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.

THE THIRD BOOKE,

Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence, pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposi∣tion of Christ's wordes, [This is my Body] called TRANSVBSTAN∣TIATION.

Your Doctrinal Romish Con∣sequences are Five, viz. the Corporall

• 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ, called Transubstantiation; in this Third Booke.
• 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament, called Reall Presence; in the Fourth Booke.
• 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bo∣dies of the Communicants, called Reall, or Ma∣teriall Coniunction; in the Fifth Booke.
• 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body, by the hands of the Priest, called a Propitiatory Sacrifice; in the Sixth Booke.
• 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship, called Latria, or Divine Adoration of the same Sacra∣ment; in the Seventh Booke.
• 6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abhominations of the Romish Masse, and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof; in the Eight Booke.

THese are the Doctrinall Consequences, which you teach, and professe, and which we shall by (God's assistance) pursue, according to our former Me∣thod of Brevity, and Perspicuity; and that by as good, and undenyable E∣vidences, and Confessions of your owne Authours, in most points, as ei∣ther you can expect, or the Cause it selfe require. And because a Thing must have a Begetting, before it have a manner of Being, therefore before we treate of the Corporall Pre∣sence,

we must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation, which is the manner (as wee may so say) of the Procreation thereof.

CHAP. I.

The State of the Controuersie, concerning the Change and Conversion, professed by Protestants, which is Sacramentall; And by the Papists de∣fined to be Trans-substantiall.

SECT. I.

First of the Sacramentall.

THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule, that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament, that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body: which Of∣fice of Discerning (according to the iudgement of Protestants) is not onely in the use, but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense: The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration, and Change of naturall Bread, into a Sacrament of Christ's body; This we call a Divine Change, because none but the same * 1.1 Omnipotent power, that made the Creature and Element of Bread, can Change it into a Sacrament.

The Second Obiect of Faith, is the Body of Christ it selfe, Sacra∣mentally represented, and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Com∣municants. There are then three Obiects, in all, to be distingui∣shed. The First is before Consecration, the Bread meerely Naturall. Secondly, After Consecration, Bread Sacramentall. Thirdly, Christ's owne Body, which is the Spirituall, and Super-substantiall Bread, truly exhibited by this Sacramentall, to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull.

Secondly of the Romish Change, which you call Transubstantiation.

SECT. II.

BVt your Change in the Councell of a 1.2 Trent is thus defined: Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread in∣to the whole Substance of the Body of Christ, and of Wine into his

Blood. Which by the Bull of b 1.3 Pius the Fourth, then Pope, is made an Article of Faith, without which a man cannot be saved. Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment, and c 1.4 Heresie. The Case thus standing, it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation. As for the Church of England, she professeth in her 28. Article, say∣ing of this Transubstantiation, that It cannot be proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion unto MANY SV∣PERSTIONS.

CHAP. II.

The Question is to be examined by these ground; viz.I. Scripture. II. Antiquity. III. Divine Reason.

IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions, and Confessions, for the Confirmation of Truth.

The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words, [This is my Body:] for proofe of Tran∣substantiation.

SECT. I.

YOu pretend (and that with no small Confidence) as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a 1.5 Trent, that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you.

CHALLENGE.

VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to be undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you b 1.6 grant that (be∣sides Cardinall Cajetane, and some other Ancient Schoolemen) Scotus,

and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transub∣stantiation. So they. Which your Cardinall, and our greatest Adversary, saith c 1.7 Is not altogether improbable; and whereunto your Bishop d 1.8 Roffensis giveth his consent. Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proofe of your Transubstantia∣tion, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as to e 1.9 Change the Verbe Substantive [Est] into a Verbe Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Transit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or, It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sence, which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow, because (as hee truly saith) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri, seu Transire, of Making, or Passing of one Substance into another. So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.

Wee might, in the third place, adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fa∣thers, and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved, as an Infallible Truth. So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following. But yet, by the way, wee take leave to prevent your Obiection. You have told us that * 1.10 the words of Christ are Operative, and worke that which they signifie; so that upon the pronuntiation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christs Body; which wee shall be∣lieve, assoone as you shall be able to prove, that upon the pronun∣tiation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood,] Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood, or else into his Blood it selfe.

The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof.

SECT. II.

The Title, and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date.

YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians; albeit the word Transubstantiation (as you grant) f 1.11 was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that

your Romish Change had not it's Christendome, or name a∣mong Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Car∣dinall g 1.12 Alan witnesseth) before the Councell of Laterane, which was 1215. yeares after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine, for a Thousand yeares, attributing any word equivalent, in strict Sence; unto the same word Transubstantia∣tion, untill the yeare 1100. (which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie) At what time you finde, note, and ••rge Theo∣phylact; who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sence hee vsed it, you might best have learned from himselfe, who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h 1.13 Trans-elementated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were, being taken in strict and proper Sence, we permit to your owne iudge∣ments to determine.

Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word, obiect the like use of this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began, because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious; for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times, as your Cardinall i 1.14 Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth.

You furthermore to prevent our Obiection (demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had beene of your Romish Faith, con∣cerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) haue shaped us this Answere, namely, that k 1.15 Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Trans∣formation, Trans-elementation, and the like. So your Lorichius, Reader of Divinitie among you; who by his vast and rash bold∣nes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the A∣postle, viz. [* 1.16 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are transformed] that every Regene∣rate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ: or, from the word [* 1.17 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He is transfigured] say that the Diuell is Transub∣stantiated into an Angell of light: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is changed] (used by l 1.18 Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in m 1.19 Nazianzene, conclude that Every Per∣son Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ.

Will you have the world imagine that so many, so excellent, and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Lear∣ning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not in a Thousand yeares space, finde out either the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Latine Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this

Change, if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardi∣nal? n 1.20 Liberty of devising new words (saith he) is a thing most dan∣gerous; because new words, by little and little, b••get new things. So hee. Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which S^t. * 1.21 Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid; els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingen∣der a novell, and brutish opinion, such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be; As followeth.

The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane (namely) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ.

SECT. III.

THis Aricle hath beene decreed (as you haue * 1.22 heard) by your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and therefore presumed to be Ancient.

CHALLENGE.

THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Cardi∣nall o 1.23 Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VII^th. viz. 1073. yeares after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. yeares after this Pope, and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole) when he had laboured to give Re∣solution to all doubts, especially in this very Question (whe∣ther the Conversion were substantiall, or not) confesseth plainely saying: p 1.24 Definire non sufficio: I am not able to Determine. So he. Anno 1140.

Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely, which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to de∣scend lower, to find out the Birth thereof, q 1.25 Affirming that the Arti∣cle of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Coun∣cell of Laterane, under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading. But ei∣ther were your Iesuite Coster, and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning, as Scotus, or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VII^th. For your Iesuite saith, in direct tearmes, that r 1.26 The name of Transubstantiati∣on was used in the Councell of Laterane, for clearer declaration, that

Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before? But your Cardinall Perr••n more peremptorily con∣cludeth that s 1.27 If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane, it might be now lawfull to impugne it. So hee. A plaine acknow∣ledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Coun∣cell, even as Scotus affirmed before, But we pursue this Chase yet further, to shew,

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae, vnder Pope In∣nocentius the III.

SECT. IV.

YOur owne learned Romish t 1.28 Priest, a long time Prisoner, did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Matth. Paris, and others to testifie as followeth. That many things fell under Consul∣tation in that Councell, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Per••sium. Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell, which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters, did end in scorne and mockery, performing nothing at all. Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after. No marvell then if some u 1.29 Schoole-men, among whom were Sco∣tus and Biel, held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient. And another, that x 1.30 It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, M. Breerly (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) stick∣eth not to say that y 1.31 Transubstantiation compleat (that is, both for forme, and matter) was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent; that is to say, not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had, before it came to be formed? and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to to be proved, by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof.

CHAP. III.

The Definition of Transubstantiation, in the Church of Rome; and of the Falshood thereof.

SECT. I.

THe Councell of Trent (saith your a 1.32 Cardinall) hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread, that is, as well forme, as matter, into the Substance of Christ his Body.

Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Tran∣substantiation, by the Contradictions of the Defen∣ders thereof; whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article.

THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church, concerning the nature of this Conversion, are by you reduced into these two manners, (namely) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread; or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread.

CHALLENGE.

VVHatsoever it is, which you will seeme to professe, never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation. First, not by Pro∣duction, because (as the same b 1.33 Cardinall truely argueth) Conversi∣on by Production, is, when the thing that is produced is not yet extant; as when Christ converted water into wine, wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water: But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive manner of Tran∣substantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites c 1.34 Vasquez, and d 1.35 Suarez, by both whom it hath beene confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation; which is demonstrable in it selfe, because the next manner, which they insist vpon, cannot possibly serue your turne.

This Second manner they name to be by Adduction, which your e 1.36 Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar, & therfore called Sub∣stantiall, but the Substance of Bread, ceaseth to haue any Being, when the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Councell of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread eaten is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh, the matter of Bread is made the matter of Flesh. But this your adduction is so far frō bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Bo∣dy, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as un∣to the Bread, but to be under only the Outward Accidents, & formes of Bread. Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f 1.37 Schooles.

No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church, who did impugne this delusion, calling it (as your g 1.38 Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them) a Translocation onely, and not a Transubstantiation; and that truely, if they should not have called it a Trans-accession, or Trans-succession rather. For who will say, if he put on his hand a Glove, made of a Lamb-skin, which Lambe was long since dead (and consequently ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe? yet is there in this example a more substantial Change by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread, because there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand, and the Lamb-skin: but in this other there is onely a Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a h 1.39 Translocation.

Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Producti∣on, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by your selves to be con∣trary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge.

Observe by the way that they, who gain-say the Productive, and teach the Adductive, yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termi∣no ad Terminum: a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon.

Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantia∣tion is from the Article of our Christian Creed, [BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY.]

SECT. II.

TRansubstantiation (as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body. Now, in every such Substantiall Change, there are Two Tearmes, one is the Substance from which; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made: as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine. But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water, as the matter, from which the Conversion was made. Therefore must it it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body, out of the Substance of Bread. Your Cardinall hath no Evasion, but by deny∣ing the Conversion to be by Production, which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole, ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched; and which is con∣trary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction: wherein first he i 1.40 confoundeth himselfe, and secondly, his opinion hath beene scornfully reiected by your owne learned Doctors, as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation, as you have heard. Therefore may you make much of your breaden Christ. As for vs, We, according to our Apostolicall Creed, beleeve no Body of Christ, but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, for feare of k 1.41 Heresie.

This same Obiection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note, received from him this Answer: viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones, can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ, which was of the Virgin. And he againe received this Reply; That the Children, which should be so rai∣sed out of Stones, howsoever they might be Abraham's Children, according to Faith, yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. Therefore is there as great a Difference be∣tweene that Body from Bread, and the other from the Blessed Virgin, as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones, and Children out of Flesh.

And this out Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith, professed within this Land, in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King, as it is set out in an l 1.42 Homily of that time, which being published stan∣deth thus. Much is betweene the body that Christ sufferedin, and be∣tweene

the body of the hallowed Howsell: The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood, and with bone, with skin, and with sinewes in humane limbes; and his Ghost∣ly body, which we call his Howsell, is gathered of many Cornes, without blood, and bone, without limbe, and therefore nothing is to be under∣stood herein bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood. This was our then Saxon's Faith; wherein is plainely distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall (which is called Ghostly) as is the Body of flesh from the Consecrated Substance of Bread. A Doctrine directly confirmed by * 1.43 Saint Augustine. Wherefore we may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantiation from bread, then it is not the Bo∣dy, which was borne of the blessed Virgin; as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication: * 1.44 If Bread be Christ's Body, then something was Christ's body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary.

Our Third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration.

But first of the State of this Question.

SECT. III.

VVE wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m 1.45 A∣nathema, and Curse upon every man that should affirme, Bread and Wine to remayne in this Sacrament after Consecration: which they did, to terrifie men from the Doctrine of Protestants, who doe all affirme the Continuance of the Substance of Bread in the Eucharist. For right well did these Tridentines know, that if the Substance of Bread, or Wine doe remayne, then is all Faith, yea, and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera, and meere Fancy, as your Cardinall doth confesse, in granting that n 1.46 It is a necessarie Condition, in every Transubstantiation, that the thing, which is Con∣verted, cease any more to be; as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine; Water ceased to be Water. And so must Bread cease to be Bread. This being the State of the Question, we undertake to give

Good Proofes of the Existence, and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist, the same in Substance, after Consecration.

Our First Proofe is from Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. Saint Paul calling it [Bread.]

SECT. IV.

IN the Apostle his Comment (that I may so call his two * 1.47 Chap∣ters to the Corinthians) upon the Institution of Christ, we reade

of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup, thrice; all which, by the consent of all sides, are spoken of Eating & Drinking after Con∣secration: and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread. You will say (with some) It was so called onely because it was made of Bread; as Aarons Rod, turned into a Serpent, was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answere is not answerable unto the Simili∣tude. For first, of the Bread, the Apostle saith demonstratively, This Bread; and of the other, This Cup: But of Aaron's Rod, tur∣ned into Serpent, none could say, This Rod. And secondly, it is contrary to Christian Faith, which will abhorre to say, in a pro∣per sence, that Christ's Body was ever Bread. Or else you will an∣swere, with others, It is yet called Bread, because it hath the Simi∣litude of Bread, as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent.

But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satis∣fie; for we shall prove, that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration, but because it was Substantially, still, Bread. Our Reason is; He had now to deale against the Propha∣ners of this Sacrament, in reproving such as used it as Common Bread, * 1.48 Not discerning therein (Sacramentally exhibited) the Lord's Body. It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles, agreeable to the Body of Christ, hypostatically united to his God-head, and to have denied it ab∣solutely to have beene Bread, considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased, and Ec∣clipsed; if in Truth, and Veritie hee had not beleeved it to have beene (then) Bread.

This Reason we guesse you are bound to approve off, who, in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body, and Ab∣sence of Bread, would never suffer any of your Professors to call it, after Consecration, by the name of Bread. Whereupon it was that the Greeke o 1.49 Archbishop Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors, for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies: why? Because (saith he) after the words of Christ, [This is my Body] wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread, and Wine. So hee. Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread, and Wine is, in the iudgement of the Church of Rome, preiudiciall to their Transub∣stantiation; and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliuer the same words he did, at this day, hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile. What need many words? except in the words of Christ the word [Body] be properly predicated, and affirmed of Bread, farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body! But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread, hath beene the Gene∣rall Confession of your owne Doctours, and the Conclusion of our second Booke.

Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ, touching the Continuance of Wine, after Consecration, Matth. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity.

SECT. V.

THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe, in thesecond Element of Wine, calling it * 1.50 This fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, after Consecration: where the Pronoune [This] hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ, we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers; Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Au∣gustine, Hierome, Epiphanius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Bede, as witnesseth your Iesuite p 1.51 Maldonate (no one Father produced by him to the contrary) Then answering; But I (saith hee) cannot be thus perswaded. So he. Marke this (you great Boasters of Accor∣dance with Antiquity!) and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite. But he proceedeth, tel∣ling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine, as thinking it to be Wine, but even as Christ did when hee called his flesh Bread, Iohn 6. Then he addeth; They that will follow the Ex∣position of These Fathers are thus to interpret them. And gives his Reason of this his Aduertisement, Lest the other Exposition (saith he) may seeme to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists. So he.

For which his Answere Calvinists▪ are as much beholding to him, as are the Ancient Fathers, with whom he hath made bold not only to reiect their Authority; but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies; who declare that they un∣derstood Naturall and Substantiall Wine (as the q 1.52 Marginals doe manifest) so plainly, as to affirme that It was Wine, which then Christ dranke, and that hereby the practices of the Heretiques Aquarij are confuted, who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist. It was the Wine (saith r 1.53 Augustine) which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption: Even that Wine, which was blessed (saith s 1.54 Clemens Alexandrinus:) and your owne Bishop t 1.55 Iansenius doth confesse

that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist; and not (as some say) to the Cup of the Passeover.

Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij, and the Confutation thereof: they used only Water in the Eucharist, in pretence of * 1.56 Sobriety, which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground, viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the * 1.57 Insti∣tution of Christ, wherein Christ ordained Wine, and not Onely Water: and now tell us, if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith, in those dayes, whether it had not con∣cerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it, for the more just con∣demnation of those Aquarij, to let them know, that if they would needs use only Water, than (according to your Doctrine) their Consecration should be void; and consequently their Adoration (if it had beene then in use) should have beene like wise Idolatrous.

The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie, betweene Bread and Christ's Body, both Naturall, and Mysticall.

SECT. VI.

IN 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. [The Bread which we breake (saith the Apo∣stle) is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? for we being many are one Bread and one Body, in as much as wee all partake of one Bread.] In this Sentence the word [Bread] hath a double Relati∣on, the First to Christ his Body Naturall. Thus the joynt Partici∣pation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogie, in this respect, is excellently expressed by u 1.58 Isi∣dore: Bread (saith hee) because it strengtheneth the Body, is there∣fore called Christ's Body; and Wine, because it turneth into Blood, is therefore called Christ's Blood: These two are visibles, but being san∣ctified by the holy Spirit, are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. So hee. This is indeed a true Analogie, not to be performed by Accidents.

Could any of them, whom you call Calvinists, have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words (for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body;) or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion? (for he saith, Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie;) or else in giving the Reason why Bread, and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body, and Blood, by which we are spiritually fed? (for hee sheweth that it is because of their Na∣turall Effects, Bread substantially, and therefore not Accidentally, strengtheneth Man's Body: Wine turneth in Blood.) Which over∣throweth your third Figment of onely * 1.59 Accidents; as if the Sub∣stance of Bread and Wine, were not necessary in this Sacrament. Say then, doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body? or doth the Accident, Colour of Wine, turne into Blood? As

well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body, by the colour, and coldnesse, without the substantiall matter thereof.

The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Bo∣dy of Christ, which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Commu∣nicants; [* 1.60 We are all one Body, in as much as we are partakers of one Bread.] It standeth thus; As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread, and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup: So, many Christians, partaking faithfully of this Sacra∣ment, become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith, and Love. This Exposition, as it is yeilded unto by your Car∣dinall y 1.61 Cajetan, and authorized by your Romane and Triden∣tine z 1.62 Catechisme, so is it also confessed to be used of a 1.63 Al∣most all holy Doctours. Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter, in Plinie, that could paint Grapes so to life, as to deceive Birds; which came to feed on them: But they are the only So∣phisticall Doctors, that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents, as painted Colours in stead of naturall, because where there is not a Reall Analogie, there is no Sacrament. You may not say, that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration; because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament, and the Thing Signified, but it is no Sacrament, before it be Con∣secrated.

CHALLENGE.

SAy now, what Better Authour is there than Christ? What bet∣ter Disciple and Scholler, than the Apostle of Christ? or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ, and his Apostle, than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? calling the one part Wine, the other Bread, after Consecration, as you have heard.

Our Third Proofe, that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament, is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily.

First, by the Authority of Scripture.

SECT. VII.

ALthough man's Sense may be deceived, thorow the inconve∣nient Diposition of the Medium, thorow which he seeth, as it

hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked, which stan∣deth in the Water; and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe, which is seene through a Greene glasse: or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place, as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth; or the Rainbow to be a Colour, and not Light; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ, or Instrument of seeing (which is the Eye) whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two, or mistake a Shadow for a Substance: yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution, and Temper; the Medium, whereby we see, is perfectly disposed; the Distance of the Obiect, which we see, is indifferent; then (say we) the iudgement of Sense, being free, is True, and the Concur∣rence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses, in one arbitrement, is infallible.

This Reason, taken from Sence, you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall, as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning: Wee defend the Con∣trary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples, Luc. 24. 39. [Handle mee, and see.] Your Car∣dinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available, to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit, or Fancy, but a true body, even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching; b 1.64 Yet (saith he) was it not sufficient in it selfe, without other Ar∣guments to confirme it, and to prove it to have beene a humane body, and the very same which it was. So he.

Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false, and not also greatly irreligious: for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body (as your Cardinall speaketh) but also that it was his owne same humane body, now risen, which before had beene Crucified, and wounded to Death, and buried, according to that of Luke [That it is even I.] Luc. 24. 39. Now because * 1.65 It is not a Resurrection of a Body, except it be the Same body: Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * 1.66 thrust his hands into his sides, and feele the print of his wounds, to manifest the same body; as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe, the One with an c 1.67 Optimè, the O∣ther with a d 1.68 Probatum est. Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument, taken from Sence, as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith, even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead; for how often doth he repeate, and inculcate this? * 1.69 He was seene, &c. And againe thrice more, Hee was seene, &c. And Saint Iohn argueth, to the same purpose, from the Concurrence of three Sences: * 1.70 That which wee have heard,

which we have seene, and our hands have handled, declare wee unto you. The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect, as Christ averreth, * 1.71 Thomas because thou hast seene (that is, perceiued both by Eye, and hand) thou hast beleeved.

The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense, in THOMAS, and the other Disciples, confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors.

SECT. VIII.

PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch: e 1.72 I feare not (saith hee) to say, that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument, to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie, that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man, that is of vnderstanding and consideration. As for the unbeleeving Disci∣ples, [Christ his Handle me, &c.] (saith your Iesuite f 1.73 Vasquez) was as much as if he had said to them, Perceive you my true flesh? as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body. So he, yea, and g 1.74 Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity, when hee said, [Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not beleeve.] Which proveth the Ef∣ficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sence, in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve.

Wherein your Authours are authorized by Saint Augustine, h 1.75 saying, that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene deceived, yet his touch was not frustrate. And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome, who sticketh not to say that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian beliefe, than did the faith of the other Apo∣stles, because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by the Sense of Tou∣ching, we are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith. And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall, hee may be shackled with his owne answere, who, to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling, said; i 1.76 That other Arguments were requi∣site for the certifying the iudgement of Sense: and among these O∣ther he reckoneth Christ his speaking, eating, and working Mira∣cles. All which, what are they else (wee pray you) but equally

Obiects of Sense? What Vertigo then may this be called in him, to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument, which iustifieth the certainty of Sense?

A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses, as sufficient in Divine Causes, for discerning Obiects of Sense, and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament; by the judgement of Ancient Fathers.

SECT. IX.

HOw many Heretiques of old were there (such as the Valenti∣nians, Montanists, Marcionites) who denied that Christ had a True, and Essentiall Bodie? and how absolutely were they confu∣ted of Ancient Fathers, by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard, saw, and felt the Body of Christ? Which sheweth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong euen in Chri∣stian Philosophie. And to come to the point in Question, to con∣clude from the Premises in the former Section; who can deny this Consequence, viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread, after Consecration, whereby Christ proved his Body to be a body of flesh, after his Resurrection? But this he did from the Infallibility of Sence. Therefore this may be equal∣ly concluded by the same Argument of Sence.

And that there is the same Reason of both these, the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument, wherewith he confu∣ted an Heretique by Sense, thus; k 1.77 As after Consecration (saith he) Bread remayneth the same in substance: So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remayned in substance the same. Thus much of the A∣nalogie. (As for the word [Substance] more is to be spoken there∣of * 1.78 hereafter.) Yea, and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Com∣municant to blind-fold himselfe, whose Testimony (digested by l 1.79 Bede) is this: That which you have seene is Bread, as your eyes doe manifest unto you. And he speaketh of Bread, as this Sacrament was a Symbol, and Signe of the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church, consisting of a multitude of Faithfull Communicants, as one Loafe doth of many graines of wheate. So Saint Augustine. Ergò, It is Bread after Consecration.

Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academici, who denied the iudgement of Sense; wherein hee maintayneth the Truth of the Senses, and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling; and at length

he falleth upon the point now in Question, saying that m 1.80 If wee yeild not to the suffrages of Senses, some may doubt whether Christ perceiued afterwards another Sent of oyntment, which hee received (meaning another than the naturall Sent thereof) before his Buriall. And immediatly he addeth, (marke we pray you) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine, than was that, which he consecrated for the memoriall of his blood. That then, which Christ Tasted, was first Consecrated. Next, he invadeth the Heretique Marcion, for denying the Truth of Christ's Bodie on earth, and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apo∣stles. Faithfull (saith hee) was their sight of Christ in the Mount, Faithfull was their Tast of Wine at the Marriage, Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas, &c. (then concluding:) which Testifications (saith he) had not beene True, if their senses had beene Liars. So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academici, but also of the Hereticall Marcionites, who (contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ.

CHALLENGE.

THis Apologie of Tertullian, in behalfe of the verity of the Senses, doth minister to all Christians fower Conclusions. First, not to conceit of Accidents without Subiects: but to discerne of Subiects, and Substances, by their Accidents. Secondly, that our Outward Senses rightly constituted (more especially the Sense of Feeling) are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Obiects. Thirdly, that this verification of Subiects, by their Accidents, is common with Christ, his Apostles, all Christians, and with every reasonable man. And lastly, that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and natu∣rally Wine, after Consecration, by the iudgement of the Senses, be∣cause he instanceth in this very point: teaching that Christ had the same taste of Wine afterwards, which hee had before in that, which he consecrated; even as hee had also the same Sent of Oynt∣ment after, which hee had before his Buriall. And all this even now, when he convinced Marcion of Heresie, an Enemy to the Ca∣tholique Faith, in denying the Truth of Christ's humane naturall Body, notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses.

Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretique to say, what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses, con∣cerning the Truth of Christ's Body, seeing you your-selves gain-say the iudgement of foure Senses at once, in denying the Existence

of Bread in this Sacrament? This, we say, they must needs have re∣plyed, if that the Catholiques then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe, to thinke that all the Sences are deceived, in iudging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or Wine; and so might they have blowne away all this Catholique Confutation of He∣retiques and Infidels with one and the same breath.

Come now hither all yee that say we must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case; and tell us whether any Protestant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertul∣lian, in his Defence of this Truth? whereby hee also defendeth the Catholique Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ, and was never heereof questioned by any Catholique, in, or since his daies.

Let none of you obiect that of the Disciples, in their way to Em∣maus with Christ, of whom it is said that [* 1.81 They could not know him:] for the same Text giveth this Cause, that their eyes were hol∣den, lest they should see him: and after, * 1.82 Their eyes were opened, and they saw him. So the Evangelist, which is so farre from infrin∣ging any thing that hath beene said, for the Infallibility of Sence, rightly constituted and disposed, that this thereby is notably con∣firmed. Wee call vpon Hierome to witnesse, saying; * 1.83 The Error of not discerning Christ, when he was in the midst betweene them, was not in Christ's Body, but in their eyes, because they were closed that they could not see. Apply wee this unto the Eucharist. Dare any Pa∣pist say, that the Cause, why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament, is not in his Bodie (which you beleeve to be in it selfe invisible) but in your Eyes, as being shut vp; when notwithstan∣ding you will be knowne, that these are open enough for discer∣ning Colours, and formes of Bread and Wine?

Our Fourth Proofe, that the Substance of Bread remaineth, after Consecration, is taken from the Con∣fessed Sensible Effects.

SECT. X.

THe Effects, which you n 1.84 your selves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament, are these. First, That the Cup doth inebriate, or make drunke. Secondly, The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish. Thirdly, That, it being poysoned, it poyso∣neth. Fourthly, That having beene long reserved, It engendreth wormes, which are bred out of it; and are also fed of the same. Fiftly, That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall; and that the Contrary Opinion is false, and Incredible. Sixtly, That this matter, whereof wormes are bred and fed, is the same Bread, which was taken before Consecration. So your owne prime Schoole-men, Historians, and Iesuites respectively.

If then the Bread, now ingendring wormes, be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated; How say you that being Consecrated it is not still the same, our Senses giving Testimony thereunto?

THE FIRST CHALLENGE.

HEre you have nothing to answer, but that the Bread, where∣of new wormes are Bred, whether it be the same that was, or not; yet being Bread, it is wrought either by a o 1.85 Miracu∣lous Conversion, or by a New Creation. What? you, who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sa∣crament, without necessary Cause, can you possibly be perswaded that there is, or can be any necessary Cause, why God should worke a Miracle, either of Conversion into, or of New Creation of Bread, for Breeding, or Feeding of wormes? or of Wine, for making such men Drunke, as should tast too largely of the Cup? yea, or els to poyson our Enemy, were hee p 1.86 Emperour, or q 1.87 Pope? Nay can it be lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles, for the accomplishment of vaine, wicked, and mischievous ef∣fects? But farre be it from vs to imagine that the Blessed Bo∣dy of our Lord Christ, who by his Touch cured so many disea∣ses, in the time of his mortality, should now, being glorified, mi∣raculously poyson his Guests whosoeuer they be.

Beleeve (if you can) that if God wrought (as you say) a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread, to engender, or nourish vile wormes, that hee would not much rather worke a miracle, (if any such miracle were herein to be expected) to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants. In all this wee appeale againe to true Antiquity, and require of you to shew, we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers, but so much as any intimation or insinuation, were it but by way of a Dreame, of a Miraculous Con∣version of the Consecrated Host (when it beginneth to putrifie) by

being changed againe into Bread; or of Mice eating the Body of Christ, or that being putrified it should breed wormes; (seeing it were rather a miracle they should not be so bred) or any such kinde of Romish Fancies, and delusions; or otherwise to confesse your Obiectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile, and despe∣rate Cause. Yet lest any of your may thinke, that One comming into a Cellar full of new Wine, and made drunke with the smell there∣of, therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate: your Iesuite will de∣ny this, and tell you that it is the * 1.88 Ayre infected with the o∣dour which maketh man Drunke.

A SECOND CHALLENGE, with a Caution.

