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

CHAP. IV.

That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth, against that which Christ called [CORPVS MEVM, MY BODY] imply sixe Contra∣dictions.

The first Romish Contradiction, in making it Borne, and not borne of a Virgin.

SECT. I.

THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught, concer∣ning the Body of Christ, That it was borne of the Virgin Mary: Secondly, that this, so borne, was, and is but One: Thirdly, that this one is Finite: Fourthly, that this finite is Organicall, and consisting of distinct parts: Fiftly, that this Organicall is now Perfect, and endued with all Absolutenesse, that ever any humane body can be capable of. Sixtly, that this Perfect is now also Glorious, and no more subiect to vilification, or indignity here on earth. But your now Romish Doctrine, touching Corporall Presence in this Sacra∣ment, doth imply Contradictions, touching each of these, as now we are to manifest, beginning at the first.

Our Apostolicall Article, concerning the Body of Christ, is ex∣presly this; Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary: which is the an∣cientest Article of Faith, concerning Christ, that is read of in the Booke of God: The seed of the woman, &c. Gen. 3. to shew that it was by propagation. But your Romane Article, of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament, is, that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread, as we have already proved, and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew, whether they be na∣turall, or miraculous. When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water, this water is made of Ayre: when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine, the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water: when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bo∣dily flesh.

CHALLENGE.

DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that it is the substantiall Change (by the operative wordes of Consecration) of Bread into a Body which you call the Bodie of Christ? then is this Body not borne, but made; nor by Propaga∣tion from the Blessed Virgin, but by Production, and Transubstan∣tiation from Bread: which differences, Borne of the Virgin Mary, and not borne of the Virgin Mary, are plainly contradictory. which was the cause that Augustine (as f Bertram sheweth) distingui∣shed betweene the Body borne of the Virgin, and that which is on the Altar, as betweene Aliud, and Aliud; one, and another thing. And this Argument hath beene fortified before, and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine afterwards.

The second Romish Contradiction, to the ouerthrowing of that, which Christ called [MY BODY:] by making one Body of Christ, not one, but many.

SECT. II.

YOur Profession standeth thus: g The Body of Christ, albeit now in Heaven, yet is (say you) substantially in many places here on earth, even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated. So you. Next your Master h Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once, contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter; where he directly confuteth this Romish Do∣ctrine of Madnesse, saying thus: i To seeke, that Christ his Bodie should be in many places at once, is no lesse madnesse than to re∣quire, that God should make his body to be flesh, and not to be flesh at one time; whereas not Aristotle, but the Spirit of God (saith he) hath taught us, that this his body is to be contained in Heaven untill the last day. Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the fol∣ly of your Church, which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament, except it be locall on earth, As if (saith

he) she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven. And at last, after that he had said, k Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant, he so explaineth himselfe, that hee meant a spirituall Vnion: so that it doth fully appeare, that Master Brerely in this point (as usually in many others) alleageth Calvins testimony, a∣gainst Calvins sence; and his owne conscience.

It is irkesome to see the fury, wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants, amongst whom wee see againe your Master l Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the pre∣sence of Christ's Body in Heaven, and in Earth at one time. Al∣though, notwithstanding, m your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly ta∣xeth Beza, for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once; whom therefore he calleth an Apostata: and whom n another tearmeth for the same cause, Blasphemous, as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God. Whereas, ac∣cording to our former Proposition, it is rather to defend it, be∣cause God is the God of Truth (which is but one) and Truth is with∣out that Contradiction, which is necessarily implyed in your Do∣ctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once, as in the next place is to be evinced.

That the same Second Romish Contradiction, holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once, is proved, by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time, to be a making One, not One.

SECT. III.

IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas, (the chiefest Do∣ctor, that ever professed in the Romish Schoole) o It is not pos∣sible by any Miracle, that the Body of Christ be locally in many pla∣ces at once, because it includeth a Contradiction, by making it not one; for one is that, which is not divided from it selfe. So he, together with others whom you call Catholikes, who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in divers places at once. Which al∣though

he speake concerning the locall manner of being; yet his Reason (as your Cardinall confesseth) doth as well concerne your Sacramentall manner of being on earth. And Aquinas his reason being this, [Vnum] One (saith he) is that, which is not divided from it selfe: but, to be in divers places at once, doth divide one from it selfe, and consequently maketh it not to be One: which being a Contradiction, doth inferre an Impossibility. So he▪ Earnestly have we sought for some Answere to this insoluble Argument, as we thinke: And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say, but that the p Be∣ing in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing, and therefore can be no more said to divide the body from it selfe, then it can be said to divide God, who is every where, or the soule of man, which is one in every part, or member of the Body. So he. We throughout this whole Tractate, wherein we dispute of the existence of a Bo∣dy in a place, doe not tie our selves every where to the precise Ac∣ception of place, as it is defined to be Superficies, &c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct vbi, from another, which wee call here, and there. we returne to your Cardinals Answere.

CHALLENGE.

AN answere you have heard from your Cardinall, unworthy any man of Iudgement, because of a Triple falsity therein. First in the Antecedent, and Assertion, saying that Being in a place or space is not inseparable from a Body. Secondly in the ground of that, because Place is not of the essence of a Body. Thirdly in his In∣stances, which he insisteth upon (for example sake) which are both Heterogenies. Contrary to this Assertion, we have already proved the necessity of the locall being of a Body, wheresoever it is; and now wee confirme it, by the Assertion of One, then whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accu∣rate, and accomplished with Philosophicall learning; even q Iu∣lius Scaliger by name, who hath concluded, as a principle infalli∣ble, that Continuity being an immediate affection, and property of V∣nity, One body can not be said to be in two places, as here, and there, without dividing it selfe from it selfe. So hee. Certainly, because Place being the Terminus (to wit that, which doth confine the Body that is in it) it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once, than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude, or many. Which truth, if that you should need any further proofe, may seeme to be confirmed in this, that your Disputers are driven to so miserable straits, as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Bo∣dy in divers places at once, but only Man's soule, which is a spirit; and God himselfe, the Spirit of Spirits, of both which hereaf∣ter. Onely you are to observe, that the Cardinals Argument, in proving Space to be separable from a Body, because it is not of the

Essence of a Body, is, in it selfe, a Non sequitur, as may appeare in the Adiunct of Time, which although it be not of the Essence of any thing, yet is it impossible for any thing to be without time, or yet to be in two different times together.

