CHALLENGE.

ARe not these Opinators in number many; in name for the most part, of great esteeme; their Assertion, in their own opinion, full of assurance; and delivered to their Hearers, as the onely Catho∣lique Resolution? And yet behold one, whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs, your Car∣dinall k 1.15 Bellarmine, who, speaking of the same opinion of referring

the word [This] to the Body of Christ, doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD: but not without good and solid reason, and that ac∣cording to the Principles of Romish Schooles; to wit, because before the last syllable of the last word [Me-um] be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present: and the word [This] cannot demonstrate a thing Absent, and therefore can it not be said, This body is my body. A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe, and ra∣tified by your publique Romane l 1.16 Catechisme, authorised by the then Pope, and Councell of Trent; yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite, hearing this Argument obiected by Prote∣stants, rayleth downe right, calling it Accursed, as iudged by the Church Hereticall, and indeed Abhominable. So hee, who with O∣thers, if they were of fit yeares, might be thought to deserve the rod, for forgetting their Generall Catechisme, and for defending an Exposition, which even in common sense may be pronoun∣ced, in your Cardinal's owne phrase, very Absurde; else shew vs, if you can, but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion.

Similitudes obiected, for defence of their former Exposition, and confuted by their owne fellowes.

The Similitudes which are urged, to illustrate your former Pra∣cticall and operative sense, are of these kinds, to wit; Even as if one (say m 1.17 They) in drawing a Line, or a Circle, should say in the making thereof, This is a Line, or, This is a Circle: or as if the Smith (say n 1.18 Others) in making of a Nayle, should say, This is a Nayle; So by Christ his saying [This is my Body] it was made presently the Body of Christ, at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence, [This is my Body.] But most conceitedly your Iesuite Malloune, and that not without scurrility, o 1.19 As a Taylor making a Kirtle, and saying (we shall change onely his last word) This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONVBINA. So they.

CHALLENGE.

THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests, as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronoune, This. But that these your Simi∣litudes of making Circles, Lines, and Nayles, are no better than Iugling, and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose, and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters, and uttered by your Cir∣culary Priests, your owne Authours are ready to manifest for these Examples of the Painter's touching a Line, or a Circle (as your a 1.20 Bellarmine sheweth) making and saying, This is a Circle; Is no true Proposition, untill the Circle be made. And then it is a figura∣tive

speech and not a proper, using the present Tence, Is, for the future, Shall be. So he. In like manner your Iesuite b 1.21 Salmeron af∣firmeth with a PROFECTÒ and full asseveration, that the speech of him, who in drawing a Circle doth say, This is a Circle, cannot without a Trope or Figure, be iudged true. So he.

And furthermore, who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing; but the Making thereof, and bringing of it unto being? For although the Painter be so nimble, in drawing a Circle, that his hand may goe before his tongue; yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in wor∣king, by the agility of the hand, but in the orderly pronoun∣cing of the words of a speech with the tongue, so that the Truth thereof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable; It is impossible but the Priest, in uttering distinctly these words, [Hoc est corpus meum,] must say, This is, before he come to the last syl∣lable of me-um: and consequently in his sence notifie This to be Christ's Body, before (according to his owne iudgement) the Bo∣dy of Christ can have there any being at all.

By this is discovered the notable vertigo and dizzinesse of your Iesuite Maldonate; Hee, to prove that the Pronoune, This, doth relate to Christ's Body, standeth upon the like Operative speculati∣on; God (saith c 1.22 he) in creating man of the slime of the earth, might have truly said thereof, This is man: Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man, might have rightly said; This is Woman: or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee, might have said, (shewing the water) This is wine. So he. When, notwithstanding, he is infor∣ced in every one to alter the Verbe, Is, thus; Slime is changed into Man: Rib is converted into Woman: Water is made Wine, as he himselfe confesseth; expounding the words [This is my Body] thus, Not that it was then his Body (saith he) which as yet it was not, but was about to be: nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body, but to be changed into his Body. So he. As if any thing could be said proper∣ly, to be that, which as yet it Is not. Hitherto of your first In∣terpretation.

That the second Romish Exposition, referring the Pronoune [THIS] to demonstrate a Third thing, called Individuum vagum, or Inde∣terminate substance, perverteth the sence of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY:] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors.

SECT. III.

A Third thing, differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ, which Romish Sophisters have lately invented, is that which

they call Individuum vagum; by which is meant, a substance con∣fusedly taken; as when one (to use your own e example) having an Hearb in his hand shall say, This hearb groweth in my garden: in which speech the word; Hearb, which is demonstrated by the pronoune, This, is not taken determinately, for that singular Herb in his hand, (for that doth not now grow in his garden) but is ta∣ken vagè and confusedly, for the common Species, nature, or kind of that hearb. And this opinion is defended by a,b 1.23 Bellarmine, with o∣ther Iesuites, and Doctors of your Church, (^b Sixteene in num∣ber) as the only sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point, touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ, concer∣ning the Pronoune, THIS.