YOur Common, and most plausible Obiection, to dementate vulgar people, is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith. Therfore, for Caution-sake, be it knowne vnto you, that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses, as holding nothing Cre∣dible, but that, which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses.

This we vtterly abhorre, as the Gulfe of Infidelity, proper to the Athean Sect: for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father, Fides non habet meritum, vbi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum; and also to that other of * 1.89 Iustine. In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas, in that he would not beleeve, except he should See: yet notwithstanding we, with our Saviour, approve in Thomas, that by Seeing he did beleeve. For this is a true Tenet in Di∣vinity; Faith may be (Supra) above right reason, or sence; but ne∣ver (Contra) against either. It was never read that God required of any man a beleefe of any Sensible thing, which was Contrary to the exact iudgement of his Senses. And therefore your opposition, in this Case, as it is Sensles, so it is indeed Faithlesse; as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers; by whom the Iudge∣ment of Sense hath beene acknowledged to be, in Sensible Obiects, a notable Ground of Faith.

Our Fift Proofe, that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance, after Consecration, in this Sacrament, is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers. First from due Inferences.

SECT. II.

TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Conse∣quence, for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised, and partly by intimation of other Argu∣ments

afterwards expressed. But wee shall be content with those few which doe more properly appertaine to this present Dispute, concerning the nature of a Body. First Irenaeus, speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration, as being not now common Bread, said that r 1.90 It consisteth of an earthly part, and an heavenly: how? even as the Bodies of the Communicants (saith hee) are no more corrupti∣ble, having an hope of the Resurrection to come. Scan these words by the Law of Similitude, and it must infallibly follow, that as our Bodies, albeit substantially Earthly, are notwithstanding called In∣corruptible, in respect of the Glory and Immortality, in which (through hope) it hath an Interest; Even so the Earthly Substance of this Sacrament, being Bread, is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body. Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meate, saith that the s 1.91 Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught, or seege: which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body, whereof the Fathers often pronounce, that It goeth not into the Draught.

But what is meant by, Materiall, in this place, thinke you M. * 1.92 Breerly? namely, Magnitude, and other Sensible Accidents, which in regard of their Significations, are materialls. So hee. Very learnedly answered forsooth! If Magnitudo, that is Greatnes, be a Materiall thing, be you so good as tell us what is the matter there∣of? for whatsoever is Materiall, hath that appellation from it's Subiect matter. Is it the Body of Christ? then must you grant (which wee, with holy Fathers abhorre to thinke) that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught: or is it Bread? Then farewell Transubstantiation. Nay, will you say, but they were Accidents; And we Answer, that it was never heard, no not in your owne Schooles, that meere Accidents were called (which are Origen's words in this place) either Meates, or Materialls. Yea, and O∣rigen (that hee might bee knowne to understand Materiall Bread) furthermore calleth it now, after Consecration, Matter of Bread.

S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence; t 1.93 As one Baptized had beene an old Creature, and was made a new one, euen so (speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration) they being changed into another thing, remaine that which they were before. But hee (you know) that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man, although, in respect of Spirituall Gra∣ces, hee suffereth a Change. Of which Testimone more * 1.94 here∣after.

Cyprian is a Father much alleadged and urged by you, in de∣fence of Transubstantiation; but is now at hand to controll you. u 1.95 Our Lord gave in this Banquet (saith he) Bread and Wine with his

owne hands, when hee pertaked thereof with his Apostles: but on the Crosse hee delivered vp his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds, to the end that sincere verity, and true sincerity having an in∣ward impression in the Apostles, hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles, how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood, and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes, and Effects; and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence; that things signifying, and things signified might be called by the same names. So hee. A Catholique Father, as all know; whom if you aske, what Consecrated thing it was, which Christ had in his hands, and gave to his Disciples, hee answereth it was Bread, and Wine; and not absolutely that, which hee gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Soldiers, (namely) his Body, and Blood. If againe you demand of Cyprian, why Christ called the Bread, which hee had in his hand, his Body, he readily answereth saying: The things signifying (or Signes) are called by the same names, whereby the things signifyed are termed.

A * 1.96 Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquity, from the Testimonies of divers Fathers, in saying of this Sacrament, after Consecration, that The bread, by being divided, is diminished: that, It is delivered by fragments: that these are so little, that they are to be called rather Bitts then Parts. Thus they spake expressly of Bread Consecrated; but to say that you eate bitts and Fragments of whitenes, of Roundnes, and other Accidents, who is so absurd among your selves? And to affirme the same of Christs body, who is so impious? Somewhat more of this, when we shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councell of * 1.97 Nice.

Another Inference we may take from Antiquity, in her calling this Sacrament [Pignus] a Pledge (so y 1.98 Hierome, and z 1.99 Gauden∣tius) of the Presence of Christ now departed from us. A Perfect Ar∣gument of the Bodily Absence of Christ, by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge. The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following.

A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers, acknow∣ledging in expresse tearmes Bread to remaine after Con∣secration, in Substance, the same.

The First Father is THEODORET.

SECT. XII.

THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference betweene two Parties, being in Controversie about the humane and bodily

nature of Christ; the one is named Eramstes, upon whom is impo∣sed the person of an Heretike, for Defence of the Sect of the Eu∣tychians, who (falsly) held, That the Body of Christ, after his As∣cension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deity, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as before his Resurrecti∣it had beene. The other Party and Disputer is named Or∣thodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine, in behalfe of the Catholique Church. In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in, for Defence of his Heresie, arguing thus; Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed into the Body of Christ: Even so, after his As∣cension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes. This was that Heretike his Obiection. The Orthodoxe, or Catholique (which was Theodoret himselfe) commeth to answer, promising to catch the Heretique, as he saith, in his owne Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: a 1.100 Nay, But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist, after Sanctification, depart not from their former na∣ture, but continue in their former Figure, Forme and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Forme, Circumscription, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Substance] which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set downe in the name of a grand Heretike, is absolutely your Romish Profes∣sion for Transubstantiation at this day (to wit) Bread is changed af∣ter Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body; and that also the Assertion of Theodoret, in the person of the Catholique Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Prote∣stants, defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore, if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresie:) which divers have under∣taken to doe by their Answeres, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at; and so false, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them.

The Principall Answere is that, which your b 1.101 Cardinall giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] meant not Substance properly understood, but the essence of Accidents. So hee. An Answere (by your leave) notoriously, ridiculously, and heretically False.

First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodoret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the other Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logique (as you know) that the words and termes, betokening the same Similitude, be used in the same signification in both Propositions. But in the Apodosis of Theodo∣ret, which is this: So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, re∣maineth

the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretique; viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had beene in time before his Resurrection (the Heretique denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same only in Quantities, and Accidents; for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable, * 1.102 Cor∣ruption putting on Incorruption, Mortality Immortality, and shame Glory. Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that com∣parison of Theodoret (which was this, As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Forme and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken.

Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Forme, which are knowne to be Accidents, and adding [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Acci∣dents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so vnlearned, who did adde the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] to Formes, and Figures, but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents.

Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresie of the E••∣tychians? tell us; They (say c 1.103 you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but only Divine. Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall na∣ture of Man; and therefore in his comparison, made for the illu∣stration of that Heresie concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Fi∣gure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had the same signi∣fication of Substance, as your Master Brereley afterwards is com∣pelled to confesse: who, to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique, for proofe of Transubstantiation.

Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answere Retorting (as he himselfe saith) the Heretiques Comparison against him, did by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique. Much like as if one should use this comparison following. As the Moone-shine in the water (in the o∣pinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull. And another retorting the same should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signifie lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in * 1.104 Agellius, where such an Obiectour is compared to a man mil∣king

an Hee-Goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to ano∣ther holding under a Sive.

Here had wee fixed a Period, but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) comming against us with a full ca∣reere, who after that he had beene * 1.105 confuted, for urging the for∣mer Obiection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answere, he blu∣sheth not to regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof, he leaveth it presently, falling foule upon Theodoret, as though that Father had beene in some distemper, when he so writ: d 1.106 saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retor∣tion in his * 1.107 heate of Dispute. Then hee taketh part with the Here∣tique, saying, It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged a∣gainst a Catholique sentence for Transubstantiation, as for a point of Faith well knowne, if the same doctrine had beene then either un∣knowne, or else condemned as False. So hee, who might as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne, or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes. And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was iudged execrable in that Church. Now if the Euty∣chian Heretique finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father Theodoret? Hearken, Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop (saith hee) could not have pro∣pounded the Heretikes Argument, as grounded upon the Churches re∣ceived Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same beene then un∣knowne, and reputed False. So hee, who, if he had not lost his Lo∣gique, would certainly have argued contrarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop, would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique, and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same, except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique Church in his time. Wherefore if you be men of Faith, and not rather of Faction, let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers, discovered both here, and throughout this whole Treatise, move you to renounce them, as men of prostituted Consciences; and their Cause, as for∣lorne of all Truth.

For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answere of your Ie∣suite Valen••ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvell (saith * 1.108 he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought lesse considerately and truly, before that Transubstantia∣tion was handled publikely in the Church, especially they not handling the same Question of purpose. So he; and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Tran∣substantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church, hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church, which iudgeth

it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith: And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretique in an extemporall speech personally, but deliberately and punctually by writing, and therefore of Purpose.

The Second Father, expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, is Pope GELASIVS.

SECT. XIII.

THis Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius, and ur∣ged his Testimony. Your Disputers cavill; First at the name of the Authour, calling Protestants e 1.109 Impudent, for stiling him Pope Gelasius. But if he were not that Pope Gelasius, what Gelasius might hee be then? Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, saith your Cardi∣nall Bellarmine. Contrarily your Cardinall f 1.110 Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 476. (namely) Gelasius Ci∣tizenus; yet so, as confounding himselfe, insomuch that hee is for∣ced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesseth) of Gelasius Pope of Rome. But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants, as your Cardinall hath called them? Surely nothing, but wee require more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meaner to follow than these g 1.111 Historians, viz. Genadius, yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius, Alphonsus de Castro, Onuphrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have in∣tituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that he was an Orthodoxe Father, and very Ancient.

Now then, Gelasius said that h 1.112 The Sacraments of the Body, and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread, and Wine. In Answere whereunto, both your foresaid i 1.113 Cardinals here, (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius some∣where else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet

the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will compell the un∣derstanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For whereas the Heretique Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him by a Simili∣tude, and Comparison, viz. That as the Substance of Bread remai∣neth after Consecration: So Christ his Bodily Substance remained af∣ter the Resurrection. Wherein if the word, Substance, be not in both places taken properly, Gelasius should have made but a mad Rea∣son, as any reasonable man will confesse. For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet, yet if they halt upon the right foot (which is the matter in Question) they are to be accoun∣ted perfit Dissimilitudes.

Master k 1.114 Brereley would have you to know, that this Gelasius (whosoever hee were) writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie, that Theodoret did; and thereupon useth accordingly, to his like ad∣uantage, the words Substance, and Nature in the same sence, as did Theodoret. So he. And he saith true; and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us, untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But M^r. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius, from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation: so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself, then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet. Whereas, indeed, hee saith no more than, in a mysticall sence, any Protestant must, and will allow, viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing, and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ, are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Di∣vine Nature, which dwelleth in Christ bodily, saith the Apostle. So Gelasius.

To which saying of Gelasius, touching the Eucharist, is answe∣rable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen, concerning Baptisme, calling it a l 1.115 Divine Laver, working miraculous effects. Yea, and Diony∣sius the m 1.116 Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporall Change, what a number of Transubstantiati∣ons must you be inforced to allow? Fie upon blind boldnesse! This mans falsity, in alledging Chemnitius, I let passe.

It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Histo∣rians. May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them, when they so greatly feared, lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Pa∣ster of your Church?

Two other Testimonies from Antiquity, for the expresse acknow∣ledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecra∣tion, in the Sacrament; Chryso∣stome, and Bertram.

SECT. XIIII.

CHrysostome his words are these, that n 1.117 Bread after Consecrati∣on is freed from the name of Bread, being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ, albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still. Your Exception is, that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome. This Answer might satisfie us, were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o 1.118 Florence, and p 1.119 Canterbury. To whom may be adioyned the Authour of that Vn∣perfect worke, still standing under the name of Chrysostome, and by you upon any occasion obiected against vs; wherein it is expressly said, that q 1.120 The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels. It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others, who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions, which were published in the former; as you have beene admonished by one r 1.121 most worthy and able to ad∣vertise in this kind.

Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity, being about 800. yeares agoe, and never noted of Errour antiently, untill these later times of Booke-butchery (that wee may so call your s 1.122 Index Ex∣purgatorius) denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke. But why? what saith he? Hee maintaineth (saith your t 1.123 Se∣nensis) that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine. And in∣deed so he doth in his u 1.124 Booke dedicated to the Emperour Caro∣lus Calvus, which also he affirmeth to be written x 1.125 According to the truth of Scriptures, and iudgement of Ancient Fathers before him. This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Do∣way, which, confessing him to have beene a Catholique Priest, fra∣med divers Answers, whereby they meant to prevent all obiecti∣ons, which Protestants might peradventure urge vnder the Au∣thority of this Author Bertram. But how? Marke this Romish Profession of answering Protestants, as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of antient Writers: y 1.126 Let us (say they) in Dispu∣tation

with our Adversaries, obiecting ancient Authors, tolerate ma∣ny of their Errours; extenuate, and excuse them; yea and oftentimes, by some devised Comment, deny them; as also by feigning to apply some apt sence unto them. So that Vniuersitie. This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles, to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation; what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering? Let us leave Ber∣tram under the Testification, and Commendation of Abbot z 1.127 Tri∣themius, for his Excellent Learning in Scripture, his godly life, his worthy Books, (and by name this now mentioned, written expressly) Of the Body and Blood of Christ.

CHAP. IV.

Answeres to the Obiections of Romish Doctours, taken from the Testimonies of Antient Fathers, for Transubstantiation.

Or, an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Preten∣ces in that behalfe.

SECT. I.

THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients, vsed for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Dispu∣ters, in their Obiecting the Testimonies of Fathers under False pretences. First, upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie. Secondly, their denying of the Eucharist to be Na∣ked, and Bare Bread. Thirdly, in forbidding the Communicants to rely vpon the Iudgement of their Senses. Fourthly, in their men∣tioning the Change of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, and cal∣ling it Transmutation, Transition, and the like. Fiftly and last∣ly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers, which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation, as absolutely spoken of the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, which the same Fathers doe apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme, and also to other sacred Rites, wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all.

The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers, in obie∣cting the Fathers speeches of••an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament, for proofe of Transubstantiation.

SECT. II.

