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. VII.

Of the (fourth) Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ [MY BODY] by teaching it to be Or∣ganicall, and not Organicall; Divisible, and Indivisible.

SECT. I.

THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament, which we with the Fathers, especially a 1.1 Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole, as well in a part of Bread consecrated, as in the whole loafe; even as the Image of the King may be as per∣fect in a penny, as in a shilling. But neither hee, nor any Father e∣ver said that a little Hoast (which boast you call Christ) is equall with a great Hoast; No, for the Fathers in the Councell of * 1.2 Nice absolutely denyed this: nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast, as your Fathers of * 1.3 Trent have taught, because no such part can resemble Totum Christum, whole Christ Sacramentally, which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment; thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules, which is the Body of Christ. So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall, and materiall Presence of Christs Body, which we further impugne.

That it is necessary the Body of Christ (wheresoever) consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie.

SECT. II.

THe Body of Christ (as we professe) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts, an head exposed to pricking with thornes, a face to buffers, a backe to scourges, eyes to visible nod∣dings and mockings, eares to blasphemies, hands and feet to pier∣cing with nayles. This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ, and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacra∣ment, in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts, distinct one from another. Two of your b 1.4 Cardi∣nals

doe both answere that Quantity, magnitude, proportion, and ex∣tension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sa∣crament: or else (saith one) If the Nose should stand where the Eye is, and the Eye where the Nose is, it should be a confused Monster. So they. So necessary it is; even in your owne faith, that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts, distinct one from another.

That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ, withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast.

SECT. III.

THe Canons of that c 1.5 Councell of Trent decreed, as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation, to beleeve, That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast; whereby is meant (saith your d 1.6 Iesuite) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast. So he. But we demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts, which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body? You distinguish, that the e 1.7 Bo∣dy of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe; but in respect of the Place, or of the formes of Bread, under which it is, the whole Body is without distinction in eve∣ry least Part and indivisible Point thereof.

CHALLENGE.

THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome. The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumi∣nate the eyes of any Reader, to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth, and of Errour; namely, to know, that there cannot be a greater Contradiction (and consequently Impossibility) than for a Body, consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts, such as are Hands, Legs, Eyes, and other Organicall members, to have Being any where without Extension, Commensuration, and distinct Proportion of the same to the space, wherein it is, as the Proposi∣tions following will prove.

That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new, and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body, in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times.

SECT. IV.

ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your lear∣ned, and Ancient Schoolemen, who (as your a 1.8 Iesuite testifieth) Thought it impossible, that a Body that hath extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites (as ancient) unto b 1.9 Durand, and c 1.10 Occham. Now what greater iniury can there be, than, after that it was lawfull for a thousand, and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to professe (with your ancient Schoole-men) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast; to impose upon men's consciences, as an Article of Faith, so fond and so palpable a figment. That which seemed to the above-named Durand, and Occham such an O∣pinion, whence (as they thought) it must needes follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confounded with the legges: which (as your Cardinall Alan truly said) were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether * 1.11 monstrous.

That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be propor∣tionable to the Dimension of the places, wherein they are; is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe.

SECT. V.

THe reason, which your * 1.12 Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary, that Christ his Body should have in it selfe (ac∣cording to the nature of a Body, distinct parts of head and eyes, and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule, hee taketh from Magnitude, which is an Extension of parts into their proportio∣nable length, bredth, and depth: this (saith he) is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition, in it selfe; but not so (saith he) in regard of the place.

CHALLENGE.

THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves, proving, that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe, it must be

so likewise in respect of place, and space; because the three dimen∣sions of the Body of Christ (as you have confessed) stand thus, that one is an extension in Length, another in Breadth, the third in Depth, and each of these three are distinct one from another. Well then, The arme must be here, and thus farre longer than the foot, the legge here, and thus farre thicker than the finger, the hand here, and thus farre broader than the toe, and accordingly di∣stinctly in other parts. But Hîc, and Hucusque; Heere and There, thus farre, and so farre, being Relatives of space, and place, doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body, which they have in themselves divisibly, the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi, place, or space, wherein the Body is. If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathemati∣call, or Phantasticall body of Christ, you must deny the Article of Trent, untill you can beleeve, and make good, that a part of a divisible Body, longer or shorter, broader or narrower, can be (and that equally) in one indivisible point.