CHALLENGE.

VVHich Subtilty is notwithstanding discussed, disclosed, and exploded by your learned c 1.24 Arch-bishop of Cesarea, and your Iesuite d 1.25 Maldonate, as an Opinion both false and full of Absur∣dities. 1. Because whensoever the Pronowne [This] is used in Speech, as, This man disputeth, it is alwayes in proper sence, as de∣terminately taken. 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand, but that was no vagrant, but a singular determinate Substance. And it is grosse, to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his

hand. Which seemed to your e 1.26 M^r. Harding so vncouth and fond an opinion, that hee utterly refuseth to defend the Au∣thors thereof.

This, and much more have they written to the discovering and discarding of this idle figment, wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion, of Individuum vagum, may re∣turne to their wits againe, and cease to offer such violence to this holy Scripture [This is my Body.] So They. And worthily, for these two words, Individuum, and Vagum, spoken of Hoc, be termes as Contradictory, as to call the same thing, singular∣common, or determinate-confused. As for example, Quidam ho∣mo, A certaine man is in Logique Individuum vagum; as when Christ said, A certaine man went from Hierusalem to Hieri∣cho, &c. None of the Disciples hearing this could thereupon point him out, saying; This man: or know thereby who, or what hee was.

Wee, for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point, will instance in your owne Example, for your Individuum vagum. The Hearbe, which a man holdeth in his hand, saying, This hearb groweth in my Garden, how can you say it is true in the proper sence? for if you take it determinately, the same Hearb numero is not in the man's garden, because it is in his hand, and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum. And if you speake of it in a confu∣sed Notion, no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand, it being the function of the braine, and not of the hand, to apprehend mentall Notions, or Generalls; and so it is not Individuum at all.

But the Text saith of Christ his hand, [He tooke bread, &c.] THIS, which Christ, in so saying, pointed out with his finger, saith your a 1.27 Sanders; but a man will have much adoe to point out an Individuum vagum (such as is an invisible, or a confused Notion) with a visible finger. Wee would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor, b 1.28 Individui vagi commentum Authori Sco••o 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 relinquo; but that somthing els is to be added.

Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion, which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in; for in your c 1.29 Romish Masse, the Priest hauing the Hoast in his hand, prayeth thus; Receive, holy father, This immaculate Hoast. If you shall aske him what, in this prayer, the Pronowne This doth demonstrate, hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying; Certainly it demonstra∣teth unto sence that which the Priest hath in his hand, which is Bread. So hee. Now why there should not be the like certainty of Rela∣tion of the Pronounc [This] to Bread in the speech of Christ, as it hath in the prayer of the Priest, none of you (we thinke) shall e∣ver be able to shew.

Lastly, we challenge you to shew within the space of a Thou∣sand three hundreth yeares after Christ, out of all the Ancient Fa∣thers, any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune [Hoc,

This] to betoken any Individuum vagum, or Common Substance; or els to confesse that this your doctrine is new, extravagant, and Adulterate. Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one, as to say, This, that is, that which is contained vnder the forme of Bread, because this is like as when one shewing his purse, shall say, This is money, meaning that which is in his purse; which is a knowne figure Metonymia. Yet were it granted that [Hoc] betoke∣ned an Indiuiduum vagum, as (to use your owne Similitude) when one saith of an herb in his hand, This hearb groweth in my garden; so Christ should have said of bread in his hand; This, (that is the like kind of bread) is my Body: yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper, or not figurative, because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat-Bread; then it could be of that bread of wheate then in his hand, as Christ him∣selfe hath taught vs, and as we are to prove vnto you. For speaking of his Body, he calleth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the grane of wheate, Ioh. 12. 24. not This grane; yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane, as This grane of wheate: whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following. And now this so open and extreame civill war among your selues, in confuting your owne Expositions, will further and confirme peace among us in that one Exposition, which we are in the next place to de∣fend, as followeth.

The Third Proposition, which is (according to the iudgement of Protestants) that there is a Tropicall and vnproper sence, in the Pronoune [THIS.]

VVEe reason first Hypothetically; If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread, then the words of Christ are neces∣sarily to be taken improperly and figuratively. But the Pro∣noune This doth demonstrate Bread. Our Conclusion will be; Therefore the words of Christ, necessarily, are to be taken figura∣tively. All this will be proved, confirmed, and avouched by Rea∣sons Authorities, and Confessions, which will admit no Con∣tradiction. Wee begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition.