A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change, which is made in this Sacrament, which wee like∣wise▪

confesse. a 1.128 Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction, made in this Sacrament, unto many miraculous workes of God; yea, even to the worke of Creation. b 1.129 Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature, by divine Omnipotencie. c 1.130 Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles, saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God. Accordingly we heare d 1.131 Chrysostome proclaiming, that These are not workes of humane power: He that changeth, and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper. Each one of these Te∣stimonies are principally alleaged by your Disputers, as the stron∣gest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation; and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impreg∣nable; but why? e 1.132 Because (saith your Cardinall) Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant. Se he. We an∣swer first from your owne Confessions, and then from the Fa∣thers themselues.

There are two workes observable in every Sacrament: one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace, promised by God: but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof, as all Protestants hold; and (as your most opposed f 1.133 Calvin teacheth) an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments. In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work, with∣out which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament, either to signifie, or yet to seale, much lesse to convey any Grace of God unto man. And (that wee may take you along with vs)▪ It is the Doctrine of your Church, with common consent (saith your Romane g 1.134 Cardinall) that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament, because he onely can give them power of conferring grace, and of infal∣lible signification thereof. So hee. Well then, as well infallible Sig∣nification of Grace, as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie. To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan, speaking (as he saith) from the iudgement of Divines, h 1.135 telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect, yet

cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect, n•• not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body (Sacra∣mentally) without a Divine Institution: much lesse to represent man's sanctification, but being so determinated and ordained of God, the Creature (saith hee) is elevated above the Custome of nature, not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification, but even of signification also. So hee; And that as well as we could wish: for this Omni∣potent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament, and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace, to the Faithfull Communi∣cant, is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants. But what Change shall wee thinke? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, as you teach? No; but as * 1.136 before Isidore said, The Change of visible things, by the spirit of God, into a Sacrament of Christ's Body.

Seeing then that both Divine power, and authority is required in every Sacrament, to make it either infallibly significant, or els efficaciously profitable to man; and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed, by being Elevated from a com∣mon, vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signi∣fication, as one of your Cardinals hath said: What an uncon∣scionablenes is it then in your Disputers, from the termes of Om∣nipotencie and Divine working, which is necessary in all Sacraments, to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread, by Transubstantia∣tion, as you have heard.

But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse be, if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves. For first Am∣brose, who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacra∣ment, explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant, viz. such that i 1.137 The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before (namely) according to their naturall proper∣ty. Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstan∣tiation, that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Te∣stimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new k 1.138 Editions: notwith∣standing, by Gods providence, so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place, as will convince your Obiectors of wilfull Falshood, telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate l 1.139 of an old Creature is made a new Creature: which is (as euery Christian knoweth) not a change in the substantiall na∣ture of man, but in the Accidentall properties. So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall. And the same Fa∣ther who said of a man, that by Baptisme hee is made a new Crea∣ture, saith also of this Sacrament, that m 1.140 By Benediction Bread is made another nature, (namely) of an Elementall become Sacramen∣tall, as you have heard; and as his owne words import, After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified: and that, which was Wine, Is called Blood.

In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaude your selves, for to your Lindan n 1.141 The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden: and hee must needs provoke, forsooth, all Gospellers to hearken unto them: which also seemeth to your o 1.142 Cardinall To admit no solution. Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian: may we not? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us (saith your Master p 1.143 Brerely) attributed to Cyprian. Whom of your Side he meant by [Vs] you may be pleased to aske him; sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that q 1.144 The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian, but some other after him. But, not to disclaime your Authour; all that he saith is that r 1.145 Bread is chan∣ged by God's Omnipotency not in Figure, but in Nature. This is all; And all this hath beene, but even now, quitted by your owne Confessions, granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramen∣tall Change, where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use, both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace: and so the word Nature doth import. The Schooles, distinguishing the Nature of Acci∣dents from the Nature of Subiects, shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall. Theology teaching that * 1.146 By na∣ture we are the children of wrath; wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality. This saying, viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature, when they are commanded, Master * 1.147 Brerely alloweth of, as for example: a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Au∣thority, the use thereof becommeth necessary, so that the nature thereof is Changed, yet not in the Substance of the thing, but in the legall necessitie of the use.

But to come nearer, Answer us but this one Question. Where∣as all learning alloweth this saying, that in Baptisme the nature of the Element, and the nature of the Sacrament are different, where∣upon it is said; The word comming to the Element maketh it a Sa∣crament: when we shall say of the water in Baptisme, that the Na∣ture of it, as of a Sacrament, is more excellent than is the nature of it, as it is a meere Element, whether doth not the word, Nature, attributed to the Sacrament, iustly accord unto the Phrase of Cy∣prian, in the case of the Eucharist? and so much the rather, because that Cyprian, in the words of immediatly following the Testimo∣ny obiected, doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude, comparing the Humanity, and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament, to wit; s 1.148 As in Christ himselfe true humanity appeared in his flesh, and his Deity was hid: (This was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and first part of this Similitude; the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and next part followeth) Even so in this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe. So hee, which, by the law of a Similitude, must stand thus: Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene, and the Spirituall operation of God's power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible. Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull; The words are audible, and sen∣sible,

but because of the inward working of God's Spirit, for the Conversion of Man's soule, it is called * 1.149 The Power of God unto salvation: as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacre of Regenera∣tion; whereof Greg. Nyssen affirmeth that t 1.150 It worketh marvellously by benediction, and produceth marvellous Effects. As for Augustine, and Chrysostome (not to be superfluous) every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe, namely, a Divine Operation of God, both by changing the Element into a Sacrament, and working by that Sacra∣ment Spirituall Effects, to the good of Man's soule.

The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers, in abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, is seene in objecting their de∣niall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacra∣ment, for an Argument of Tran∣substantiation.

SECT. III.

TO this purpose Irenaeus, saying that a 1.151 It is not Common Bread: Ergo (say you) not to be properly iudged by Sense. Vncon∣scionably, knowing that b 1.152 Chrysostome (and also all other Fathers whom you moreover obiect) saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme, * 1.153 Wee are to behold it not as common water. The second i•• Iustine Martyr, saying; d 1.154 We receive these not as Common Bread, or Common Drinke. Therefore (say you) we may not iudge them by Sence. Vnconscionably; knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason, why it is not to be called Common, euen because (saith he) it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Sanctified meate. And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified, as you know. The third is Cyril of Ierusalem, saying, e 1.155 Consider these, not as Common Bread and Wine: Ergò (say you) not to be iudged by Sense. Vnconsciona∣bly, knowing that the same Cyril, in the same place, saith the same of the water of Baptisme: It is not simple Water. Yea, but he further saith (say f 1.156 you) Thinke not of it, as of bare Bread (adding) but the bo∣dy of Christ. Ergò (say you) not to be iudged otherwise by Sense. Vn∣conscionably; knowing that the same Father in the same place, for explanation sake, saith likewise of g 1.157 Sacred Oyle, viz. Even so that ho∣ly Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle (Adding) but the gift of Grace.

And that your Authours Vnconscionablenesse may be the more notorious, in their wresting of the Catholique meaning of the Fa∣thers, in this kind, wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme, as they ought, all Sa∣cramentall Signes Sacred; and therefore no more Common, or bare Elements. Insomuch that Gregory Nyssen, speaking of a Ceremony inferiour to this Sacrament, which is the Altar, or Table of the Lord, he saith that h 1.158 Although by nature it be but as other stone,

wherewith the Pavements are garnished, and adorned; yet being Con∣secrated to God's Service, by Benediction, it is an holy Table and Altar. Yea, and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Bal∣some, Beads, and Bels, and the like, all which you distinguish from Common, and bare Oyles, and Metalls, because of their different use; and service, without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all?

The third Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in urging, for proofe of Transubstantiation, the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, forbidding men to [Discerne of this Sacra∣ment by their Senses.]

And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril, by two egregious Falsifications.

SECT. IV.

VVE may not easily passe over your Obiection taken out of Cyril, being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impreg∣nable; Let us first heare your Obiector. i 1.159 This Testimony of Cyril alone ought to suffice, being the Sentence of an holy man, and most an∣cient, out of a worke which (unquestionably) was his, yea and most cleare, and plaine, as that it cannot be perverted: Besides it is in his Catechisme, wherein the use of all things is delivered simply, properly, and plainly: Nor was this Father Cyril ever reproved of Errour in his doctrine of the Eucharist. Thus farre your Cardinall, you see, with as accurate an oratory of Amplification, as could be invented. What Protestant would not now, if ever, expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholique Cause? but attend to the Issue.

First, k 1.160 Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste, but although Tast saith it is Bread, yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ, whereinto the Bread is changed. And hee is brought in by your l 1.161 Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread. And so the Sentence seemeth to be most manifest, saith he. But for what wee pray you? That first (forsooth) the Change is the same with Transubstantiation: and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread, but Accidents under the forme of Bread. So hee, and Master * 1.162 Brerely from him, as followeth; Cyril saith, under the forme of Bread his Body is given, &c. and then dancing in the same triumph, addeth; Can any Catho∣lique of this Age write more plainly? So he. And we answere, could any Iugglers deale more falsly? For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion, by a false Translation of Cyril's words. The Body of Christ is given (as your Cardinall doth render

it) sub specie Panis, under the forme of Bread; whereas it is in the Greeke, m 1.163 Vnder the Type of Bread: even as hee saith afterwards; Thinke not that you taste Bread, but the Antitype of Christ's Body. In both, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] Type, and Antitype, not Forme, or Figure of Bread.

Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme, and Type. For Accidentall Formes are things Reall, and the de∣terminate Obiects of Sense; but Types, or Antitypes are only Rela∣tives, and (as such) no Obiects of Sense, but of Reason, and under∣standing onely. As for Example, when a Iudge is set in his Scar∣let upon the Bench, the Eye seeth nothing but red Scarlet, and the fashion of the Gowne, and outward figurature of his Face, and so may every Childe see him; for these are Outward and Visible Accidents. But to see that man, as hee hath upon him the person of a Iudge, ordained to try Causes betweene parties, is a sight of the minde, which looketh upon his Office, to discerne him by his Ha∣bit from common Subiects. Even so is it in this Sacrament; As the Bread and Wine are Round, and White, and Sweet in Taste, our Bo∣dily Senses perceive them; but as they are Types, and Antitypes, that is, Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ, so are they spiritual∣ly discerned with our understanding only.

As therefore it followeth not, that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge, because it is an Ensigne of his Office, should be only Colour and Fashion, without the matter and Substance of the Cloth; no more can any conclude from Cyrill, that because the Sacrament is a Type, therefore this Type was only Forme, and outward Acci∣dents, without all Substance of Bread. And thus your Cardinall his first [Apertissimum Argumentum] for proofe of Accidents, with∣out the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament, is proved to be A∣pertissimum Figmentum, void of all substance, or almost shadow of Truth.

His next observation is the Change by Transubstantiation, and the errour of Sense, in iudging it to be Bread. Wee call vpon Cyrill to decide this Controversie, who is best able to interprete him∣selfe. Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist, after Consecration, It is not Bare Bread, but the Body of Christ, affirmed as much of Con∣secrated Oyle, saying, It is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bare Oyle. But we are answered, that n 1.164 Cyrill, in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread, called it after Consecration Christ's Body: but in denying Oyle to be Bare Oyle, hee called it yet still Chrisme (that is) Sanctified Oyle, after Consecration. So your Cardinall. And so are wee posed for e∣ver. But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud! For Cyrill as he cal∣led the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body, after Consecration, so doth he call the Consecrated Oyle [Charisma] that is, the Gift of the Grace of Christ; and not [Chrisma] that is, Chrisme, or Oyntment, as your Cardinall rendreth it.

Wee say againe he calleth that Charisma, which notwithstan∣ding

hee saith was, after Consecration, still Oyle, wherewith their Foreheads were anointed. This must we iudge to have beene a nota∣ble Falsification of Bellarmine, except you would rather we should thinke, that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are de∣ceived, in iudging of Bread to be Bread, he meant to prove it by see∣ming to be deceived himselfe, in thus mistaking the word Chrisma, for o 1.165 Charisma, and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyrill; by whom we are contrarily taught, that the Sight is no more de∣ceived in iudging Bread to be Bread, than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle. For neither was the other Bare Oyle, being a Type of a spiritu∣all Gift; nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe, because it is so called; but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof. Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconscionable pertinacie and Perversnes of your Disputers, in urging the Testimony of Cyrill.

The like Romish Obiection out of Chrysostome, and as Vnconscionable.

SECT. V.

SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted, which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent, that your p 1.166 Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers, whom he produceth, as able to breake through an army of Aduersaries a∣lone; and Mr. q 1.167 Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies, which hee alleaged, as that which might serve for an Vpshot. I will conclude (saith hee) admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying (you long to heare it, wee thinke:) Although Christ his speech (saith r 1.168 Chrysostome) may seeme absurd vnto Sense and Reason, Iexhort you notwithstanding that espe∣cially in mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us, but ob∣serve Christ's words: for we cannot be disappointed of that, which he saith, but Sences may be deceived. Wherefore, because he said [This is my Body] we are altogether to beleeve it, for hee deliuereth no sensible things unto us; but all which he delivereth in things sensible are in∣sensible: even as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible. For if thou wert without a Body, then things only unbo∣dily should be given unto thee, but now because thy Soule is ioyned with a Body, therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible. So Chrysostome.

Now what of all this? Chrysostome (saith your s 1.169 Cardinall) could not speake more plainly, if he had had some Calvinist before him, whom he meant to exhort to the Faith. So he, meaning the Faith of Transub∣stantiation,

which (as hath beene confessed) was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeares after Christ. But to returne to Chrysostome, whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut, consisting of a Shell, and a Kernell: The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases: the Kernel we may terme his Orthodox meaning. Of both in the Section following.

Of the Rhetoricall, and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome.

SECT. VI.

TO begin with the Shell. First, we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetoricall Trope, or Figure, which may be defined to be an Excessive speech, signifying a Truth in an Vntruth. As to say, Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe; which being strictly taken were an Impossibility, and Vntrue: but it doth im∣ply this Truth, (namely) that the thing is wonderfully, and ex∣tremely darke.

Secondly, that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hy∣perbole, your owne t 1.170 Senensis doth instruct you; where giving a generall Caution, that Fathers in their Sermons doe use to declame Hyperbolically, he doth instance most specially, by name, in Chry∣sostome.

Thirdly, that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome, upon this Sa∣crament, doe verifie as much, viz. to tell his people, that u 1.171 Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ: that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood: and that The Assembly of the People are made red therewith.

Fourthly, that he is as Hyperbolicall in denying (in the Cele∣bration of this Sacrament) the iudgement of Senses, saying, x 1.172 Doe we see Bread, or Wine? which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next wordes immediatly following, saying: Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man, but fire from a Sera∣phin, or Angell, with a paire of Tongs. You will thinke (notwithstan∣ding those kind of Phrases) that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread, and Wine in this Sacrament, as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin, or Spirit; or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs.

Fiftly, that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole, when he saith that No sensible thing is deli∣vered unto us in this Sacrament, and that our Senses herein may be deceived. Words sore pressed by you, yet twice unconscionably; both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be y 1.173 A Sensible Signe; and also for that you your selves confesse that z 1.174 Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects.