The same second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scrip∣ture, by an Argument Angelicall.

SECT. IV.

MAth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman, that sought Christ in the grave, said; He is not here, for he is risen, and gone into Galilee: which is as much, as to have said, hee could not be in both places at once; an Argument Angelicall. But you an∣swere that it was spoken Morally. How? (wee beseech you) as if one should say (saith your r Cardinall) Such a man sitteth not at ta∣ble, for he hath supped: what fond trifling is this, and wilfull per∣verting the Truth of God? for this your Argument, A man sitteth not at table, for hee hath supped, is scarce a probable Consequence, that a man is risen from the table, as soone as he hath supped. Con∣trarily, the Angel's Logicke is not by a Peradventure, but necessa∣ry not imaginary, but historicall; not coniecturall but dogmati∣ticall, and demonstrative. For better explanation whereof, we may turne the Causall word (FOR) into an Illative [THEREFORE,] because it is all one (as you know) to say hee is not here in the Grave [For] he is risen out of the Grave, And to say, Hee is risen out of the grave, [Therefore] he is not heere in the Grave. Vnderstand then, first, that the matter subiect of this Argument being no mo∣rall arbitrary Act of man's will; but the omnipotent Resurrecti∣on of Christ from the dead, (which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith, yea, and as it were the foundation of all other Articles, without which, as the Apostle saith, Our Faith were vaine) the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically; which is the reason that he is so instant, and urgent, saying to the woman, Come, and see the place, where the Lord was laid. Which he addeth (saith your s Iesuite) for confirmation of that, which he had said, [He is not heere.] And as much as if he had said (saith Anselme) t If you beleeve not my word, give credit to the emp∣ty Sepulchre, in satisfying your owne sight. Therefore was it demon∣strative. And againe, the Angell putting them to make use both of his ••aying, and their owne seeing; Goe yee (saith hee) and tell his Disciples: And they went (saith the Text) to bring his Disciples word. Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall, such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth. It were iniury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ; The Poore you shall have alwayes with you, but me

you shall not alwayes have. The light, which wil expel all Romish dark∣nesse out of every corner of exception to the contrary, is, first if you shall say, that Christ did not speake of his bodily Presence; u He spake (saith Augustine) of his bodily presence, in saying, you shall not have me alwayes with you. Secondly, if you answer, that Christ de∣nyed not absolutely his Corporall presence, but onely the manner of his presence on earth, in his visible shape: Augustine will reforme you, shewing, that Christ, in saying You shall not have me; by [Me] meant absolutely his Body, as it is distinguished from his God-head, namely, You shall have mee, according to my Maiesty, and my providence, and invisible grace (all spirituall:) but according to my flesh, even that flesh, which was borne of the Virgin Mary [you shall not have me.] Thirdly, If you reason, saying; But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth, and there in Heaven at one instant? Augustine will confute you, who asking, why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence, giveth onely this reason, because he ascended into Heaven, and (as alluding to the former words of the Angell) addeth, And he is not here. So raw therefore, so vaine, and perverse is that Answere of Morall, and Civill reasoning, which your Cardinall obtruded upon his Readers, against an Argument both so Angelicall, and Evangelicall.

That the Romish Obiection out of that Scripture, Act. 9. is frivolous.

SECT. V.

CHrist (Acts 9.) appeared to Saint Paul, then Saul, when he was in his way to Damascus, &c. whence your Cardinall a laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ, at one instant, (to wit) in Heaven with the Saints, and in the Ayre unto Saul. First, because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde. Secondly, because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ, which he heard. Thirdly, because Saul asked saying; Lord, who ar•• thou? and heard and understood the voice. Fourthly, Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead. And therefore (saith hee) was this Apparition in the Ayre. Every obiection may receive it's opposition. To the first, thus: Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the bright∣nesse of the Sun-beames on earth, that hee could not see for a∣while; and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere? So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth.

To the second, thus. Have you not read of a voice from Hea∣ven, Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately, and said, An Angell speaketh, and the common people said, It thundreth? be∣cause (as your b Iesuite confesseth) they heard it but confusedly.

To the third, thus: Men heare, and heare not, so farre as God is pleased to reveale, or not to reveale himselfe, or his word and voice, yea or any sight unto them; for Saint Stephen saw the Hea∣vens opened, and Maiestie of Christ, when others wanted that sight.

To the fourth, thus: The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection, as were the eyes of Saint Stephen, Acts 7. who saw him; and so much more, because he was both made blinde by the brightnesse of that sight of Christ, and after healed in the Name of Christ.