That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ; or Wine his Blood, without a Figure.

SECT. IV.

THe common Dictate of naturall Reason, imprinted by God in man's heart, is a Maxime, and hath in it an uni∣versall Veritie, which neither man nor Divell can gain-say, and is Confessed by yourselves, viz. Disparatum de disparato non pro∣priè

praedicatur; That is, nothing can be properly and literally affirmed ioyntly of another thing, which is of a different nature, viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone, or (to take your owne d 1.30 example) we cannot call A man an horse, without a Trope or Figure, because their natures are repugnant. So Salmeron. And this hee holdeth necessary. Or thus: e 1.31 God, who is perfect Truth, will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time, viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt, or Water is Wine, or an Asse a man. So your Archbishop. Yea, to come nearer to the point: f 1.32 We cannot say that this wine is blood, or that this blood is wine, but by a Similitude or Representation, because they differ in nature. So Bellarmine; Ad∣ding furthermore that it is g 1.33 Impossible the Proposition should be true, wherein the Subiect is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ. And, Bread and Christ's body (saith your h 1.34 Sanders) cannot be properly affirmed one of another.

And indeed it is as Impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh, as a body of flesh to be bread; which is grounded upon our first Maxime, which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus. i 1.35 As of∣ten as the Verbe [EST, IS,] ioyneth things of divers natures toge∣ther, we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure. Will you be content that your Glosse, as the tongue of your Church, may have the last word? Then hearken to it: k 1.36 If bread be Christ's body, then something is Christ's body, which is not borne of the Virgin Ma∣ry; and then also the same body must be said to be liuing, and not li∣uing both at once. So your Glosse, confessing hereby an Impossibi∣litie of this Predication, Bread is Christs Body, in a proper and literall sence. Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible; our As∣sumption will be found as true.

That the Pronoune [THIS] doth as verily notifie Bread in the words of Christ, as if hee had expressly said, This Bread is my Body; proved first by Scripture.

SECT. V.

THe Text of the Evangelist, Luc. 22. is light sufficient in it selfe; [Iesus tooke bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, Eate, THIS, (namely, which they Tooke; and they tooke THIS, which he Gave; and he gave THIS, which he Brake;

and hee Brake THIS, which hee Blessed; and blessed THIS, which hee himselfe Tooke; and THIS, which hee tooke, was Bread, [Iesus tooke Bread. Wee appeale to your owne Consciences, who never hitherto could say, that in all these sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he tooke, till the last word pronounced by the Priest, which is Meum; nor yet can you deny, but that he tooke that, which was properly, and sub∣stantially Bread. At the writing of this Sorites, we light vpon an An∣swere from one Mr. l 1.37 Maloune, encountring it with another, but a false Sorites invented by himselfe, to the discountenancing of this true one; onely wee intreat you, that at the reading thereof, you will not laugh at his foolery. See the Margin.

Your Grammaticall Obiection is Childish.

Cardinall m 1.38 Bellarmine your chiefe Master, and also your Schoole∣fellow n 1.39 M. Breerly, as if they would put Protestants to Schoole, tell them that [Hoc] taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis, it being a Thing then seene and knowne, and not being of the neuter gender: no more than for a man to say, De Patre, Hoc est Pater meus. A strange thing, that great Clerkes, when they take upon them to teach others their Grammer, should be so far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence, (if ever they learned it) which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life, whether seene or not seene. In which re∣spect there might be a difference betweene, Hoc de Patre, and Hoc de Pane: for although Priscian would cry out, if hee heard one saying, Hoc lana, or Hoc lapis, wherein [Hoc] is taken adiective∣ly: yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightnes and heavines of Wool, and of Stone, one shewing the Wool in his hand should say, Hoc est leve; the other pointing at the Stone should say, Hoc est grave, will any thinke that Priscian would be offended, for [Hoc] in Latine, more then others would be for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in o 1.40 Greeke, taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Not to trouble you with that in your * 1.41 Summa Angelica, wherein [Hoc] neutrally ta∣ken, is made to agree with Cibus.

And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning, yet will you not thinke that they whom you call Catho∣liques could be so deceived; who (as your Iesuite witnesseth) p 1.42 were

Many, that taught that [Hoc] in the words of Christ, put sub∣stantively, may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis, in [This] meaning [This] which I give you. Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashnesse? then must we now put you unto it.