Sixtly, that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein, who after that he had said, No sensible thing is delivered un∣to

us in this Sacrament; notwithstanding he addeth immediately, saying of this Sacrament, that In things Sensible, things Intelli∣gible are given unto us. Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chry∣sostome.

Now are we to shew his Theologie, and Catholique meaning, as it were the Kernell of his speech. Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule, and accor∣dingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Bo∣dy, as Symbols of Spirituall things, which are for the Soule to feed upon. So that a Christian, in receiving this Sacrament, is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect, as if that were onely, or principally the thing offered unto us; No, for then in∣deed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Bene∣fit. As for Transubstantiation, and Absence of Bread, Chrysostome, in true Sence, maketh wholly against it, by explaining himselfe, and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme: As in Baptisme (saith a 1.175 hee) Regeneration, the thing intelligible, is given by water the thing sensible, the Substance of water remaining. Which proportion, be∣tweene the Eucharist and Baptisme, is held commonly by ancient * 1.176 Fathers, to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation. And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration, * 1.177 hath beene already expressly shewne, and is here now further proved. For he saith of Bread after Consecration, that b 1.178 Wee are ioyned together one with another, by this Bread.

And now that you see the Nut cracked, you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases, and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall. Furthermore (for this is not to be omitted) the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art, which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament, that c 1.179 Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest, but of Christ himselfe, that reacheth it unto him; seeing immediately after (as it were with the same breath) it is added: It is not the Minister, but God that Baptizeth thee, and holdeth thy head. Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences, which hath beene formerly proved (at large) both by * 1.180 Scriptures, and * 1.181 Fathers; wee draw nearer our marke, which is your Transubstantiation.

Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers, in urging other Figurative Sayings, and Phrases of the Fathers, of Bread Changed, Transmuted, &c. into the Body of Christ, for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence.

SECT. VII.

SVch words as these, Bread is the Body of Christ; It is made the Body of Christ; It is Changed, Translated, Trans-muted, Trans∣elementated

into the Body of Christ, are Phrases of the highest Em∣phasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity; which if they were literally meant, according to your Romish Sence, there ought to be no further Dispute. But if it may evidently appeare, by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers, that such their say∣ings are Tropicall, and sometimes Hyperbolicall, then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes (if not of more) in this, as in any other.

For whensoever they find in any Father (as in c 1.182 Eusebius) these words; The Bread is the Body of Christ, they obiect it for Transub∣stantiation; but Vnconscionably. First, seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ, who said of the Bread [This is my Body:] which hath beene * 1.183 proved by Scriptures, and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech. Secondly, see∣ing that they use the same Dialect in other things, as Cyrill of Sa∣cred Oyle, saying, this is Charisma, the Gift of Grace; as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d 1.184 Reconciliation, and others the like, as you have heard. Thirdly, seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches, because things of different na∣tures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another; for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body, than we can say, An Egg is a Stone, as you have * 1.185 confessed. Againe, Some Fathers say, Bread is made Flesh, as e 1.186 S. Ambrose. obiected; but Vnconscionably, knowing First, that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread. Secondly, knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches; Chrysost. saying that f 1.187 Christ hath made us his owne Body, not only in Faith, but in deed also: And Augustine saying that g 1.188 Christians themselves with their Head, which ascended into heaven, are one Christ: yea, and Pope h 1.189 Leo, saying of the party Baptized, that Hee is not the same that he was be∣fore Baptisme, by which (saith he) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified. Finally, Venerable Bede saith; i 1.190 Wee are made that Body which we receive. In all which the word [Made] you know, is farre from that high straine of Transubstanti∣ation. Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope.

Wee may not deny, but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher, unto the Praeposition Trans; as k 1.191 Transit, Transmutatur, signifying a Change, and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ. Every such Instance is, in the opinion of your Do∣ctours, a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe; and all the wits of men cannot (saith one) Assoyle such Obiections. Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable, as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of l 1.192 Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur; of m 1.193 Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus; of

Cyrils Trans-mutavit; and as now in this Section is to be mani∣fested, in answering your other Obiections to the full.

The Father o 1.194 Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna, which satisfied every man's tast that received it, saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever see∣meth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired. This is obie∣cted by your Cardinall, to prove Transubstantiation; but First Vnconscionably; because it is in it selfe (being literally under∣stood) euen in your owne iudgements, incredible: For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing? much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire? No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodi∣ly Appetite: so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule in the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof. Secondly, Vn∣conscionably obiected, because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall mannet of speech likewise, saying that p 1.195 Christ's Bo∣dy doth change our Bodies into it selfe, which in the Literall Sence, according to your arguing, would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ.

Chrysostome is found admiring these mysteries, and is obiected by Mr. q 1.196 Breerly, for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacra∣ment. Why? what saith he? r 1.197 Wee our selves (saith hee) are con∣verted and changed into the Flesh of Christ. Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen. Will your Disputers never learne the Hy∣perbolicall language of ancient Fathers, especially when they speake of Sacramentall, and mysticall things? (more especially Chryso∣stome, who, when he falleth upon this Subiect, doth almost alto∣gether Rhetoricate:) but chiefly when they cannot be ignorant that such words of the Fathers, in the Literall straine, are utterly absurd. For what greater Absurdity than (as is now obiected) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ? Now are wee past the limits of due Antiquity, you descend lower.

Theophylact will say hard to vs, who, speaking of this Sacra∣ment, saith indeed that s 1.198 The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Bo∣dy of Christ: which your Cardinall will have to be, in the same Fathers sence, Equivalent with your Transubstantiation. Vncon∣scionably, for doth not the same Father say likewise that t 1.199 A Christian is in a manner Trans-elementated into Christ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake of u 1.200 Trans-elementing, in a sort, of the word of God into the good hearer. Againe, Theophylact is obiected, as saying, x 1.201 The Bread is after an ineffable manner Transformed. It is true; Hee saith so: and so doth Hi••rome say that y 1.202 Christ in

breaking Bread, did Transfigure, or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions: and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that z 1.203 Wee Christians, in communicating [Transimus] turne, or are Chan∣ged into Christ his Body. So these ancient Fathers.

Are you not yet out of breath with obiecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably, and Impertinently? No, for Mr. Breer∣ly, for a Close, desireth to be heard, and to try us with an Obie∣ction out of the Greeke Church of these latter times, as followeth. a 1.204 It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge, Anno Domini 1584. intituled [Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. &c.] that the Greeke Church at this day (although divided from the La∣tine) professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation. So hee of the Pa∣triarch Hieremias; which Patriarch, if wee were alive, would very hardly conteyne himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation, calling him both rash and praecipitant; seeing that the same Patriarch expressly said that b 1.205 These Mysteries are not changed into humane Flesh.

Mr. Breerly would thinke it an iniury done unto himselfe, if wee should praetermit his obiected Authority of Pope Grego∣ry: for Doctor Humphrey (saith hee) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation. So Mr. Breerly, who obiected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe, and had a full Answer in an * 1.206 Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole A∣pologie. The Summe of that Answer is this: Doctor Humphrey did not speake that, as grounded upon any Sentence of Grego∣ry, but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend (supposing it to be true) which in the iudgement of Romish Doctors them∣selves (whose Testimonies are there cited) Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact, being in it selfe fond, filthy and frivolo••s; the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Ir••n, and a heart of Leade; and the Obiectour, namely Mr. Breer∣ly (for grounding his Obiection on a Legendary Historie) A Falsifier of his owne promise. This Answer was home, one would thinke, and might iustly have provoked him to satisfie for him∣selfe; if he could have found any errour therein: yet notwith∣standing, for want of better service, bringeth he in these Cole∣worts twise sod.

CHALLENGE.

VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray, than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative, and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ? insomuch that they must be consequently constrained, by the force of some Phra∣ses, contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers, and to the

Doctrine of your owne Romish Church, to admit of three other Transubstantiations: viz. First, of Christ his Body into what soever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire. Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian. And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ; as the Te∣stimonies obiected plainly pronounce. In all which Obiections they doe but verifie the Proverbe: Qui nimis em••ngit, elicit san∣guinem.

Fiftly, the like Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers is unmas∣ked, by laying open the Emphaticall Speeches of the Fathers, concerning Baptisme, answerable to their Sayings obiected, for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist.

SECT. VIII.

COncerning Baptisme we have * 1.207 heard already, out of the Wri∣tings of Antiquity, as efficacious Termes, as you could obiect for the Eucharist. First of the Party Baptized, Changed into a new Creature. Secondly, that no Sensible thing is delivered in Baptisme. Thirdly, that The Baptized is not the same, but changed into Christ his fl••sh. Fourthly, to thinke that It is not the Priest, but God that Baptizeth, who holdeth thy head. Lastly, Baptisme (saith the Coun∣cell of * 1.208 Nice) is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body. Of these already, and hereafter much more in a Generall Synopsis re∣served for the Eight Booke.

CHALLENGE.

ONly give us leane to spurre you a Question before we end this third Booke. Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be, by your owne Doctrine, except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be there remaine onely the Accidents thereof (this Position of the con∣tinuance of Onely Accidents, without a Subiect, being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation) Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto ever able to produce any one Te∣stimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity, for proofe of this one point, excepting only that of Cyril, which * 1.209 hath beene (as you haue heard) egregiously abused and falsified? Learne you to An∣swere this Question, or else shame to obiect Antiquity any more; but rather confesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe.

Wee might enlarge our selves in this point of your Vnconscio∣nablenesse in obiecting Testimonies of Fathers, for proofe aswell of Transubstantiation, as of the other Articles above-mentioned;

but that they are to be presented in their proper places, to wit in the following Treatises, concerning Corporall Presence, Corporall Vnion, Corporall Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and the Divine Adoration thereof; so plainly that any man may be perswaded, our Opposites meane no good Faith, in arguing from the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers.

Hitherto of the First Romish Consequence.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See hereafter, Cap. 4. §. 1.
• a 1.2

  Est conversio to∣tius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi, & totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, man••∣tibus duntaxat speciebus Panis, & Vini, quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transub∣stantiationem appellat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.3

  Ego N. N▪ juro hanc Conversionem fieri, quam Catholi∣ca Ecclesia appellat ran•…•…stantiationē—Extrà quam fidē nemo salvus esse po∣test. Bulla Pij 4 super forma Iuramenti Pro∣sessionis Fidei.
• c 1.4

  Transubstantia∣tionem Protestantes esse sceleratam Hae∣resin dicunt. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11.
• a 1.5

  Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 4. Ex sola veri∣tate verborum [Hoc est Corpus meum] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. Ies. Disp. 176. c. 6. Verba tàm perse clara cogere possint hominem non protervum Transubstantiationem admittere, Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. § Secundò.
• b 1.6

  Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequi∣tur,—Dicunt non extare locū in Scrip∣turis tàm expressum, ut sin•• declaratiore Ecclesiae evidentèr cogat Transubstantiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile, quià an it à sit dubitari potest, cum homines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis inprimis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Cajetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem desinere esse, non tàm ex Evangelio, quàm ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 419.
• c 1.7

  See in the former Allegation at (b.)
• d 1.8

  Corpus Christi fieri per consecratio∣nem, non probatur nudis Evangelij ver∣bis, sin•• pia inter∣pretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99.
• e 1.9

  [Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventu∣ra docet. Idem ferè habet Occam, & Hol∣cott, infinuat etiam Waldensis.—Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè, sed Transitive inter∣pretandam, sc. ut sit sensus [Hoc est Cor∣pus] id est, Transit in Corpus.—Sed hoc corrumpit significa∣tionem verbi [Est] quod si permittitur, nulla est vis in huius∣modi verbis ad pro∣bandam realem prae∣sentiam nec substan∣tiam Panis hîc non manere. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Re∣praesentat Corpus. Suarez. Jes. Tom. 3. qu. 78. Disp. 58. Sect. 7. A••t. 1. pag. 754.
• * 1.10

  See the former Booke throughout.
• f 1.11

  Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres u∣sos esse hoc nòmine Transubstantiationis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Archi••p. Caesar. lib. de reali Praesent. cap. 59. art. 4.
• g 1.12

  Conc. Latera∣n ense sub▪ Innocen∣tio Tertio coactum, ut Haereticis os ob∣thuraret, Conver∣sionem hanc novo & valdè significante verbo dixit Tran∣substantiationem. A∣lan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. p 422. As for that obiected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist. ad Coelosyrium [Convertens ea in yeritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vas∣quez the Iesuite; non habetur illa Episto∣la inter opera Cy∣rilli. Vasquez. in 3. T••om. Tom. 3. num. 24.
• h 1.13

  Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo perfidem manducato, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]
• i 1.14

  Calumniam hanc Patres Antiqui ap∣tissimè confu••âtunt, at{que} ostend••runt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud iam vocabulum vsur pari, quo sui Maiores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3.
• k 1.15

  Etsi veteres Ec∣clesiae Doctores non sint usi vo•••• Trāsub∣stantiationis, tamen usi sunt vocibus idem significantibus, ut Conversioni••, Trans∣mutationis, Transiti∣onis, Transformati∣onis, Transelemen∣tationis, & similibus. Lorich. Fortalit. fidei Tract. de Eucharist. §. Nota pro solutione Argumentorum. fol. 117.
• * 1.16

  2. Cor. 3. 18.
• * 1.17

  2 Cor. 11. 14.
• l 1.18

  Quicquid Spiri∣tus Sanctus te••ige∣rit, & Sanctificat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. 5.
• m 1.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 643. Edit. Paris.
• n 1.20

  Periculosa est vocum nova••um Li∣bertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vo∣cibus nov•…•… eriam res oriantur, cùm cui{que} licet in rebus Divinis nomi∣na ••ingere. Bell. lib. d•• Sacram. in Genere. c. 7. §. Ex quibus,
• * 1.21

  1. Tim. 6. 20.
• * 1.22

  See above Chap. 1. §. 2.
• o 1.23

  Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Vnum ta∣men.
• p 1.24

  Si quaeratur, qua∣lis sit Conversio (viz. Panis in Eucharistia) an formalis, an sub∣stantialis, an alterius generis; definire non sufficio. Quibusdam videtur esse substan∣tialis, dicentibus sub∣stantiam converti in substantiam. Lomb. Sent. lib. 4. distinct. 11. lit. (a.)
• q 1.25

  Scotus dicit an∣te Concil. Latera∣nense non fuisse dog∣ma fidei Transub∣stantiationem. Id ille dixit, quiá non le∣gerat. Conc. Rom. sub Gregorio. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produxi∣mus. Bellar. lib. 3. de. Euchar. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.
• r 1.26

  Ante trecentos Annos in Conc. Lateran. ad istius rei tàm admi∣rabilis clariorem explicationem usurpatum fuit nomen Transubstantiationis: ut intelligant Christiani substan∣tiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir c. 8. §. De Transubstantiatione.
• s 1.27

  Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Eccle∣siasticam spectans in Cone. Lateran. ex communi Patrum as∣sensu Decretum esset sequeretur posse ••t falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Card. Per. ensa Harangue au tiers Estats p. 33. As witnesseth our P. Preston alias Widdrington Discuss. Conc. Later. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.
• t 1.28

  Venêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquamta∣men a ptè potuir, cò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollen∣dae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Perusij. Platina in vita Inno∣centij. Decerni ni∣hil apertè potuit, e∣dira sū•• quaedam, &c. Nauclerus Anno 1215. [meaning after the Councell.] Ad fe∣stum Sanctae An∣dreae protractum, ni∣hil dignum memoriâ actum, nisi quod Ori∣entalis Ecclesia, &c. Godfridus Monume∣tensis & Math. Paris Histor. minor. Conci∣lium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes Iudificatus est: illi enim, cum nihilin eo Concilio geri cernerent, redeundi veniam petierunt. Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Booke above cited.
• u 1.29

  Scholastici quidam haue Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valde An∣tiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scotus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 50 §. 1.
• x 1.30

  In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem, diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane, sive sub quo∣cun{que} modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373.
• y 1.31

  Mr. Breerly in his Liturgie Tract. 2. §. 11. pag. 158.
• a 1.32

  Conc. Trid. di∣cit, fieri Conversio∣nem totius substan∣tiae Panis, id est, tàm formae, quàm mate∣riae in Substantiam Corporis Christi. Bell. lib. 3. de Eucharist. Chap. 18. §. Si Objicias. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Cap. 4.
• b 1.33

  Productio est, quandò Terminu•• ad quem non existir, & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò produci∣tur, ut aqua in vi∣num: Adductiva au∣term, &c. Bell. ibid. §. Secundò notandum.—Productiva non est, quià Corpus Do∣mini praeexistit. Idem ibid. §. Exhis.
• c 1.34

  De rarione Tran∣substantiationis non est, ut Substantia, in quam dicitur fie∣ri Transubstantiatio, producatur aut con∣servetur perillam: imò qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento, ad quod dam genus Phi∣losophiae excogitatum, potius quam ad verum & necessarium, rem reducere videntur. Vasq Ies. To. 2. disp. 214. c. 4.
• d 1.35

  Praeter Adductiuam Conversionem evidentèr refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis, qui vel dici, vel fingi possunt. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 7••. disp. 50 §. 5 §. Tertio Principaliter. [M. Fisher in his Reioynder talketh fond∣ly of a Reproduction, as of Careases converted into men, in which Change any One may see that as much as is Produced is not Extant, for Dust is not Flesh. But since he cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ, his Answer is impertinent, and he may be produced for an idle Disputer.]
• e 1.36

  Si Terminus ad quem Corpus Chri∣sti existat, sed non in co loco ubi Ter∣minus à quo (i. e. Pa∣nis) tum ui Conver∣sionis adducetur ad eum locum. Indè vo∣catur Conversio ad∣ductiva: nam cor∣pus Christi praeexi∣stit antè Conversio∣nem, sed non sub spe∣ciebus Panis. Con∣versio igitur non fa∣cit ut corpus Chri∣sti simplicitèr esse in∣cipiat, sed ut incipi∣at esse sub speciebus: non quod per motum localem è Coelo Ad∣ducatur, sed solùm quià per hanc cōver∣sionē fit, ut quod ante erat solùm in Coe∣lo, iam fit sub specie∣bus Panis. Nec haec Accidentalis Con∣versio, sed substanti∣alis dicta est, quià substantia Panis de∣finit esse, & substan∣tia corporis Christi succedit Pani. Pro∣indè Substantia in Substantiam transit. Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem, per nutritionē; nam anima non produci∣tur sed tantùm per nutritionem fit, ut in∣cipiat esse in ea ma∣teria, ubi anteà erat forma Cibi. Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18.
• f 1.37

  Fuerunt huius sententiae Alens. Bo∣navent. Marsil—dicunt per hanc Cō∣versionem Corpus non accipere esse, sed accipere esse hîc; necmultum discordat Thomas. Deni{que} moderni subscribentes contra Haereti••os libentèr hanc sententiam amplectuntur, quià facilitatem quandam prae se fert, ut videre licet apud Ioh. Hessels, Claud. Guil. Paris, & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez. qu•• sup. disp. 50. §. 44. p. 635. Cùm Panis substantialiter mu••etur, it à ut desinat esse, haec Conversio est Substantialis, non Accidentalis. 2. Corpus Christi est substantia, quae succedit Pa∣ni, proindè substantia transit in substantiam.—& dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse quandò quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis—Bellar. qu••supr••. § Respondeo 1.—Cedere Corpori, in ratione existendi est propriè Converti in ipsum, & per Consequens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio. Alan. lib. 1. de. Euch. cap. 34.
• g 1.38

  Dixi Conversionem Panis in Corpus Christi esse Adductivam, quod dictum video à nonnullis esse per∣peràm acceptum, qui indè non Transubstantiationem, sed Translocationem colligunt. Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo, ne{que} incipere esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut substantia sub Acciden∣tibus, remotâ tamen inhaerentia. Bellar. Recog. in lib. 2. de Euch. p. 81.
• h 1.39

  Per solam Adductivam actionem reverà non explicatur vera Conversio Substantialis & Transubstātiatio, sed ••an••••m Trāslocatio quaedam: quan∣dò una Substantiasuccedit loco alterius, non potest propriè dici unam converti in aliam. Suarez. loco citat. p. 639.
• i 1.40

  Dico Corpus Christi ex pane fieri, non tanquàm ex ma∣teria, sed tanquàm à Termino à quo, ut mundus ex nihilo, [then confuting him∣selfe] e••iam ut ex a∣qua vinum (that was not ex nihilo.) In pr••∣senti negotio, Con∣versio non est Produ∣ctiva. Panis enim cō∣vertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens: ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane, & ex Carne est idem. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Ad Tertium.
• k 1.41

  Alphonsus de Ca∣stro lib. 4. Ti••. Christ{us}. haeres. 2. Manichaei di••erūt Christū non ex utero Virginis prodijsse; Et Apolli∣naris dixit Christū nō assumpsisse carnē ex Virgine. Item. Chi∣liastae, Democritae, Melchioritae, & Pro∣clianitae. Prateolus in Elench. Haeret. suis quique titul••s.
• l 1.42

  Homily on Easter day, pag. 35.
• * 1.43

  See Booke 4. C. 4. §. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in the Challenge.
• * 1.44

  See above, Booke 2. Chap. 1. § 4.
• m 1.45

  Si quis dixerit remanere Substantiā Panis, Anathema sit. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. Can. 2.
• n 1.46

  Panis etsi non annihiletur, tamen manet nihil in se; ut Aqua post Conversi∣onem in vinum. Ne{que} obstat, quod fortè materia manserit, nā materia non est A∣qua. Prima Conditio in vera Conversione est, utid, quod con∣vertitur, desinat esse. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 18. §. Igitur. & cap. 24 §. Ad Alterum.
• * 1.47

  1. Cor. 11. 26, 27. & 10. 16.
• * 1.48

  1. Cor. 11. 21.
• o 1.49

  Archiep. Cabasila. Latini nostros re∣hendunt, quòd post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum] Pa∣nem & Vinum nomi∣nant, &c. Exposit. Li∣turg. c. 29.
• * 1.50

  Matth. 26. 29.
• p 1.51

  Origenes, Cy∣prianus, Chrysost. August. Hieron. Epi∣phan. Beda, Euthym. Theoph. [Genimen vitis] ad sanguinem Christi referunt—Maldon. Ies. Com. in eum locum; where hee addeth: Persuadere mihi non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda.—Hoc Patres, sed alio sensu à Calvinistis, qui dicunt Christum vinū appellâsse, quià vinum erat; sed Pa∣tres vocaruntsangui∣nem Vinum, sicut Christus Carnem 10. 6. vocabat Panem. Maldo. in eund. locum. Haec, nè illi Calvini∣starum errori affinis esse videatur. Mal∣don. Ibid.
• q 1.52

  Novum promi∣sit, id est, Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno, id est, post resurrecti∣onem, quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem. Theoph. in Matth. 26. [Bibite ex Hoc omnes:] &, non Bibam amodò, &c.] quâ in parte inveni••us vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit, vndè apparet sanguinem Christi non offerti, si desit Vinum Calic••▪ Cyprian. ad Cecil. Epist. 63. paulò ante medium, & Epiphan, contra Encratit. Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharist•…•…, ut dicant vino quoque utendum: In hoc sermone Domini (inquit) re∣darguuntur [non bibam defructu hujus Vitis.] Epiphan. Tom 2. lib. 2. [Non bibam degenimine hujus Vitis.] Chri∣stus post resurrectionem, n•• putaretur Phantasia, comedit, undè Apostoli dixerunt, Act. 10. [Comedimus, & Bibimus eum eo] Sed cujus rei gratiâ non Aquam, sed Vinum bib it? ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evel∣lendam eorum qui Aquâ in mysterijs utuntur. [Ex genimine Vitis:] Certè Vinum non Aqùam producit. Chry∣sost. in eum locum Hom. 83.
• r 1.53

  August. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75 Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs, cum dixit [non bibam.]
• s 1.54

  Clem. Alex. Quòd Vinum esset, quod benedictum fuit, oftendit rursus di∣cens, [Non bibam de fructu Vitis.] Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 11. sub finem.
• t 1.55

  Cum Matthaeus, & Marcus nul∣lius alterius Calicis fecerint mentionem praeter sacri, quòd dicitur [De genimine Vitis] nullus alius Calix intel∣ligi potest ab ijs demonstratus, quàm cujus meminerant—Et omninò videtur ex Matthaeo & Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem. Iansen. Episc. Concord. in cum locum, p. 914 col. 2.
• * 1.56

  See above, Booke 1. Chap. 3. §. 10.
• * 1.57

  See above, Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Mar∣gent.
• u 1.58

  Panis quià con∣firmat Corpus, ideò Corpus Christi no∣minatur: Vinum au∣tem, quià sanguinem operatur, ideò ad sanguinem refertur. Haecautem duo sunt visibilia, sanctificata autem per Spiritum sanctum, in Sacra∣mentum divini Cor∣poris transeunt. Isi∣dor. Hisp. de Offic. Lib. 1. cap. 18. See above, Booke 2. Chap. 1. §. 9. (at x.)
• * 1.59

  Substantia Panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti, sed so∣lùm Accidentia. Bei∣lar. Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Respondeo sub∣stantiam.
• * 1.60

  1. Cor. 10 17.
• y 1.61

  Vnus Panis, unū Corpus multi sumus, nam omnes in uno Pane participamus.] Significatur vnitas fi∣dei in vnitate Panis, ac unitate Corporis Metaphoricè, ad si∣militudinem multorū granorum, ex quibus con••icitur Corpus v∣num. Et attulit Panē propter id, quod di∣xit [Panis quem fran∣gimus] Caietan. Card. in ••um locum. pag. 137.
• z 1.62

  Vnum Ecclesiae corpus ex multis mē∣bris compositum est: nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis, quàm Panis Vinique elementis. Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur, & Vinum ex multitudine racemorum existit. Ità fidelis, &c. Catech. Roman. part. 2. de Euch. pag. 177.
• a 1.63

  Augustinus. Dominus noster Christus, inquit, Corpus suum in ijs rebus commendavit, quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur: ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur, ex multis racemis unum Corpus con∣fluit; ut••ntur hac similitudine Sancti propè omnes Doctores. Teste Bozio de Signis Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6.
• b 1.64

  Consequentie Christ••, affirmativè sumpta, Hoc pa pa∣tur, hoc videtur, Er∣go est Corpus, opti∣ma fuit, quià sensus non fallitur Circa proprium Obiectum: ita{que} necessariò quod videtur, & tangitur Corporale est. At ne∣gativè; hoc non pal∣patur, nec videtur, Ergò non est Corpus; Dominus non fecit, & mala est. Non fal∣luntur Sensus nostri, cum nos album quid, rotundum, solidum sentire arbitramur, quae sunt propria ob∣jecta. Sed cum Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus latere denuntiant, fallun∣tur. Dominus solùm probare voluit se nō esse inane spectrum, seu Phantasma, sed verum Corpus; id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit. Illud autem Corpus esse humanum, idem quod anteà fuerat, non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento, ex Tangendi sensu desumpto (quod sine dub••o non erat sufficiens) sed multis alijs modis, loquendo, mandueando, testimonio Angelorum, miraculo Piscium, allegatione Scripturarum. Bellar. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo.
• * 1.65

  1. Cor 15.
• * 1.66

  Ioh. 20. 27.
• c 1.67

  Optimè Origines, O∣stendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum. Tolet. Ies. in Ioh. c. 20. p. 534.
• d 1.68

  Probatum est, Christum idem Corpus numero demonstrâsse. Suarez ••es. Tom. 2. qu. 54. § 1.
• * 1.69

  1. Cor. 15. 5.
• * 1.70

  1. Ioh. 1. 1.
• * 1.71

  Iohn 20. 29.
• e 1.72

  Illud sine dubi∣tatione dicere non verebor, non posse ab vllo Daemone for∣mari corpus adeò si∣mile humano, ut si∣quis cum curâ ani∣mi & attentione id tangeret, non faci∣lè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus hu∣manum. Itaque non poterit Daemon si∣militudine corporis humani oculos falle∣re: Tactus autem sen∣sum fallere omninò, non potest, quod qua••••or Argumentis confirmabo—Hoc ve••issimum esse pa∣tet ex eo, quod Chri∣stus dixit discipulis s••is [Palpate & vide∣te:] & Thomae [Af∣fer digitum, &c.] Pe∣rer. ••es. in Gen. 6. num. 78. p. 2.
• f 1.73

  Si Discipuli Chri∣sti non potuissent Christi vera ossa & carnes discernere, mollitiem, & duritiē eorum, non dixisset ijs [Palpate, & Vi∣dere] ac si diceret, Palpate, & Percipite veras carnes & ossa. Vasquez. Ies. Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art. 2. disp. 184. cap 2. p. 487. Thomas dicit fingula Argumen∣ta non fuisse per se sufficientia, benè tamen coniuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophetarum.—Ego tamen cùm Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandam ve••itatem Corporis humani in Christo. Idem ibid.
• g 1.74

  Illud Thomae [non credam, &c.] pertinaciae & obdurationis vitium erat, & pec∣catum Infidelitatis. Optimè Orig: lib. 2. con. Celsum, vbi docet Discipulos affirmâsse illum, quem viderunt, esse Christum in Corpore vero suo, & resuscitato: nam Thomas sciebat animas interdùm apparere Corporibus, & proprias formare voces, & tamen non esse Corpora vera. Quapropter non dixit solùm [Nisi videro, non credam] sed adiunxit, [Nisi infero manum in vestigia Clavorum.] Tolet. Ies. Com. in Ioh. 20.
• h 1.75