If any desire to know the iudgement of ancient Fathers, in this Case, your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where hee shall please. Sure we are that c Augustine, d Ambrose, Pope e Grego∣ry the first, and f Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the ap∣pearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [de Coelo] from Heaven. And if all this were true that hath beene obiected, that Christ appeared in the Ayre, yet is your Consequence but lame, that therefore hee was bodily also in Heaven, if we may beleeve your Iesuite Lori∣nus: g Because Christ (saith he) might for so short a time have des∣cended from Heaven. By all which you may perceive, that your Cardinall, for all his arguing about the Ayre, hath beene (as the Proverbe is) but Beating the Ayre. And as lancke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by (as hee saith) Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth, when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven: for it is not certaine, that he appeared personally to any here on earth, if the position of your Evangelicall Doctor Aqui∣nas may stand for good, who held it Impossible for Christ to ap∣peare here on earth, in his proper shape, in two places at once: which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather only Visions, without any personall appearing. We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine, whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once; and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez, who now commeth concluding as follow∣eth. h The Body of Christ, except it's being in the mysterie of the Eu∣charist, is no where but only in Heaven: and to affirme the contrarie were a great rashnesse without ground; and contrary to all Divines. So hee. We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire, and both of the same Societie of the Iesuites, the one for Rome, the other for Spaine, in this their Contradiction, that wee may consult with Antiquity it selfe.

That the Opinion of the Being of a Body, in many places at once; implyeth a Contradiction, is secondly proved by the iudgement of Ancient Fathers, thereby distinguishing Christ his two natures, Godhead and Manhood, one from another, by Circumscription and Incircumscription.

SECT. VI.

ANcient Fathers iudged it Impossible for a Body to be with∣out Determination in one only place at one time: yea (say you) they did so, but meaning Impossible, according to the course of nature, but not absolutely Impossible, as if by Divine Mira∣cle a Body might not be in many places at once. This is your on∣ly Answere, and the Answere of every one of your Answerers, whereat wee should wonder, but that they have given us so often experience, what little conscience they make, how true their An∣sweres be, so that they may be knowne to have answered: other∣wise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossi∣bilitie; and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne; and also by their manner of confuting the same. The Eutychian Heretikes (you a know) confounded the properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead, pretending (as you doe) the Omnipotencie of Christ, for the patronizing of their he∣resie, As thinking thereby (thus saith b Theodoret, out of Am∣philochius) To magnifie the Lord Christ, whereas this was indeed (as the same Father saith) to accuse God of falshood. You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire. Pope c Leo, speaking of Eutyches, the Authour of that heresie, saith that Hee affirmed, that thereby hee did more religiously conceive of the Ma∣iestie of Christ, by denying his humane nature; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the spirit of falsity. Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers, in confuting an heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotencie, did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible, which they withstood, as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves. Theodoret a∣gainst this Heretike argueth thus: d The Body of Christ, being a compounded thing, cannot be changed into a divine nature, because it hath Circumscription. This had beene no good reasoning, ex∣cept his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility.

e Vigilius (anciently Bishop of Trent) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent, who against the same Heretique, distin∣guishing the two natures of Christ, his humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place; the divine by being unlocable, doub∣ted not to inferre, saying of his Bodily nature: It being now in hea∣ven is not at all on earth. And, least that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion, he averreth saying; This is the Catho∣lique profession taught by the Apostles, confirmed by Martyrs, and hitherto held of the faithfull. So Fulgentius upon the same distinction maketh the same Conclusion, saying of his Bodily substance, that therefore f Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven; and going to Heaven it left the Earth. Damascen had to deale with the fore-named Heretique, and professing to deliver the substantiall diffe∣rence of both natures, hee differenceth them by these contrary Charters, g Created, not Created; Capable of mortalitie, and not ca∣pable of mortalitie; circumscribed, and not circumscribed; and In∣visible in it selfe, and visible: which notwithstanding is in the Eu∣charist, by your doctrine, not Capable of Circumscription, because whole in the whole hoast, and in every part thereof, and to the very Angels of God Invisible.

Let vs ascend hither to the more primitive Ages, to inquire of Fathers, who had conflicts also with Heretiques, who gaine-said the Truth of either nature. Athanasius urged Christ his Ascention into Heaven, to prove that he was truely man, as God, because his God-head was never out of Heaven, being h Vndeterminate in place, and uncircumscribed, even then, when it was Hypostatical∣ly united with the Body, being on earth. Therefore it was his Bo∣dy that ascended into Heaven from Earth. His Argument is taken from Circumscription; even as i Nazianzene also doth Characte∣rize them. Augustine falling upon such Heretiques, as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sunne, and in the Moone, at once, (which you your selves will confesse could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature) giveth them first this Ca∣ueat: k You may not (saith hee) so defend the Deity of Christ, as to defraud the Truth of his humanity: then he addeth (as if none could faine a presence of a Body without determination in space or place) Bodies cannot be without space. And againe, l A Bodie cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another. And what els doth that say∣ing of Ambrose imply, spoken as to Christ? Stephen (saith he) who saw thee in Heaven, sought thee not upon earth.

Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father, whose Patronage your Dispu∣ters would bee thought often to rely vpon; hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly, as if he had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposites in the same Answere, which he maketh against certaine Heretiques, who held that God's nature is a Substance, which can receive division and partition: If God (saith m Cyrill) should be divisible, as a Bodie, then should it be contained in place, and then should it have Quantity, and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed. Will you now say (which hitherto hath beene your onely Answere to other Fathers) that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible, that Quantity should be without Circumscription, but onely according to the Course of nature? then might the Heretiques, whom Cyrill confuted, have made the same Answere, and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had beene of no force. What shall wee say? must still the antient Fathers be made no better than Asses in ar∣guing, that your Romish Masters (forsooth) may be deemed the only Doctors, even then, when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretiques, which they devise for themselves? but you must pardon us, if wee beleeue that Cyrill (seeing hee durst say that God himselfe, if hee were a Body, must be in a place, as a thing having Quantitie and Circumscribed) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of beleeving Christ's Bodie consisting of Quantity, al∣beit not Circumscribed in place.

CHALLENGE.

THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers, concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Deter∣mination in one place, may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence, and that all your Obiections, out of them, are but so many forged, and forced Illusions.