In your owne vulgar Latin Translation, it is said of Evah the the wife of Adam, q 1.43 Hoc est os, Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers, so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Pro∣testants, wherewith they must as necessarily buffe•• their owne Mother-Church, by which the same Translation is made Au∣thentique; and wound their owne Consciences, being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations? Away then with these Puerilities, especially now being busied in a matter of so great importance, wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Roman Masse. For, if the Pronoune [This] have Relation to Bread, there needs no further dispute about the figurative sence of Christ's speech.

Wee returne to the Schoole of Christ, the holy Scripture, to consult (about Christ's meaning) with his Disciple Saint Paul, where he professeth to deliver nothing, concerning Christ his In∣stitution of this Sacrament, but that which hee had * 1.44 Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound vnto vs the words of Christ, delivered by Three Evangelists, and to tell what hee gave unto them, and what he called his Body: and he telleth vs plainly, say∣ing; * 1.45 The bread, which we breake, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? alluding to those words of the Evangelists, He brake it, and that was Bread. And that you may know that this was Catholique Doctrine in the dayes of Antiquity, wee adioyne the next Proposition.

That it was Bread and Wine, which Christ called his Body and Blood; in the Iudgement of An∣cient Fathers.

SECT. VI.

FOr proofe hereof, behold a Torrent of Ancient r 1.46 Fathers pressing upon you; Iraeneus, Tertullian, Origen, Hierome,

Ambrose, Augustine, Cyrill of Hiernsalem, Cyrill of Alexan∣dria, Theodoret, Gaudentius, Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore; Thirteene to the dozen, whose sayings we may best know by their owne Idiome, and Tenure of speech. The first noting Christ to haue confessed bread to have beene his Body. The second, Christ to have called bread his Body. The third, that Christ's speech was spoken of bread. The fourth, that That which hee broke, was bread. The fift, that It was bread which he brake. The sixt, that It was bread of the Lord, and not bread the Lord. The seventh, that the words [My Body] were spoken of the bread. The eight, that Christ saith, of the bread [This is my Body.] And the same Father, as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes, illustrateth the matter thus: So (saith hee) did Christ call his Body Bread, as else-where hee calleth his flesh a Graine of Wheate; [Except the Graine of Wheate die, it bringeth forth no fruit.] The ninth, that Christ gave to the bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the Consecrated bread [This is my Body.] The eleuenth, that It was Wine which hee called his blood. The twelfth, that He blessed Wine, when he said drinke. And the last; The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ. All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers (sufficient Grammarians we trow) teaching the Pronoune [This] to demonstrate Bread, doe as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition, to prove the speech Figurative, as any Protestant in the world could doe, if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause.

CHALLENGE.

VVE will try what a Syllogisme will doe, that, after your Po∣sall in Grammar, we may encounter you with Logique.

The Maior. No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh, with∣out a figure. (This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles, by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes, * 1.47 Disparatum de Disparato, &c.)

The Minor. But in these words, [This is my Body,] the Pronoune [This] doth demonstrate Bread. (This hath beene the generall Ex∣position of Fathers.)

The Conclusion. Therefore the words of Christ, [This is my Bo∣dy] are to be taken figuratively. (Except you will contradict, both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles, and Vniversall con∣sent of Ancient Fathers.)

That it was Bread, which Christ called his Body, is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles.

SECT. VII.

YOur first Position is this; The word [This] must either point out Bread, or the Body of Christ, or that Third common Sub∣stance, which you call Individuum vagum. But to referre the word [This] unto the Body of Christ, is (as hath beene s 1.48 confessed) Ab∣surde. And that the word [This] should signifie your Individuum vagum, is an Exposition fall of Absurdities, as hath beene also t 1.49 ac∣knowledged. It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune [This] pointeth out precisely, Bread.

A second Principle you have, to wit; That these words [This is my Body] are wordes of Consecration, and Operative, so that by [This] is meant that which is Consecrated, and (as your Councell u 1.50 of Trent speaketh) changed into the Body of Christ. But, by the Decree of the same Councell, not the Body of Christ, nor any Third thing, but Bread onely was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ. Ergo the Pronoune [THIS] hath onely Rela∣tion to the Bread.

CHALLENGE.

A New Syllogisme would be had, to put the matter out of que∣stion.

Maior. No Sence, which is Impossible, can be given properly to the wordes of Christ. [This is my Body.] (This needeth no proofe.)

Minor. But to call Bread Christ's Body, properly, is a Sence Im∣possible. (This hath beene your owne constant * 1.51 profession.)