This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Bodie, (as you confesse it to be) now in Heaven, possessing a Reall place in the said proportion of Spaces of length, and breadth, as it had here upon earth, which it doth by the naturall Magnitude, or Quantity thereof. But the said naturall magnitude, or quantity of the said Body of Christ is (according to your owne generall Do∣ctrine) in this Sacrament. Therefore must it have the same Com∣mensuration of Space.

Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these specula∣tions, if that the necessity of the Cause (by reason of the Absur∣dities of your Romish profession) did not inforce us hereunto; Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling serious∣nesse, who writing of this divine Sacrament, and seeing it to be round, solid, broken, moulded, in the one kind; and liquid, frozen, and sowring in the other, doe attribute all these to Quanti∣ties, and Qualities, and Accidents, without any other subiect at all. So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to beleeve, in effect, that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines, the Mouse eating the Hoast is fed with colours, and formes: that it is Coldnesse that freezeth, and Roundnesse which weigheth downe, and falleth to the ground; as if you should describe a Romish Communi∣cant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes, armed with Idaea's, fed with Abstracts, augmented with Fancies, second Intentions, and Individuall Vagues, and consisting wholly of Chimaera's.

That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers.

SECT. VI.

IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine, doubtlesse Saint Augustine (who is so devout in his fervent Meditations

upon this holy mystery) would not have oppugned it, as he did, when unto that Question of Volusianus (whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin) he answered, d 1.13 That every body, be it greater or lesse, wheresoever it is, must needs fill that space wherein it is, so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof. So hee: which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent, for here is expresse mention of Relation to place and space.

And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility, that the whole Bo∣dy of Christ is in every part of the Hoast, you have obiected the Ex∣ample of Man's Soule, which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body: S. Augustine (as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour) pre-occupateth, saying, a 1.14 The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body. And againe the same holy Father, seeking to finde out some Similitude, whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of place, in the end saith, that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof: and hee doth instance in Wisedome, which (saith hee) is as great in a little man as in a great man; but denyeth that Quan∣tity hath any such Priviledge, for speaking of Quantity and Magni∣tude, In all such Quantity, or magnitude (saith hee) there is lesse in the part, then there is in the whole. And by this same Maxime (con∣cerning whole in respect of Place) hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood, by which you haue confounded them. And yet againe else-where (as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted, or rather derided) hee will further have you not to be so Childish, as not to know, that b 1.15 The little finger is lesse than the whole hand, and one finger is lesse than two, and that one finger is one where, and the other another where. Vpon which where, and where, being notes of distinct places, we may aske, where are your Disputers now? Nay yet further∣more, passing from grosser Bodies, hee saith as much of Ayre, yea, and of the most subtil of subtils, the light of the Sunne; one part where∣of (saith hee) commeth in at one Window, another at another window, yet so, that the lesse passeth through the lesse, and the greater through the greater.

Moreover, if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast, he would never haue condemned the Eutychian Heretique for beleeving c 1.16 The Body of Christ to have beene brought into such a subtilty, that is cannot be felt. But a greater subtilty there cannot be, than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point. Shew vs this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in

the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred years after Christ, and then shall we conceive better of your Cause. And lest you may talke (as you vse) of one body penetrating another, wee say unto you, as Damascen said vnto his Reader, that d 1.17 This is impossible, but that either the one or the other must be divided a∣sunder.

That the Romish Obiections, against our former Tenet, are feeble and vaine.

SECT. VII.

IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to obiect the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the dores being shut; his comming out of the grave, when it was covered with a stone; his birth from his mother, her wombe being shut; besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the Eye of a needle, spoken of by Christ; all Mi∣raculous indeed, as we, with many holy * 1.18 Fathers, doe willingly Confesse. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores, Stone, and wombe, and consequently confuteth all this, which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a body, in respect of space, or place. So you. Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake, in noting each of these to have beene the Acts, and workes of Omnipotencie, but yet without any penetration of Di∣mensions at all, or yet Alteration of the iust proportion of Christs body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your e 1.19 Durand as incredible, as unto us.