Wee conclude. If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat, not to beleeve such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world, af∣ter his Resurrection; Behold here is Christ, and behold there is Christ: then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church, which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ, and a There is Christ, in the same instant; as wee shall further more con∣firme by like verdict of Antiquity, when wee shall heare the Fa∣thers proue both that Angels, and all created Spirits are finite Crea∣tures, and not Gods, even because they are contained in one place: and also that the holy Ghost is God, and no finite Creature, be∣cause it is in divers places at once. But we must handle our mat∣ters in order.

That the Romish Doctors (in their Obiections) have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once: from the Iudgement of Antiquitie.

SECT. VII.

IT is a kind of Morosity, and Perversnes in our Opposites, to obiect those testimonies, which have their Answeres, as it were tongues in their mouthes, ready to confute their Obiections. For s Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ, at one and the same time, sitting with his Father in Heaven, is here handled of Communi∣cants on earth; than hee doth say of the Priest and People com∣municating, that They doe not consist or stay on earth, but are trans∣ported into Heaven. And againe, a little after the words obiected, The Priest (saith he) is here present, not carrying the fire, but the ho∣ly Ghost. These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your Senensis upon him, that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's. Another Obiection is commonly made out of t Chrysostome, of a double Elias, one above and another below (meaning, by Elias below, the sheepe-skin, or mantle of Elias, received by Helisaeus,) namely, that Christ ascen∣ding into Heaven, in his owne flesh, left the same, but as Elias did his Mantle, being called the other Elias, to wit, figuratively: so the Sacrament, a token of Christ's flesh, is called his flesh. Which must needs be a true Answere, unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited, as a double Elias; so consequently a dou∣ble Christ. As for the next Testimonie, it is no more than which every Christian must confesse, namely, that it is the same whole, & undivided Christ, which is spiritually received of all Christians, wheresoever, and whensoever throughout the world: the same we say Obiectively, although not Subiectively; as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and §. 3. will demonstrate.

That your most plausible Obiection taken out of Augustine, con∣cerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands, is but Sophisticall.

SECT. VIII.

a AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme, and falling vpon a Translation, where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these (by inter∣pretation)

Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands; saith that these words could not be understood of David, or yet of any other man literally: for [Quomodo fieri potest?] (saith he) How could that be &c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ, at what time he said of the Eucharist, [This is my Body.] This is the testimonie which not onely your b Cardinall, but all other your Disputers, upon this subiect, doe so ostentatively embrace, and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes, which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant; which therefore, above all other, they dictate to their Novices, and furnish them therewith, as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites, especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture.

Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie, in urging a testimonie, which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech, to shew that it is not Scripture at all, and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence, even out of Augustine himselfe.

THE FIRST CHALLENGE,

Shewing, that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture.

PRotestants (you know) allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament, which is not according to the Ori∣ginall, namely, the Hebrew text; and the Church of Rome al∣loweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation, as of the only Au∣thenticall. But in neither of them are these words, viz. [Hee was carried in his owne hands:] but only that David, now playing the Mad-man, slipt, or fell into the hands of others, as your c Abu∣lensis truely observeth. So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre, in mistaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and so impossible it is for you to ground the obiected sentence upon divine Scripture, even in your owne iudgement.

THE SECOND CHALLENGE,

Shewing, that the Romanists cannot stand to the [QVO∣MODO] of Augustine.

THis word [Quomodo, How] implying it to be impossible for David, or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands, excepting Christ, as you defend, must argue either an absolute Im∣possibility, or not: if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his owne hands, in a literall sence, then could not Christ, as man, be carried in his own hands: and if it do not intimate an

absolute Impossibility, then might David or any other man, by the power of God, have carried himselfe in his owne hands. So that whether thus, or so, you will make Augustine contradict himselfe, if his words be taken in the Precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall sence.

THE THIRD CHALLENGE,

Shewing that Augustine in another word following, to wit, [QVO∣DAMMODO] doth answere Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly obiected word [QVO∣MODO.]

SAint Augustine after hee had said Quomodo, How? (a word see∣ming to signifie an Impossibility) left that it, being taken abso∣lutely, might imply a direct carying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper, hee qualifieth that his speech somewhat after, saying; [Quodammodò, &c.] that is, After a certaine manner Christ ca∣ried himselfe in his owne hands. Which is a modification, and in∣deed a Correction of the excesse of his former sentence. Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his [Quodammodo] and what ••his manner of Christ's carying himselfe was, in the iudg∣ment of Saint Augustine.

THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE,

Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners, concerning Christ in this Sacrament.

AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ [HOC EST CORPVS MEVM] properly, you have heard Augu∣stine often pleading for a Figurative sence. Secondly, against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ, by Transubstantiation, hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the Continuance of Bread. Thirdly, Against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once, in this Sacrament, or else-where without dimension of Place, or Space, he hath already contradicted you in both, holding them Impossible: and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth, because it is in Heaven. Fourth∣ly, Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally, hee will renounce hereafter, as an execrable Imagination. Where∣fore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament, it is Incredible he could haue resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body pro∣perly in his owne hands.

THE FIFTH CHALLENGE,

Shewing that the [QVODAMMODO] of Saint Augustine is the same manner, which the Protestants doe teach.

DOe you then seeke after the manner, which Augustine belee∣ved? what need you? having learned it of Augustine himselfe, by his Secundùm quendam modum, (where he saith) this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ: what, literally? Nay; but (for so hee saith) a As Baptisme (the Sacrament of Faith) is called Faith. And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustines iudgement in his writings, you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees, set out by b Gratian, where Augustine is alleaged to say, that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ; as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Pas∣sion. Dare you say, that the Priest's Oblation is properly, and li∣terally in strict sence the Passion of Christ? or that Aug. meant a∣ny such a Manner? You dare not, yet if you should, your c Romish Glosse in that place would presently reprove you saying, that by this comparison is meant, that The Sacrament, representing the Body of Christ, is therefore called Christs flesh, not in verity of the thing, but in a mystery (namely) as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion. In a word rightly might d Calvin say, spea∣king of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament: All the Bookes of Augustine (upon this subiect) proclaime that hee is of our profession. Much more, concerning Christ his not being corporal∣ly here on earth, will, by the iudgement of Augustine and other Fathers, be found in the fifth, sixt, and seventh Bookes; besides that which they affirme in this Booke, in the thirteenth, and six∣teenth Sections following.