Conclusion. Therefore cannot this Sence be given properly to the Body of Christ. How can you auoid the necessity of this Con∣sequence? All arising from the nature of Predication, in this Pro∣position, wherein the Subiect is Bread, the Copula, Is; and Predi∣cate, Body of Christ. Which because it cannot be properly predi∣cated either of Bread determinate, as to say, This bread in my hand is Christ's Body; or of Bread undeterminate (which you call vagum) as to say, This kind of bread is the Body of Christ, it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries, in this case, than their owne Consciences, which will appeare as fully in that which followeth.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In scripturâ expli∣candâ haeresis est ma∣nifesta, sicut figurata propriè accipere, ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad Tropicā locutionē detorquere: nam in verbis [Eunuchi sunt qui se castrant prop∣ter regnum coelorum &c.] August. and to the same purpose also, lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ.
• b 1.2

  —Hoc caven∣dum, nisi in manife∣stum Haereseos sco∣pulum impingere ve∣limus. Salmeron. Jes. Tom. 1. Proleg. 12. pag. 227.
• * 1.3

  See before Booke, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• c 1.4

  Gratian. Sacra∣menta Christi susci∣piendo, carnem eius & sanguinem materi∣aliter significamus. De Consecrat. dist. 2. C. Quià morte.
• a 1.5

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemo∣rata, & à Divo Pau∣lo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt.
• b 1.6

  Lutherani & om∣nes Calvinistae pro∣nomen [Hoc] pro pa∣ne positum esse di∣cunt, quià panem Christus in manu ac∣ceperat, & dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum.] Maldon. Ies. in Matth. 26. §. Hoc omnes—Lutherus in verba E∣vangelistae. Habent hunc sensum; Hic pa∣nis est corpus meum.
• * 1.7

  See below, let. (k. n. o.) &c.
• c 1.8

  [Hoc] designat corpus, ut est inter∣mino prolationis: & hic est sensus lucu∣lentissimus. Stapleton. Prompt. Cath. serm. Heb. sacra. vpon these words, [Hoc est cor∣pus meum.]
• d 1.9

  [Hoc] nihil a∣liud quam corpus Christi demonstrat. Sand. de visib. Monarch. Ad annum 1549 p. 629.
• e 1.10

  Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in fine propositionis; nec est Tautologia, quemadmodum neque in illo, [Hic est hlius dilectus.] Barrad. Ies. de Inst. Euch C. 4.
• f 1.11

  Vtique pronomen [Hoc] quod attributi locum tenet, ne∣cessariò spectat, [Hoc est, inquit Christus, corpus meum] id est opus, quod ego panem accipiens, & bene∣dicens, operor, & conficio, corpus meum est. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc. [Of which last clause of Salmeron. Hoc, id est, Hoc opus, I say onely that Opus erat Salmeroni medico.]
• g 1.12

  Cha∣vaus. Ies. Comment. in formam iuramenti fidei, Inscriptio libri est, Professio verae fidei, §. 49. pag. 468.
• h 1.13

  In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, pag. 138. Tract. 2. Sect. 3.
• i 1.14

  Malloun his late Reply against Doctour Vsher, pag. 204.
• k 1.15

  Argumentum eorum, qui volunt Pronomen [Hoc] de∣monstrare Corpus, est absurdum, quod in huius modi propositi∣onibus, quae signifi∣cant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur, Prono∣mina demonstrativa non demonstrate quod est, sed quod erit. Et ponunt Exempla, ut si quis dum pingit lineam, aut circulum dicat, Haec est linea, hic est Circulus. Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Do∣mini, Ioh. 15. Hoc est praeceptum meum.—Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere, propter duas causas. Primò quià etsi Pronomen demonstrativum demonstrer rem futuram, quandò nihil est praesens, quod demonstretur (ut in exemplis allatis) tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat, dum pronomen effert, valdè absurdum videtur dicere, pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit panem, & illum porrigens, ait, [Ac∣cipite, Edite, H. E. C. M.] Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem. Neque Obstat quod propositio non significat, nisi in sine totius prolationis: Nam etsi ità est de propositione, quae est ratio quaedam, tamen Demonstratiua Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur coeterae voces; Et sane in illis verbis [Bibite ex hoc omnes] valdè durum est, non demonstrari id quod erat, sed id tantùm quod futurum erat: Secundò si Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrat solùm Corpus, verba speculativa erunt, non practica. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 11. §. Nota secundò.
• l 1.16

  Huius vocis [Hoc] ea visest, ut rei prae∣sentis substantiā de∣mōstret. Catech. Conc. Trid. Decret. & inssu Pij Quinti Pontificis Edit. ut in frontispitio libri c•…•…r.
• m 1.17