  Aug. de tem∣pore. Si forte, inquit, Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, at non possemus dicere manus frustratas▪ de Tactu non potest dubita••i. Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quàm fides credentium Dis∣scipulorum profuit, quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur, mens nostra omni dubitatione post∣positâ. Teste Maldon. Ies. Com. in Jo••. 20.
• i 1.76

  See above at (b.)
• k 1.77

  Eranistes apud Theod. Quià sicut Pa∣nis desinit esse Panis post Consecrationē, sed mutatur in sub∣stantiam Corporis Christi. Ità Corpus Christi post resurre∣ctionem desinit esse propriè Corpus, sed in Naturam divinam mutatur. Orthodox. Imò verò, ut te ca∣piam in laqueis his: signa mystica non re∣cedunt à naturâ suâ, manent enim in pri∣ori suâ formâ, figurâ, & substantiâ. Theod. Dial. 2. Cap. 24.
• * 1.78

  See hereafter, Sect. 12.
• l 1.79

  Beda ex Augusti no, Serm. ad Infantes, in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 1••9. apud Bedam. Quod vidistis Panis est, quod oculi vestri re∣nunciant, quod autem fides vestra, &c. Sicut ex multis granis tri••ici vnus Panis: Ità ex multitudine fidelium, vna as••urgit Ecclesia.
• m 1.80

  Tertul. de Ani∣mâ. cap. 7. ad finem. Quid agis, Academi∣ce procacissime? totū vitae statum evertis, ipsius Dei providen∣tiam excoecas—non licet in dubium Sensus istos revoca∣re, nè & in Christo de fide eorum deli∣beretur, nè forte di∣catur, quod falsò Pa∣tris vocem audierit de ipso testificatam, aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum teti∣git: aut alium posteà vnguenti senserit spiritum, quod in se∣pulturam suam ac∣ceptavit: alium po∣steà Vini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. Sic enim & Marcion Phantasma ••um maluit credere, totius corporis in eo dedignatus veritatem: Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est, fidelis fuit & visus, & auditus in Monte, fidelis & gustus Vini in nuptijs, fidelis tactus Thomae: Recita testationem Iohannis; Quod audivimus, inquit, quod o∣culis vidimus, & manus nost••ae contrectarunt de sermonevitae. Falsa vtique testatio, si ••culorum & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur.
• * 1.81

  Luc. 24. 16.
• * 1.82

  Ib. vers. 31.
• * 1.83

  Hieron. ad Pam∣mach: contra Err••∣res Iohan. Ierusal. E∣pisc. Scias errorem fuisse non Corporis Domini, sed oculo∣rum fuis••e clausorum: nam aperti sunt o∣culi eorum, & vide∣bant.
• n 1.84

  (1) & (2) Ho∣stia magna quanti∣tate sumpta verè nu∣trire potest. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 77. art. 6. Etiam Apostolus 1. Cor 11. [Alius Ebri∣us, quidam esurit:] ubi Glossa not at eos, qui post Consecrati∣onem oblationes su∣as vendicantes ine∣briarentur. Aquin. ibid. (3.) Archiepi∣scopus Eboracensis hausto in ipso Calice (ut aiunt) veneno obijt, Matth. Paris. Anno 1154. in vita Steph. ••tem, Victor Tertius veneno Cali∣ci primae Missae mix∣to perijt, Malmsbur. lib. 3. cap. 39. & Volaterr. lib. 23. Henricus Lucelburg. Imp. cùm Eucharistiam acciperet â Fratre ordinis Praedicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis, & à Siciliae rege subornato, illicò caepitaegrotare: fere∣batur Monachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse, quo & Calicem, & Hostiam infecerat: mox obijt Impera∣tor, & Beneventi animam Deo reddid••t, Anno 1313. Cuspinian. & Valater. lib. 23. (ut refert Zuingerus.) (4) Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est, cum experimentis conster. Difficultas ergo circa modum est. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art. 5 Disp. 57. pag. 427. Alij ex aere vermes generari dicunt. Thomas refert hanc ••pinionem, sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei, quod ad sensum apparet: quod reverà ità est, satis{que} ab ipso qua∣tuor rationibus confirmatur. Suarez. ibid. (5) Generatio, & Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis, quae divinitùs lo∣cum tenet materiae Panis, ut Thomas explicat. Greg. de Valent. Ies. lib. 2. Exam. mystag. Calvin. pag. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam, sed solam quantitatem sufficere, ut subster formae substantiali advenienti, sive de potentia eius educatur, sive per nutritionem varietur. Sic Thomas, & Alij. Fundamentum huius opinionis est, quià conveni••ntèr hic modus est sine novis Miraculis. Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi om ninò, & incredibi∣lis.—Dicendum est, necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam, ex qua Generatio fiat, quià deratione essen∣tiali huius Compositi est substantialis materia; propter quod Aristoteles dicit, Impossible esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ. Ergo impossibile est, ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae, & sub∣stantialem Causalitatem eius. Suarez. quo supra Disp. 57. Art. 8. §. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 733. Algerus, Guitmundus, & Waldensis di∣cunt, ex speciebus nutritionem & generationem fieri non posse. Suarez. ibid. Vtrùm materia generationis sit eadem, quae fuit antèa sub speciebus Panis, vel alia: Thomas eandem esse negat, ne multiplicetur miracu∣lum finè necessitate. (6) Mihi tamen videtur eandem numero esse.—Etiam iuxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam, Alens. Bonavent. Innocent. nec maius est miraculum, sivè eandem, sivè materiam novam facere. Suarez. ibid.
• o 1.85

  Quomodò fiat haec materia.—Thomistae aliquot di∣cunt per Conversi∣onem aliquam in ip∣sum Panem: Alij ite∣rùm Creari; & hoc verius. Suarez. quo supra.
• p 1.86

  See above at (n) num. 3.
• q 1.87

  Platina in vita Victoris. Henrici Re∣gis fraude (ut Marti∣nus scribit) veneno in Calicem iniecto, dum sacrificat, neca∣tur. See also above at (n) num. 3.
• * 1.88

  In Cella Vica∣ria, novis vinis im∣pletâ, solus A••r odo∣re infectus inebriat. Coster. Ies. Christian. Institut. lib. 1. c. 8.
• * 1.89

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iustin. E••∣posit. Fidei.
• r 1.90

  Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis, qui est à terrâ, iam non Communis Panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus con∣stans terrenâ, & cae∣lesti: Sic Corpora nostra participan∣tia Eucharistiam iam non sunt Corrupti∣bilia, sed spem Resur∣rectionis habentia.
• s 1.91

  Origen. in Math. 15. Ille Cibus, qui sanctificatur per ver∣bum Dei & Oratio∣nem, iuxtà id quod habet materiale in secessum emittitur. And after hee calleth this [Materiale] Ma∣teria Panis, super quem dictus est Ser∣mo. Ibid.
• * 1.92

  Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 11. Subd. 3.
• t 1.93

  Ambros. l. 4. de Sa∣cram. cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatori∣us sermo Christi, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud convertantur?—Tu eras vetus Creatura, pos••quam Consecratus, nova Creatura esse coe∣pisti.
• * 1.94

  See below, Chap. 4. Sect. 2. at the let (c.)
• u 1.95

  Cyprian. lib. de Vn∣ctione. Dedit Domi∣nus noster in mensâ, in qua ultimum Con∣vivium cùm Aposto∣lis participavir, pro∣prijs manibus Pa∣nem & Vinum: in Cruce verò manibus militum corpus tra∣didit vulnerandum, ut in Apostolis secre∣tiùs impressa sincera veritas & vera sin∣ceritas exponeret Gentibus, quomodò Panis & Vinum Ca∣ro eius essent & san∣guis, & quibus rationibus Causae effectis convenirent, & diversa nomina, vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, ut significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis conserentur.
• * 1.96

  Causabon Exer∣cit. ad Baronij Annal. c. 38. Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ad Philadelph. de Eacharistia loquens; Panis, inquit, omnibus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Commi∣nutus est. Ʋox haec propriè de ijs vsurpa∣tur, quae in minutas partes comminuuntur: Sunt qui cas micas vo∣cant. August. in Epist. 59. ad Paulinum; Cum illud, ait, quod est in Domini mensâ bene∣dicitur, & Sanctifica∣tur, ad distribuen∣dum comminuitur. Idem Casaub. quo su∣pra. cap. 50. Osim in Ecclesia partes divi∣sas vocabant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 po∣tiùs, quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pa∣tres in Synod. Nicaen. Can. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yea, and Baronius himselfe, Anno 57. nu. 149. Eucharistiae par∣tes, Tert. de Monog. Buccellas: & August. ac Alij Particulas vocant.
• * 1.97

  Belowe in the fourth Booke. Ch. 9.
• y 1.98

  Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passio∣nis suae ultimam no∣bis Commemoratio∣nem, & memoriam reliquit, quemad modùm siquis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei, quem diligit, derelin∣quat, ut possit eius amicitias, & benficia commemorate.
• z 1.99

  Gaudent Tract. 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti eius Novi, tanquàm Pignus suae Praesentiae, dereliquit.
• a 1.100

  Th••••d. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctifi∣cationē mystica signa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paulo post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorē habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (ut summatim di∣cam) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] etiamsi post re∣surrectionem immor∣tale, & immune ab omni corruptione.
• b 1.101

  Non loquitur de substantiâ quae distin∣guitur contra Acci∣dentia, & quam in Categoricâ posuit A∣ristoteles; sed de Es∣sentiâ, & naturâ Ac∣cidentium. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. 27. §. Sed me.
• * 1.102

  1. Cor. 15. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.103

  Alphonsus à Ca∣stro de haeres. Eutych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam hu∣manam; tantùm i•• eo ponentes naturā divinam.
• * 1.104

  Alter hircū mul∣ge••: alter cribram supponit.
• * 1.105

  Ʋid. Protestants Appeale, Booke 2. Ch. 2. § ••0.
• d 1.106

  In his Liturgie of the Masse. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3 p. 254.
• * 1.107

  Not so, for he was now not in a personall dispute, but deliberate∣ly writing against the Heresie of the Euty∣chians.
• * 1.108

  Valent. Ies. lib. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Dabi∣mus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo respon∣sum. Enimverò ante∣quam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palàm in Ecclesia a∣gitaretur, minime mirùm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui minùs considerate, & rectè hac de resense∣rint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractarent ex institu∣to ipsam quaestionē.
• e 1.109

  Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius, ut Ad∣versarij impudentèr iactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episco∣pus. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 27.
• f 1.110

  Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496. num. 123. &c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasius, doth ex∣pound the doubtfull wordes thereof by the Phrases of Pope Ge∣lasius ex Epist. ad Pi∣cenos, & Dardan. E∣pisc. num. 13, 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and An∣no 494. num. 2. And after Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying: Vides, Lector, ex vsu verborū Phra∣siqúè dicendi Gelasij Papae, & alia eius sententia perspicuè demonstratum esse, &c. Et Anno 496. num. 13. Gelas. in Epist. ad Picen. ait, Peccato Originali substantiam ho∣minis esse depravatam, cum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; utpote iustitia originalis, & alia dona erant corrupta.
• g 1.111

  Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem. Genad. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita Gelasij. Margarinus de la Bigne lib. 5. Biblioth. Patrum p. 467. Masson. de Episc. Rom. in vita Gelasij. Alphons. lib. de haeres. Tit Christus. haeres. 3. in fine. Onuphrius de Creat. Pontif. & Cardin. Gelasius (inquit) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem, & Nestorium. Fu••sse Caesariensem Episcopum, non posse jure affirmari, videtur. And pro∣veth, why not.
• h 1.112

  Gelasius lib. de duab. natur. cont. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis, & vini; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And againe. Permanentin proprietate naturae.
• i 1.113

  Bellar. & Baron. quo suprà. At dicit Gelasius, In Divinam t••anseunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ proprietate naturae. [By this it may be seene, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latine Authour, (but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret?) when the Latine Language was not so perfect, and that he did use the word equivocally, but yet so, that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereof, when he speaketh of the Substance of Bread.]
• k 1.114

  Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. p. 259.
• l 1.115

  Greg. Nyssen. A∣quam per benedicti∣onem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrū sit, à quò mirabiles exi∣stunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo.
• m 1.116

  Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. §. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 1.117

  Chrysost. Ante Consecrationem Pa∣nem vocamus, Divi∣na verò gratiâ Sa∣cerdotis ministerio sanctificatur, & dig∣na appellatione Do∣minici Corporis ha∣betur, etsi natura Pa∣nis in ipso perman∣sit. Epist. ad Caesar.
• o 1.118

  So our Peter Martyr.
• p 1.119

  So your Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, lib 2. de Euch. as he is cited.
• q 1.120

  Author operis imperfecti, in Math. hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos usus trans∣ferre sit periculosum, in quibus non est Corpus Christi, sed mysterium Corpo∣ris eius continetur; quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitan∣dum praeparavit?
• r 1.121

  Dr. Iames in his Specimen corrupte∣larum, &c. Haec ver∣ba habentur in edi∣tione Antwerpianâ. Anno 1537. apud Ioh. Steelsium, & in Parisiensi An. 1543. apud Ioh. Roydwey, ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Par∣vum, Anno 1557.
• s 1.122

  Bertramus Gal∣lus circa Annum Domini. 810. de Corpore & Sang. Christi: Prohibitum est omninò à Clemente Octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum. Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Bertram.
• t 1.123

  Bertramus vult Euchari∣stiam esse Panis & Vini substantiam, quae figuram, similitudinem, & appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit. Senenens. Biblioth lib. 6. Anno 196.
• u 1.124

  Bertramus. Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerant ante Consecrationem, hoc & posteà consistunt: Panis & Vinum prius extitêre, in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt, permanere videntur. de Corpore Domini, pag. 38.
• x 1.125

  Animadvertat (Clarissime Princeps) sapientia ve∣stra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs, & Patrum dictis &c. Idem. pag. 65.
• y 1.126

  Iudicium Vni∣versitatis Duacensis. Bertram Ca••holicus Presbyter, & Monachus Corvinensis—In Catholicis veteribus a∣lijs plurimos feramus errores, & extenu••mus, excusemus, excogitato Commento saepè negemus, & Commo∣dum eis sensum affingamus, dum obijciuntur in Disputationibus cum Adversarijs. Index Expurg. iuxta Conc. Trid. Decret. 2. Philip. 2. Reg. Hispan. iussu Anno 1571.
• z 1.127

  Bertramus Pres∣byter, qui in divinis Scripturis valdè pe∣ritus, non minùs vi∣tâ, quàm doctrinâ in∣fignis, multa sciripsit praeclara Opuscula, de quibus ad meam notitiam pauca pervenerunt. Ad Carolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imp. scripsit Com∣mendabile opus de Praedestinatione; & libru•…•… unum de Corpore, & Sanguine Domini. Trithem. Abbas.
• a 1.128

  Ambros. Se••ino Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mu∣tate, quod non erant &c. De myster. initi∣and. c. 9—At omni∣potentia non requi∣ritur, ad faciendum ut res aliquid signifi∣cet. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 14. Ambro∣sius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucha∣ristia nō esse id quod natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio cō. secravit. Idem. Ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior. & Aug. lib. 3. de Tr•…•…∣tate, cap. 4.
• b 1.129