THE SIXT CHALLENGE,

In generall, concluding the maine Point.

BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dea∣ling, and false iugling: for your Disputers have usually allea∣ged, for defence of your Transubstantiation, and Corporall Pre∣sence in the Sacrament, the sentences of Fathers used in their Ser∣mons and Exhortations, wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoricke in Figurative, and Hyperbolicall speeches, as hath beene confessed by your owne Doctours; and proved by many their like sayings concerning other Sacramentall Rites; but espe∣cially of the Sacrament of Baptisme: whereas our proofes arise directly from the testimonies of the Fathers, which they have com∣monly

had in their sad and earnest Disputations, in confutation of many, and maine Heresies, where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicke, for discerning Truth from Errour; and also of Grammer; we meane the Exactnesse, and propriety of speech void of Amphibologies, Hyperboles, and Ambiguities, where∣by the minds of their Hearers, or Readers might be perplexed, and the Truth darkned. This one consideration we iudge to be of ne∣cessary importance. And thus much concerning the iudgement of ancient Fathers, touching this second Contradiction.

That (thirdly) the Contradiction, and consequently the Impos∣sibility of the Being of one Body in divers places at once, is evicted by two sound Reasons; the first taken from Contradictory Relations.

SECT. IX.

YOu have already heard of the Antecedent, which was gran∣ted by Aquinas, viz. It implyeth a Contradiction, to say a Bo∣dy is corporally in two places at once, because this maketh that one Body not to be one. Which being confessed, you have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence, viz. by the same reason it must follow, that it is absolutely Impossible. But besides, there are Actions and Qualities, whereof some are Relatives, and have re∣spect to some place, and others are Absolutes. Of the Relatives you have determined that e One Body (say you) as it is in diverse places at once might be below, and above, on the right hand, and on the left, behind, and before it selfe, may move, and not move, at the same instant, without Contradiction: because it is so said in divers Respects, namely of divers places, as the soule of man in divers parts of the Body. So you.

These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines, who disputing of Bodily Locality can find no exam∣ple, within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Crea∣tures, but only Man's soule, which is a Spirit: which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section. In the Interim know you, that although Relations doe sometimes take away Contradictions, where they are applyable: As namely, for the same Body to be high, and low in respect of it's owne divers parts, to wit, high in respect of the head, and low in respect of the heele, wherein there is no comparison of any whole, or part with it selfe: yet if any should say as much of the same Body, whether whole, or part, as

thus: The same whole head goeth before, and after it selfe: or, the same one finger is longer, and shorter then it selfe; hee may iustly be suspected to be besides himselfe: all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves, (and consequently Impossible) as for a man to say, he is elder, and yonger than himselfe. You will say, (and it is your common Sanctuary) that place is not essentiall to a Body, and therefore separable from a Body; so that a man may be in two places at once. And you may as well say, that because Time is not of the essence of a man, some man may have a Being without any time, or else in two times at once. Finally, this your Subtilty would have beene iudged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie, to hold true in Divinity (to wit) that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it, and another thing on the left, it is Circum∣scribed in place. Whereby hee demonstrateth the truth of Christ's Body, because it is Circumscribed: and that it is circumscribed, be∣cause it is written of him, that f The sheepe shall stand on his right hand, and the goates on the left. Nor doe you your-selves teach, nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand, or his left, as he is present in this Sacrament. One word more. The Fathers, who were many, that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head, because the first is Circumscribed, and the o∣ther is not circumscribed, would never yeeld to either of both, that it is both crucified and not crucified; as you doe to Christ's bo∣die, teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven, when it is Vncircumscribed, as it is on many Altars vpon earth.

That (fourthly) a Contradiction, (and consequently an Impos∣sibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once) is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions, which are voyd of Relation to place.

SECT. X.

VVEre it possible, that Actions and Qualities, which have re∣spect to Place, might avoid the Contradiction; yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place, it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so, as will appeare by your owne Resolutions. For your Cardinall, and your Iesuite Suarez, with di∣vers others have thus g determined, that such Actions and Quali∣ties

as are reall in a Body, without any relation to place, may not be said to be multiplyed in respect of divers places, wherein the same Body is supposed to be: (As for example) the same Body to be hot in some Countrey, and cold in another at the same time; wounded, and not wounded; passible, and not passible. And the like may be said of Love, and Hatred, which are vitall Actions, proceeding naturally from the Subiect. So that the Body, which in one place is affected with love, cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever. So your owne Disputers.

But have they any reason for these points? Yes they have, (See the Margent) For your Cardinall denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, may be hot, and not hot at the same time, giveth us this reason: Because (saith hee) it is one Body, and not ma∣ny. So he. A reason Infallible. Your Iesuite Suarez also, deny∣ing that the same party can love, and hate, consent, and dissent at the same time, in respect of divers places, yeeldeth this reason; Because (saith he) these repugnant affections belonging to one subiect, cannot by the omnipotency of God be together in the same, because they destroy one another. Aquinas, and other Schoolemen denying that the same Body can be said to grieve, and not to grieve, both at once, in respect of divers places of being, propoundeth the like Reason; Because Griefe being in the same man, as he is a man, cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him; lest we should make a man not to be himselfe. Lastly, your Cardinall h Alan denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, can be said to be Mortall, and Immortall, Passible, and impassible expresseth this rea∣son, which (hee saith) was used of old: Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man. Enough, enough.