  Bellar. See a∣bove at let. (k.)
• n 1.18

  Haec locutio, [Hoc est corpus me∣um] habet virtutem factivam conversio∣nis panis in Corpus Christi, ut an Tho∣mas.—Pro simi∣li, quod rudi intelle∣ctui satisfacere va∣leat, dari potest, ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans, dicat, Hic est Clavus—Clavus non est cum profertur oratio, sed fieri inter proferendū, & esse per prolationem verb orū. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. [ex aliorum opinione,] & Iansenius Concerd. cap. 130.—vt faber cla∣vum, &c.
• o 1.19

  Master Malloune in his late Reply, p. 105. This is a Kirtle for my wife, &c.
• a 1.20

  Bellar. See above at let. (k.)
• b 1.21

  Profectò proposi∣tio non est vera, nisi postquàm factus est Circulus: Sed oratio accipitur pro verà, quia •…•…d quod futu∣rum est, accipitur pro iam facto, per Tropū, non iuxtà Proprieta∣tem sermonis: in quē sensum Christus ple∣runque praesens pro futuro vsurpavit: ut Math. 26. Apud te fa∣cio Pascha cum di∣cipulis me••s, id est, confestian facio Pas∣cha Salmerō. Ies. ••om. 9. Tran. 13. §. Secun∣da.—Si [est] pro∣ptie accipiatur, pro existere, durum est ut vniat subiectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore, quià falsa esser propositio, non solùm in orationibus speculativis, & signi∣ficativis, sed etiam in practicis & factivis: ut si quis volens face∣re Circulum, rogatus quid est Hoc, respon∣deatque, Hic est Cir∣culus; Profectò pro∣positio non est statim vera, &c. Salm. Ib. p. 83
• c 1.22

  Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem sinxit rectè ver é{que} di∣cere potuisset, sump∣to in manus limo, Hic est Homo. Et cum ex costa mulierē fabri∣cauit, sumptâ costâ dicere potuit; Haec est mulier, quamuis cum pronunciasset Pronomen [Haec] nondùm fuisset mulier, ac significasset cùm ità locutus fuisset, limūnon esse hominem, & costam mulierem; sed limum in hominem, costam in mulierem converti. Sic cum Christus dicit, [Hoc est corpus me∣um,] significat panem mutari in corpus suum. Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae, cum aquam in vinum, &c. Maldon. Ies in Matth. 26. Ità cum Christus dicit, accepto pane [Hoc est corpus meum] quamvis illud corpus non∣dum ille esset, sed futurum erat, illud eo pronomine demonstrat, nec significat panem, quem acceperat, esse corpus suum, sed mutari in corpus suum. Idemin Matth. 26. pag. 635.
• a,b 1.23

  Sententia haec est, P••onomine illo designari aliquid cō∣mune Substantiae pa∣nis & corporis Chri∣sti; Commune (in∣quam) non secun∣dum Rem, (illud e∣nim nullum esse po∣test) sed secundum rationē seu denomi∣nationem viz. sub ra∣tione contenti sub his accidētibus con∣tinetur corpus me∣um. Ità Guitmundus (where hee reckons vp 15. other Schoole men:) vbi Pronomen [Hoc] substantivè sumitur, & demonstrat in confuso Ens, sivè substan∣tiam contentam sub illis speciebus—vt cum quis dicat, Haec herba nascitur in horto meo: illud Pronomen [Haec] non significat hanc numero herbam, sed herbam huic similem. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. in Thom. disp 58. §. 7. p 7••5▪ Secundùm rationem Substantiae tùm communem tùm Indiuiduam vagam. Greg. de Ʋalent. l. 1. de Pre∣sent. corp. Chr (〈◊〉〈◊〉). §. Respondemus. p. 377. Quià Sacramenta significant quod efficiunt, & non efficitur in hoc Sacramento ut corpus Christi sit corpus Christi, quià ità semper suit, nec ut panis sit corpus Christi, id enim fi∣eri nequit, sed efficitur ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi, sub quibus anteà etat panis: [Hoc] non de∣monstrat panem, vel corpus, sed contentum sub speciebus. Bell. l 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. Est igitur.
• c 1.24