  Ex Cyprian de Coena Domini. §. Se∣cundum.—Panis iste non effigie, sed naturâ mutatus om∣porentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi hu∣manitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas▪ ità Sacramento visi∣bili divina se effun∣dit essentia. Ob. Bel∣lar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. [whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance, but the Condition: Et factus Caro, is no more than a Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ, as all other places of Cyprian shew.]
• c 1.130

  Aug. de Trinitate, lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante spiritu Dei, quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motus sint, Deus operatur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo.
• d 1.131

  Chrysost. hom. 83. Non sunt humanae virtutis haec opera, quae tune in illâ Coenâ confecit, ipse nunc quo{que} operatur, ipse perficit, ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus: qui vera haec sanctificat at{que} transmutat ipse est. This is obiected by Mr. Breerly, Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. pag. 111 Liturg.
• e 1.132

  See above in his obiecting of Ambrose.
• f 1.133

  Calvin. Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quàm Instrumentales esse conferendae nobis gratiae Causas. Antid. in Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 5.
• g 1.134

  Solus Deus (communi Consensu) instituere Sacra∣menta ex authoritate potest, quae gratiam efficiunt, aut etiam infallibiliter significant. Bellar. lib 1. de Sa∣cram in gen. cap. 23.
• h 1.135

  Card. Alan. de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 18. Sacramenti Institutionem ne{que} ad Pon∣tificem, ne{que} ad ullam Creaturā pertinere: nec hoc solum sed etiam, &c.—propter solam significationem Gratiae, quain Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus, debebant eriam vetera Sacramenta determinari per appplicationem n••ortis Christi: quià licet quidem in Creaturis, ad signationem effectuum spiritualium, apti∣tudo quaedam sit, t••men ista aptitudo non nisi à divinainstitutione determinatur ad peculiarem effectum. Ha∣bet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet, at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato origi∣nali significet, & hominis sanctificationem repraesentet; divinaetantùm institutionis est, per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consu••tudinem, non solùm quoad vim operandi, sed etiam significandi. Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari, quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum, ut in veterilege, quae dabant munditiem legalem. These (hee saith) that hee speaketh, Ex Theologorum Sententia.
• * 1.136

  Booke 2. Chap. 2 §. 7.
• i 1.137

  Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut incipiant esse quae non erant, quantò magis Ope∣ratorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud conuertantur 〈◊〉〈◊〉—Tu ipse eras vetushomo, postquàm consecra∣tus eras, novus homo esse coepisti.
• k 1.138

  These wordes are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603. As Bishop Vsher witnesseth in his Answer to the Iesuite.
• l 1.139

  See above at (i.)
• m 1.140

  Per Benedicti∣onē natura ipsa mu∣tatur. Ambros. De ijs qui mysterijs initian∣tur. where C. 9. ••e ad∣deth, for Explication; Corpus significatur.
• n 1.141

  Lindan. Aurea prors•• sunt Divi Cy∣priani verba—h••c mihi advigilate, E∣vangelici, & Divum Cyprianum orbis to∣tius Doctorem, imò miraculum, iudicem incorruptibilem au∣dite. lib. 4 cap. 6.
• o 1.142

  Hoc Testimo∣nium nullam admit∣tit Solutionem. Bel∣lar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Secundum.
• p 1.143

  Master Brerely Liturg. Praef. § 14 pag. 51.
• q 1.144

  Author illius de Coena Domini non est Cyprianus, sed a∣liquis post eum. Bel∣lar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Extet.
• r 1.145

  Cyprian. de Coenae Dom. Panis iste natu∣râ mutatus omnipo∣tentiâ verbi factus est Caro, &c.
• * 1.146

  Ephes. 2. 3. Au∣gust. Ipsam naturam aliter dicens: cum proptièloquimur na∣turam hominis incul∣pabilis factus est.
• * 1.147

  Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 6.
• s 1.148

  Et sicut in person•• Christi humanitas vi∣debatur, & latebat Divinitas; ità Sacra∣mento visibili ineffa∣bilitèr divina se ef∣fundit essentia. Au∣thor C••n••. Ibid. §. Quarto.
• * 1.149

  Rom. 1. 16.
• t 1.150

  Greg. Nyssen. O∣rat. de Baptismo. Divi∣num Lavacrum mag∣num quid operatur per Benedictionem, & mirabiles producit Effectus.
• a 1.151

  Irenaeus lib. 4. con∣tra Her. c. 34. Non est Panis Cōmunis. Bel∣lar. Obijcit l. 2. de Euch. per totum.
• b 1.152

  Sol. Chrysost. in Ps. 22. hom. 16. De aqua Baptismi. Non est a∣qua Communis.
• * 1.153

  See in this Sect. lit. (〈◊〉〈◊〉. h)
• d 1.154

  Bellar. Ob. Iustin. Mart. l. 2. Apol. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sol. Ratio. quià 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, Eucharisticatus, sivè sanctificatus Cibus.
• e 1.155

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 1••. Ob. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sol. Idem Catech. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.156

  Ob Cyri••••. mystag. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.157

  Sol. Sequitur: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Idem Cat•…•…. Mystag. 3.
• h 1.158

  Greg. Nyssen. Al∣tare hoc sanctum, cui adfistimus, lapis est naturâ Communis, nihil differēs ab alijs crustis lapideis, ex quibus pavimeta nostra exornantur: Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur, & dedicatur, & benedictionem accepit, mensa facta, & Altare immacula••um est. Orat. de Sancto Baptisme. Et nè contemnas divi∣num Lavacrum, neque id Commune putes, &c.
• i 1.159

  Cyrilli Testimo∣nium vel solum suffi∣cere deberet, est n. huius Sancti, & anti∣quissimi, & ex opere eius indubitato, & clarissimum & aper∣tissimum, ut nullo mo∣do perverti possit; & est in Catechesi, in quâ solēt omnia pro∣priè & simplicitèr ex∣plicari, & deniqué nemo unquā repre∣hendit Cyrillum er∣roris alicuius circa Eucharistiam. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13.
• k 1.160

  Cyril. Pro cer∣tissimo habeas Panē hunc, qui videtur à nobis, Panem non esse, etiamsi gustus Panem esse sense∣rit, sed esse Corpus Christi—Rursus. Christus cui creda∣mus, Panem in Cor∣pus Transmutavi••—Nam sub specie Pa∣nis datur tibi corpus: sub specie Vini da∣tur tibi sanguis. Ca∣tech. Mystag. 4.
• l 1.161

  Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutatio∣nem Panis in corpus Christi, & solas spe∣cies Panis remanere post Transmutationem, quià dicit Corpus Domini sub spec••e Panis sumi, distinguens Corpusd Pane. Bellar l•…•… de Euch. cap. 13. adding; Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum.
• * 1.162

  Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Sub'd. 4. pag. 116.
• m 1.163

  Cyril. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Catech. Mystag. 4. Rursus. Mystag. 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem, & Vi∣num, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 1.164

  Bellar. Hoc con∣firmat sententiam nostram. Nam Cy∣rillus non eodem modo loquitur de Chrismate, & de Eu∣charistia. De hac e∣nim ait, Non esse Panem Communem, sed Corpus Christi: de Chrismate vero dicitur quidem, non esse Commune Vn∣guentum, sed non addit Spiritum san∣ctum, vel Corpus Christi: sed esse Chrisma Christi san∣ctificatum oleum. Lib. 2. de Euch. C. 13.
• o 1.165

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. Catc••••. Mystag. 3.
• p 1.166

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Buch. c. 22.
• q 1.167

  Master Brereley, Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 2. pag. 167.
• r 1.168

  Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. Etiamsi sen∣sui, & cogitationi no∣strae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit, superatque sensum nostrum & rationem sermo ipsius, quaeso, quod in omnibus re∣bus, sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus? non illa quae ante nos iacent aspicientes, sed verba tenentes? nam verbis eius de∣fraudari non possu∣mus, sed sensus saepi•• fallitur. Quoniam i∣gitur ille dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum] nulla dubitatione te∣neamus, sed creda∣mus, nihil enim in∣sensibile traditur à Christo nobis, sed in rebus sensibilibus. Omnia verò, quae tradidit, sunt insensibilia; sicut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud con∣ceditur—Regeperatio intelligitur, quià est: nam si incorporeus esses, incorporea tibi tradisset dona; quo∣niam verò anima conjuncta est Corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit.
• s 1.169

  Bellar. Non po••uisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariù's, si Calvinistā aliquem habuisset, quem hor••ari ad fidem voluisset. Ibid. quo supra.
• t 1.170

  Non sunt Con∣cionatorum verba in rigore accipi••nda, quùm primùm ad au∣res perveniant, mul∣ta enim per Hyper∣bolen Declamatores enunciant: ••••c in∣terdum Chrysosto∣mo contingit. Senen∣sis Biblioth. Annot. 152
• u 1.171

  Dentes Carni suae infigere Chrysost. hom. 45. in Ioh. Lingua cruentatur hoc ad∣mi••abili Sanguine. Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circūfusam rubifieri. Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.
• x 1.172

  Num vides Pa∣nem? num vinum? nè putetis Corpus acc••∣pereab homine, sed ex ipso Sera••hinfor∣cipe ignem. Idem. Tō. 3. de Euch. in Encae∣nijs.
• y 1.173

  Sacramentū est invisibilis gratiae sig∣num visibile. Magist. Senten. lib 4. dist. 1. Sa∣cramentum est res sensibus obiecta. Ca. tech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. c. 11.
• z 1.174

  Sensus non fal∣litur circà proprium obiectum. Sententia vera. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24.
• a 1.175

  Sicut in Baptis∣mo &c. Chrysost. See above §. 5. at (r.)
• * 1.176

  See hereafter at large, in the 8. Booke.
• * 1.177

  See above Chap. 3. §. 13.
• b 1.178

  Nos per hunc Panem vnione con∣iungimur. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.
• c 1.179

  Chrysost. Homil. 50. in Matth. iux∣ta Edit. Graec. Nè ex∣istimes Sacerdotem esse, qui hoc facit, sed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] then followeth of Baptisme, Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• * 1.180

  See above. c. 3. §. 7.
• * 1.181

  Ibid. in the Chap∣ters following.
• c 1.182

  Eusebius Emiss. Ad est Substantia Pa∣nis, sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi. Hom. 5. Ob∣iected by Mr. Breerly. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2.
• * 1.183

  See above, Booke 2. throughout.
• d 1.184

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cyrill. sup.
• * 1.185

  See above, Booke 2 c. 1. §. 4.
• e 1.186

  Ambros. De Pa∣••e; Fit Corpus caro Christi. O••. by Bel∣lar. lib. 2 de Euchar. c. 14. and by others.
• f 1.187

  Chrysost. Nos se∣cum Christus in u∣nam, ut ità dicam, massam reducit, ne{que} id fide tantùm, sed re∣ipsâ nos Corpus su∣um effecit. In Math. 26. hom. 83. Ob. by Mr. Breerly. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd▪ 2.
• g 1.188

  Aug. Ipsi Chri∣stiani cum Capite ••uo, quod ascendit in coelum, vnus est Christus. Enarrat. in Psal. 127. Etin Psal. 26. Titulus Psalm•• Omnes in illo, & Christi, & Christus sumus.
• h 1.189

  Leo, De homine Regenerato per Bap∣tismum. Vt susceptus à Christo, & susci∣piens Christum, non idem sit post Lava∣crū, quod ante Bap∣tismum fuit, sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat ••aro Crucifixi. Serm. de Passione. 14.
• i 1.190

  Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Nam & nosipsius Corpus facti sumus, & quod accipimus, nos sumus.
• k 1.191

  See above C. 4. §. 7.
• l 1.192

  See above C. 4. §. 2.
• m 1.193

  Ibid. at the Letter (r.)
• o 1.194

  Gregor. Nyssen. Quicquid assumenti conveniens est, & ex∣petitum sit, ut Apo∣stolus vult, qui hanc mensam nobis prae∣paravit, in id com∣mutatur; infirmiori∣bus olus, Infanti∣bus Lac, &c. Lib. de vita Mosis. p. 509.
• p 1.195

  Greg. Nyss. Cor∣pus illud Christi in Corpus nost••um in∣grediens totum in se transfert. Ob. by Bel∣lar. lib. 2. cap. 10. §. I∣dem Greg.
• q 1.196

  Mr. Breerly. Tract. 2. §. 4 Subd 2 p. 164.
• r 1.197

  Chrysost. Admi∣randa Mysteria—ut non solùm per di∣l••ctione••, sed reipsa in illam Carnem cō∣vertamur. Hom. 45. in Ioh.
• s 1.198

  Theoph. in Mar••. 14. Vocat hanc Con∣versionem Transele∣mentationem, quae quidem vox nihil mi∣nùs significat, quàm transubstantiatio: nā Transelemētatio sig∣nificat mutationem totius rei—ad ipsam materiam, quae ab A∣ristotele Elementum dicitur. Si mu••atio solius Formae, rectè dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Transformatio, & mutatio, externae fi∣gurae transfiguratio, cur mutatio substan∣tiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantia∣tio? Bella. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundo.
• t 1.199

  Theoph. in Ioh. 6. Qui me manducat, quodammodò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 1.200

  Isidor. Pelusiot. l. 3. Epist. 107. De reci∣piente semen, ut ter∣ra bona: Qui verbu recipit [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• x 1.201

  Theoph in Mat. 26. Panis ineffabili mo∣do transformatur—Panis quidem apparet, sed ca•••• ••st. Obiected by Mr. Breerly Liturg. Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. As for [est caro] this Phrase hath beene already answered. See above at (s)
• y 1.202

  Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Ie∣sus Panem, & benedixit, fregit, Transsigurans corpus suum in Panem: quod est Ecclesia praesens, quae frangi∣tur in passionibus.
• z 1.203

  Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corporis, quàm ut in id, quod su••imus, transeamus. De passi∣•…•…e Serm. 24.
• a 1.204

  Mr. Breerly in his Apologic (of the first Edition) concer∣ning the faith of the an∣cient Greeke Church.
• b 1.205

  Hier. Patriarch. Non enim hîc nomi∣nis tantùm commu∣nicatio est, sed rei identitas: etenim ve∣rè corpus & sanguis Christi mysteria sunt; non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur, sed nos in illa, meliori∣bus praevalentibus. Which is his Answer in this point, to the Do∣ctors of Wittemberge.
• * 1.206

  Appeal. lib. 1. Ch. 2. §. 7. [The testimony it selfe, cited out of Greg. by Mr. Breer∣ly, is answered in the first Booke, concerning EATING.
• * 1.207

  See above in this Chap. §. 3. &c.
• * 1.208

  Booke 8. Ch. 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Bap∣tisma non Corporis, sed mentis oculis considerandum. A∣pud Bini••m. lib. 3. Decret. Conc•• Nic. de Baptismate.
• * 1.209

  See above, Ch. 4. §. 4.