CHALLENGE.

VVE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions, as sufficient Reasons, and as absolute Confessions as can be desired, which will be as so many Poniards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause, to give it a deadly wound. As first this: you teach that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no natu∣rall faculty, either of motion, of sense, of Appetite, or of Vnder∣standing, all which notwithstanding hee hath in all perfection in heaven. But to understand, and not to understand, to have, and not to have an Appetite, you will confesse to be as absolute Qualities, and Acts Contradictorie, free from respect to place, as are those which you have allowed, to wit, Grieve, and not grieve, love, and not love, alive and not alive: because man hath an appe∣tite and Desire, an Act of understanding in himselfe, not as hee is in one place more then in another. Seeing there∣fore you have beene enforced by infallible Principles of sound learning to hold it Impossible for one to love, and hate; and to

have contrary passions together, because they are Contradicto∣ries, and would inferre, that one man should be, and not be him∣selfe. Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to your selves. Can there be a stronger Argument than this, to perswade Christians, that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong de∣lusions, to beleeve lies? of which kind this, of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once, is not the least.

Notes

• See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. C. 2.
• f

  Bertram. de cor∣pore Domini, pag. 61. Ponamusunum testi∣monium Augustini, quod dictorum fidem nostrorum ponat, in fermone ad populū: potest (inquit) animo cuiuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri, Dominus noste•• Iesus Christus accepit carnem de Virgine Maria, lactatus est Infans, &c. Quo∣modo panis corpus eius, & calix sanguis? Is••a, fratres, ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quiain eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem. Ista vene∣rabilis Author dicens, inst••uit nos quid de proprio Domini Corpore, quod de Maria n••tum est,—& nunc sedet ad dextram Patris, & quid de isto, quod supra Altare ponirur sentire debemus: Illud integrum est, neque ulla sectione dividitur, Hoc autem figura, quia Sacramentum.
• Lib. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2.
• Lib. 4. Chap. 7. §. 6.
• g

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3.
• h

  M. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgy of the Masse, pag. 150. Because Calvin. In∣stit. 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith: Etsi incredibile videtur, ut in tanta locorum distantia pe∣netrare ad nos possit Christi caro, ut sit nobis in cibum, &c.
• i

  The same Calvin in the same Chap. 17. §. 24. Cur (inquiunt) non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur, ut modo, & specie ca∣reat? Insane, quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse, & non carnem? perinde ac si instes, ut lucem simul lucem faciat, ac te∣nebras. Ibidem §. 26. Corpus Christi, ex quo resurrexit, non Aristoteles, sed Spiritus sanctu•• finitum esse tra∣dit, & coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem. Et §. 30. Cuius ••rgo amentiae est, coelum terrae potius miscere, quàm non extrahere Christi corpus è coelestisanctuario?
• k

  As for the obie∣cted sentence, hee ex∣plicateth himselfe, §. 31. Christus illis prae∣sens non est, nisi ad nos descendat, quasi v••rò si nos ad se eve∣hat, non aequè eius potiamur praesentia. & §. 36. ut Christum illi•• rite apprehēdāt, piae animae in coelum erigantur necesse ••st. [As untruly also doth he alleage Bucer, Be∣za, and Farel p. 237. who had the same sence with Calvin. Master Foxe said that Christ if he list might be on earth, but hee said not so of and in the same time.]
• l

  See in the former Allegation.
• m

  Fieri posse, ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluribus locis simul, praeter hunc A postatam nemoinficiatus est, quod cum ••redere noluit, tollit ab omnipotenti virtute. Salmer. Ies. tom. 9. tract. 23. pag. 173.
• n

  Beza cum adversarijs congressus, ubi Calvini mysteria non posse•• defendere, in eam prorupit Blasphemiam, ut Deum neget omnipotentem: disertè enim scribit, Deum non posse efficere, ut Cor∣pus aliquod, manente substantia, sit absque ••oco, vel in pluribus locis simul; Illud enim Angeli axioma [apud Deum nihil est impossibile] non sine exception•• accipiendum esse, quod factum fieri nequit infectum—O argutos Philosophos! qui Dei Maiestatem ad suas physicas regulas non erub••scunt revocare Prateol. Elench. Hae∣res. lib 2. Tit. Bezanitae.
• o

  Catholiciisti cū Thoma in quartum distinct. 14. art. 2. hāc rationem, cur non possit corpus Christi localiter esse, &c.—Quod si verò non possit corpus Christi localitèr esse in di∣versis locis, quia divi∣deretur à seipso, profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione: qui licet dicat hoc non esse per l••ci occupationem, tamen dicit, per realem & veram praesentiam in pluribus Hostijs, sive Altaribus: quae realis prae∣sentia in ••ot Altaribus, & non locis intermedijs, non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem r••i. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici, atque in cis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localitèr; quià (inquiunt) unum est illud, quod indivisum in se est, & divisum à quocunqu•• alio. ••ellar. quò suprà.
• See the former testimony.
• p

  Duplex est di∣visio, una intrinseca, in se, altera extrinse∣ca, & accidentalis in respectu ••oci. Itaque cum corpus est in di∣versis locis, non tolli∣tur indivisio in se, sed extrinseca, in respe∣ctu ••oci, ut ••ùm Deus sit unus, est in diver∣sis ••ocis, & anima ra∣tionalis est in diver∣sis partibus corporis una. Bellar. ibid.
• q

  Si dicas, corpus est hic, & ibi idem, ipsum quidem distra∣has in diversa: prin∣cipio primo perse, & immediato prohibe∣tur corp{us} esse in plu∣ribus ubi: est autem continui••as affectus cōsequēs immediatè unitatem; Contradi∣ctiones enim sunt. Iulius Scal. Exercit. 5. qu. 6.
• See below Chap. 4 §. 2. and Chap. 5. §. 2.
• r

  Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum il∣larum mulierum—Sed optima est sol••∣tio, moraliter intelli∣gi, ut si quis dicat, ta∣lis homo non sede•• ad mensam, coenatus est enim. Bellar. lib. 3•• de Euch. cap. 4.
• 1. Cor. 15. 14.
• s

  Videlz. Ad com∣probandum dictum [Non est hîc.] Salmer. Jes. Tom. 11. tract. 9. pag. 72.
• t

  Quasi dicat, si verbo non credatis, vacuo sepulchro cr••∣datis. Anselm.
• Marc. 26. 12.
• u

  Aug. tractat. 50. in Ioh. Pauperes ha∣bebitis semper vo∣biscum, me autem non habebitis] loque∣batur de praesentia corporis: habebitis, secundùm providen∣tiam, secundùm Ma∣iestatem, & invisibi∣lem gratiam—se∣cundùm carnem ve∣rò, quam verbum as∣sumpsit, secundùm id, quod de Virgine natum est, &c. nō ha∣bebitis. quare quoniā conversatus est cum Discipulis quadra∣gin••a diebus aseen∣dit in coelu••, & non est hîc.
• a

  Simul in summo coelo, & in aëre vici∣no terrae. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. §. Se∣cundum &c.
• b

  Tolet. Ies. in eum locum.
• c

  Aug. in Psal. 54. & Tract. 1. in Ioh. Caput in coelis, cuius membra calcabantur in terra.
• d

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 15. Apparuit ei primo in coelo.
• e

  Greg. Moral. Hō. 34. in Evang. ad finem. Persecutorem de coe∣lo allocutus.
• f

  Isid. Pelus. lib. 1. Epist. 409. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et Theophylact. in in Act. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• g

  Potuittantisper de coelo descendisse. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 9.
• See above Chap. 2 Sect. 3.
• h

  Cōcludo, Chri∣sti corpus tantùm es∣se in coelo & in Eu∣charistia; seclusoque ••odem Eucharistiae mysterio, non solùm non esset corpus ubi∣que, sed neque e∣tiam esset al••••ubi, ni∣si in coelo: & contra∣rium asserere esse•• magna temeritas fine fundamento, & contra omnes Theologos. Suarez Ies. Tom. 1. in Thom. quast. 14. Art. 1. Disp. 34. §. 4.
• a

  Alf••ns. de Castro c••nt. Haeres. Eutych.
• b

  Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi car∣nem spiritualem, & alterius substantiae quàm sit nostra caro: •…•…maginantur se per haec Deu•• magnifa∣cere, cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant.
• c

  Leo Papa Epist. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsi••••e in∣••elligo spiritum falsi∣••atis, ut dùm affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei maiestate senti∣re, si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat, &c.
• d

  Theod. Dial. 3. l. 3. ex Euseb. Emis. (Con∣tra eos, qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectio∣nem.) Hos di••••re necesse est vel divinae naturae manus & pedes, & alias corporis partes tributas esse, vel fateri corpus man∣sisse in suae naturae finibus. Atqui divina natura simplex est & incomposita, corpus autem compositum & in multas partes divisum: non est ergo mutatu•• in naturam divinitatis, & quidem immortale factum, & divinâ naturâ plenum; sed tamen corpus, quod propriam habet Circumscriptionem.
• e

  Ʋigil. lib. 4. con. Eutych. Circumscri∣bitur loco per natu∣ram carnis suae, & loco non capitur per naturam divi∣nitatis suae. Hec fi∣des est confessio Ca∣tholica, quam A∣postoli tradidetunt, Martyres roborave∣runt, & fideles nunc us{que} custodiunt. Et paulò superius. Quia nunc in coelo est, non est uti{que} in terra.
• f

  Fulgent. de perso∣na Christi, ad Tras∣mund. l. 2, c. 5. Vnus idem{que} homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Patre. Vnus idem{que} secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo, cum esset in terra; & derelin∣quens terram, cum ascendisset in Coe∣lum.
• g

  Damascen. de fide Orthodoxa lib. 3. cap. 3. Earum naturarum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a∣struimus salvari: nam creatum; mansit cre∣atum; increatum, in∣creatum: mortale manebat mortale; immortale, immorta∣le: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• h

  Athanas. part. 2. Adversus eos qui nul∣lum non miraculum imminuunt, eo quòd carnem negant: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i

  Nazian. Epist. 1. ad Cledon. Hominem & Deum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k

  Aug. Epist. 57. ad Dardan. [After his Caveat; Cavendum ne ità divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut corporis veritatem auferamus.] Tolle spatium corporibus, & n••squàm erunt, & quià nusquàm erunt, non erunt. Et paulòpost. Cum carnis substantijs immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit: Et aliquantò post. Distantibus spatijs non corpora simul esse possunt. Idem contra Faustum Manich. lib. 2. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam spiritualem pati nullo modo Christus potuit: secundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole & luna esse non potuit.
• l

  Ambros. in Luc. 24. Stephanus non super terram te quaesivit, qui te stantem ad dextram Dei vidit.
• m

  Cyril. Alex. Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Trinit. Si verè Sectionem & partitionem divina natura (ut illi di∣cunt) reciperet, & intelligeretur ut cor∣pus: si autem hoc, & in loco omninò, & quantitate; & si quanta facta esset, non eff•…•…geret Cir∣cumscriptionem. fol. 89.
• See hereafter, Ch. 3. Sect. 3.
• Mat. 24. 23.
• See Chap. 5. Sect. 3.
• Chap. 6. Sect. 2.
• s

  Chrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerdotio; O mira∣culum! O Dei benig∣nitatem! qui cum patre ••ursum sedet, & eodem tempo∣re omnium manibus pertractatur. Obij∣cit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 22. not consi∣dering what went be∣fore these words, in the same place, where Chry∣sostome will not have his hearer beleeve, that the Priest and People communicating doe not [in terris consistere, sed potius in coelum transferri.] then fol∣loweth, O miracu∣lum, &c.—adest ••n••m Sacerdos non igne•…•… gestans, sed Spiritum Sanctum.
• See. B. 3. Ch. 4. §. 6.
• t

  Chrysost. ad popu∣lum Antioch: hom. 2. Helisaeus▪ Melotem accepit (Heliae) erat posthac duplex Eli∣as, sursum Elias, deor∣sum Elias. Then ap∣plying this to the Sa∣crament; Helias nem∣pe melotem Discl∣pulis suis reliquit: filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem dimisit; sed Elias quidem exutus, Christus autem & ipsam nobis reliquit, & ipsam ascendens habuit.
• Greg. Nyssen.—Vnu•…•… Christi corpus per totum orbem tot fidelium Millibus impertiri, &c. Alleadged by Mr. Breerly, Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. p. 149.
• a

  Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal. 33. Conc. 1. [Effe∣rebatur in manibus eius] Hoc quomodò possit fieri••n homine, quis intelligat? manibus alienis portatur quis; suis autem nemo portatur. Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundum literam non invenimus: in Christo autem invenimus, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait, [Hoc est corpus meum:] fer••bat enem corpus in manibus suis, &c.
• b

  Obijcit Bell. Vox [Quodammodo] Sig∣ni, non propriâ spe∣cie, sed alienâ, nee modo usitato, sed ex∣traordinariè: satis est, quod non figu∣ratè significatur, L. 2. de Euch cap. 24.
• c

  Tostatus Abulen∣sis. [Et collabebatur inter manus eorum:] Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi o∣stendebat se, ūt insa∣num. Com. in cum lo∣cum.
• See the fift Booke C. 5. §. 2. and C. 6. §. 3.
• a

  August. Sicut se∣cundùm quendā mo∣dum Sacramentum Corporis, Corpus Christi est; ita Sacra∣mentum fidei fides est. See above §. 8. at (a.)
• b

  Decret. part 3. de Consecr. dictinct. 2. C. Hoc est. Sicut ergo caelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur cor∣pus Christi, illius vz. quod, &c.—voca∣tur{que} immolatio car∣nis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio: non rei veri∣rate, sed significante mysterio. [Observe that in the words, coe∣lestis panis, qui Caro Christi est, the word caro is by the Glosse in Gratian interpreted Species panis, at the letter (f) Caro, id est species panis, to avoid the absurditie of interpreting Christ's flesh to be the Bodie of Christ.
• c

  Glossa. ibid [Coeleste, &c.] Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè representat Christi carnem, Christi caro vocatur: unde dicitur suo modo, non reiveritate, sed significante mysterio, vt sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus: i. Significat.
• d

  Calvin. Ad∣monit. vlt. ad Westphal. Augustinum totum esse nostrum, omnes libri clamant.
• See above Chap. 4. § 3.
• e

  Vnum corpus in diversis locis positū unum habet esse sub∣stantiale, sed multa habet esse localia: ex quo fit, ut omnia mul∣tiplicari debeāt, quae consequuntur esse lo∣cale: illa autem non multiplicantur, quae aliunde proveniunt, Relationes verò ad loca necessariò mul∣tiplicantur, propter dimēsiones locorum. Itaque erit idem cor∣pus sursum, & deor∣sum, propinquum, & remotū, poterit mo∣veri in locum, & qui∣escere in alio loco, nec tamen implica∣tur ulla contradictio. Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentia, quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem, eodem tempore, modo, loco. Ac ne id mirum videatur, Anima humana, quae tota est in toto corpore, & quolibet membro Corporis, certè, ut est in capite, est remota à terra, ut in pedibus propinqua, ut in brachio quiescere dicitur, & ut in altero motū movere. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum.
• See above Chap. 4. §. 3.
• f

  Theod. Dial. 2: cap. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  Corpus Christi, in diversislocis posi∣tum, habet unum sub∣stantiale, & quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicātur respe∣ctu diversorum loco∣rum, unde quae recipiuntur à corpore, sive Actiones sint, sive Qualitates, sive quaecunque alia, non multiplican∣tur. Ratio, quia corpus unum est, non multa; ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calesiat, in alio erit calidum: si in uno loco vulneretur, in altero erit vulneratum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij, ut amoris, & odij, assensus, diffensus, non possunt competere uno subiecto in diversis locis, quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentia naturali, ut à principio agente, & eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus con∣trarios—Ratio; inter actus contrarios—tantam esse repugnantiam, ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subiecto, & loco, quia sese omninò destruunt ex parte obiecti, Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. ••8. §. 2. §. Atque.
• Quicquid pertinet ad Christū secundùm quod in se est, id po∣test ei tribui in pro∣priâ specie, & in hoc Sacra mento existen∣ti, ut vivere, mori, do∣lere, animatum esse. Aquin. p. 3. q. 81. art 4. Cum Thoma consen∣tiunt Scotus, Alcisi∣dorus, Aegidius, Pe∣trus à Soto, & huic fa∣vet Innocentius. Sua∣rez quo supra p. 602.
• h

  Putatur à qui∣busdam vetustiorib{us} Theologis Christum propter varias eius existētias simul mor∣talem, & immortalē, passibilem, & impas∣sibilem se repraesen∣tare. Alij huic se sen∣tentiae opposuêre tē∣pore Berēgarij, quia viderunt maximè in∣telligentiae repugna∣re, ut idem corpus sit simul mortale, & im∣mortale. Alan. Card. de Euch. Sacram. lib. 1. pag. 451.
• See in this Booke Chap. 7. §. 3. and 4.