  Archiepisc. Caesar. sivè Christopherus de Capite fontium. var. Trac. Demonstrando corpus in genere, ne∣scio quid—dictum velis, cū non Indivi∣dua in Generibus su∣is, sed Genera in individuis demon∣strentur, & Prono∣minis natura est sola singularia demonstrare—Ideò si generi addas Pronomen [Hoc] demonstras non in genere sed in Individuo rem ipsam,—Conceptus communis non latet sub speciebus, nec in ma∣nibus portari potest.—Propositio vera dicitur ex eo, quod res est vera, velnon est vera: ergò non ver∣borum dispositio consideranda venit—Rapiunt isti à rerum consideratione lectorem, ut non res ipsas, sed intelligibiles formas loquendi contempletur.—Quibus dixerim, revertiminiad iudicium, ô viri, & duas has tantum res Corpus sc. & panem considerate, quarum alterum tantùm demonstrari necesse est. Quià Prono∣men vice nominis Proprij positum prosolo singulari sumi potest, cum Scriptura duarum tantùm substantia∣rum, quae demonstrari hîc queant, meminerit, viz. Panis, & Corporis, nescio cur fingunt Tertiam aliquam, quae nec panis sit, nec corpus. In quo magnam vim Scripturae faciunt, infarcientesilli ex suo cerebro tertiam illam rem, cujus nullam habent mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio esset fal••a, Archiep. Caesar. quo supra p. 12. Si enim Christus ità loqueretur de pane, ante illius Transubstantiationem, mentiretur—Non enim haec dici possunt de Pan•• consecrando, quod sit corpus Christi. Ibid. p. 17. Solam illam substantiam singularem demon∣strabat, quae erat in Christi manibus, quae erat aut panis, aut corpus ejus: Tertiam igitur quaerere vanissi∣mus labor est, & absurditate plenus. Thus farre that Archbishop.
• d 1.25

  Vulgata opinio est, illud pronomen [Hoc] ne{que} demonstrare corpus Christi; ne{que} panem, sed accipi vagè, pro eo quod continetur sub acciden∣tibus, quod priùs est panis, deinde corpus Christi. Quae sententia non videtur mihi probabilis esse, quià etsi vocabula solent aliquandò habere vagam & indefinitam significationem, tamen aliud est loqui de significatione verbi, aliud de acceptione, quam Dialectici vocant suppositionem. Illa quae dicuntur Individua vaga significa∣tionem habent vagam, & indeterminatam, sed suppositionem habent semper certam, & determinatam: nam etsi hoc Pronomen [Hic, haec, hoc,] quantum in se est, non magis significat hunc hominem, quam illum, tamen cum ponitur in propositione (ut hic homo disputat) non potest accipi nisi determinatè pro hoc homine. Ergo necesse est ut illud Pronomen [Hoc] accipiatur determinatè, autpro pane, aut pro corpore Christi—Nul∣la res potest esse nisi determinate aut haec aut illa; Ergò non possunt haec Pronomina, si substantiuè accipi∣antur, nisi pro hac vel illâ re determinata accipi. Maldon. Ies. de Sacram. Euch. Tom. 1. §. Tertius er∣ror, pag. 216. 217.
• e 1.26

  Mr. Harding in his answere to the 24. Article, saying; Learn you what they mean, and if their meaning be naught, handle you them as you list; you shall not offend us any whit.
• a 1.27

  [Hoc est corpus meum.] Hoc quod Christus digito de∣monstrabat, cumilla verba protulit. Sand. de visib. Monarch. l. 7. ad Annum. 1547.
• b 1.28

  Pe••rus Picherel∣lus de Missâ. cap. 3.
• c 1.29

  Cum antè Con∣secrationem dicimus in Litutgiâ [suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hosti∣am] certè Pronomen [Hanc] demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus tene∣mus, id autem est pa∣nis. Bel. l. 1 de Missâ, c. 27. §. Prima propo∣sitio.
• d 1.30

  Dispatatum de disparato non prae∣dicatur, valet ••gitur argumentum: Si hoc est lac, non est fer∣rum: ita etiam va∣lebit, si hoc est est corpusnon est pa∣nis; cum repugnet, unam naturam de al∣terâ diversâ dici, ut hominem esse equum citra tropum, vel Me∣taphoram. Salm. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 16. §. Primum igitur. p. 109.
• e 1.31

  Nè ipse quidem Deus, qui est summa veritas, vn quam effi∣ciet, vt hae proposi∣tiones, vxor Lot est Sal, aqua est vinum, asinus est homo, in sensu composito sint verae. Archiep. Caesar. d••••ens. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Real. Praes. cap. 58.
• f 1.32

  Obseruandum, cum dicitur vinum es•• sanguis, docetur esse sanguinem per simi∣litudinem, reipsa au∣tem & propriè est vinum. Et cum dici∣tur sanguis est vinū, intelligitur vinum esse per similitudi∣nem: nec enim re∣ipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinū sanguis, aut sanguis vinum, cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se, & ter∣mini ut vocant disparati. Bel. l. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Observand.
• g 1.33

  Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio, in qua subiectum supponitur propane, praedicatum pro corpore Christi: Panis enim & corpus res diversissimae sunt. Bellar▪ l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de. Euch. c. 19. § Primum.
• h 1.34

  Eodem tempore panis triticeus, & corpus Christi esse non possunt, quia disparata sunt. Sand. de visi••. Monarch. ad Annum. 1549. [To obi••ct De Christo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deus est homo, were vaine, because that is spoken by reason of ••he Hypostaticall Vnion whereby Accidit Deo ut sit homo, per hypostaticam vnionem, non per mutationem, which Vnity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocall. And we also meane, Disparata absoluta, not Relata, for thus the same man is father and sonne.]
• i 1.35

  Quoties verbum [Est] res diversarum naturarum, quae à Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit, & copulat, ibi necessariò ad figuram & Tro∣pum recurramus. Salm. Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 10. p. 138.
• k 1.36

  Sipanis est corpus Christi, ergo aliquid quod non es•• natum ex virgine est corpus Christ••: & ità animatum est inanimatum. Gloss. Decret. de Consecrat. dist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. can. Quia.
• l 1.37

  M. Malloune in his late Reply. p. 200. His Sorites; That which the Gover∣nour of the feast in Cana of Galile ta∣sted, was the same which the Ministers brought him: that which they brought him was the same that others drew out: that which others drew out, was the same which others before them powred into the Pots; but that which others powred into the Pots was water: Therfore that which the Governour of the feast tasted was water. So he. [None is so witlesse but will easily, from the light of the Text, tell him, that the water was changed into wine, before the Governour of the feast tasted thereof: whereas, in the tenure ••f Christ his speech, you your selves could never point out any former change at all, before the last syllable, Meum]
• m 1.38

  Si [Hoc] ac∣cipitur substantivè, tùm sens{us} erit, [Hoc] i. e. Haec res, quod si de Pane dieatur, ab∣surdissima propositio erit, non enim potest dici Hoc de Re quae cernitur, & apertè cognoscitur, nisi sit generis neutrius illa—Nemo enim de∣monstrans de Patre suo, diceret, Hoc est Pater meus. Bellar. lib 1. de Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò.
• n 1.39

  Although the word Bread had not beene expressed, yet being present in Christs hand, and pointed unto, Hoc could not be takē sub∣stantively no more then one should say of his Father, Hoc est Pater meus. M. Breerlye's Liturgie. p. 137.
• o 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Exod. 8. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. Pet. 2. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gen. 213.
• * 1.41

  Summa Angelica. tit. Eucharist. quest. 23. Propofitio esset magis propria, si de∣monstr••ndo Cibum diceretur [Hoc est Corpus meum.]
• p 1.42

  Dicent Calvinistae, Pronomen illud Graecum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & Latinum Hoc Substantiva esse: quod & multi Catholici dixerunt, ideò opus non esse ut genere con∣veniat, sed posse esse, Hoc quod vobis do, est corpus meum. Teste Maldon. Com. in Máth. 26. pag. 633.
• q 1.43

  Salmer. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 16. §. Nec rursus.—Adam de Evâ ex costâ eius desumptâ, Hoc nun•• os ex ossibus meis. Gen. 2. 13.
• * 1.44

  1. Cor. 11. 23.
• * 1.45

  1. Cor. 10. 16.
• r 1.46

  1. Iraener••s; Acci∣piens panem, Corpus suum esse confiteba∣tur. Lib. 4. cap. 57. 2. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat. Lib. adversus Iudaeos, Cap. quod incipit, Itaque. 3. Origen. Nec materia panis est, sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comedenti. In Matth. 15. 4. Hieron. Nos audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, esse corpus Servatoris. Epist. ad Hebdib. Quaest. 2. 5. Ambros. Panem fractum tradidit discipulis s•…•…s, dice••s; Accipite, Hoc, &c. Lib. 4. de Sacrament. cap. 5. 6. August. Iudas manducavi•• Panem Domini, &c. Tract. 59. in Io••. 7. Cyril. Hier. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Catech. Mystag. 4. pag. 528. 8. Cyril. Alex. Cum Christusipse sic affirmat, ac dicat de Pane, Hoc est Corpus meum, &c. Cat••chis. 4. Id••m. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Ioh▪ 2▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] 9. Theodoret. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ial. 1. cap. 8. 10. Gaudent. Brixiens. Cum panem consecratum discipulis por•…•…g: ••at, si•• ait, Hoc est Corpus meum. Tract. de ratione Sacra. 11. Cyprian. Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus. Epist. 63. 12. Clemens Alexand. Benedixit vinum, cum dixit, Accipite. Paedag. lib. 2 cap. 3. 13. Isidor. Panis, quia confirmat corpus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur. Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 18.
• * 1.47

  See above §. 4.
• s 1.48

  See above §. 2.
• t 1.49

  See above §. 3.
• u 1.50

  Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. c. 4. Fit Con∣versio totius substan∣tiae Panis in Corpus Christi.
• * 1.51

  See above §. 4.