The principall Testimony which is insisted upon, concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores, is the saying of Chryso∣stome, viz. f 1.20 Christ's Body was thinne, or small, changed from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] that is, it's Thicknes, impalpable unto mortall mans hand, but onely by divine permission and dispensation. So hee. And this is alleadged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacra∣ment, voyd of Palpabilitie: never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperbole's, wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chry∣sostome, even in the point in question: who else-where speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein * 1.21 Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene; whereas every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the Contrary. For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Doore, should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe? The Fathers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested a∣gainst this; whose Resolution is, that g 1.22 The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable: but you will aske then, how could it passe through either Stones, or Doores, without penetration of Di∣mensions, or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe? Wee

answere, the divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage, the Thicknes of his Body continuing the same. We have Ierome for the first part teaching. h 1.23 The Creature (saith hee) yeelded to the Creatour: and ancient i 1.24 Iustine, for the second, say∣ing that The passage of Christ through the Doores was, by his Divine power, above nature, in his vnaltred Body; which Body consisteth of thick parts. Hee proceedeth, shewing how; even as was his walking upon the Water, by divine power working upon the water, with∣out any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Pe∣ter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water.

Each of which sayings of the Fathers, professing a Body of Christ palpable, whether Thinne with Chrysostome, or Thicke with Iustine, doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole, and whole in every least part of the Hoast, as unpalpable to man as you have said it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtilty, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian He∣retiques, who (as your k 1.25 Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the ayre, and as the winde im∣palpable; as did also the l 1.26 Eunomians, and were therefore condem∣ned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great.

Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when we answer, that Christ in his Birth o∣pened the wombe of his Mother, although without violation of her sacred vessell, wee are therefore presently branded by your m 1.27 Dis∣puters with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spi∣rits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie. Which obiecti∣on nothing but personall malice could make, or Impudency de∣fend, as the Obiecters themselves well knew, one of them con∣fessing, that divers Fathers in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the wombe shall be holy un∣to the Lord; did teach that n 1.28 Christ alone did properly open the wombe of a woman, who onely found it shut▪ He o 1.29 reckoneth for this opi∣nion these holy Fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nys∣sen, Epiphanius, Hierome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So hee. A faire company of fellow Heretiques with Protestants, wee trowe: to whom the same Iesuite ioyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti, & Catholici. Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresie, maintained the Miracle, and defended the Integritie of

that sanctified wombe of the Blessed Virgin, (to witt) that the Vir∣ginall cell might be said to open it selfe, which was shut in respect of other women (who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the birth) being preserued from all hurtfull violence, either from with∣in or from without; which could not be without a Miracle.

Furthermore hearken to the answere of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall finde your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers; for your fore-named a 1.30 Iesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom hee himselfe approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, speake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereti∣call Marcionites, who denyed that Christ had any true Body; because that els the said Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall, and onely imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the iudgement of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Phantasticall. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be added to the rest, who in an Epistle calm∣ly, and as it were in a coole blood, teacheth that b 1.31 Christ is the only he, who by his birth opened his Mothers wombe, and left it shut & sealed up againe. And maketh bold to tearme them vnlearned, that thinke the contrary: who living above a thousand yeares agoe, is therefore so much the more competent a witnes of the Catholike truth.

As for the entrance of the * 1.32 Camell, (which is said of Christ) to passe through the eye of a needle: the subtilty of your Obiection is not so needle-sharpe, but that it may be easily blunted, for Christ spake by way of comparison, and implyed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility, Thus; as it is simply Impossible for a Camell (be it Rope, or be it Beast) to passe through the eye of a Needle, retaining the same dimension and property: so is it Impossible for a Rich-man, so long as he hath on him a great Bunch or grossnes of confidence in his riches, and wordly affections, to enter into the Kingdome of God. Although otherwise, as it is possible for God, by his miracu∣lous power so to contract the Camell, that it may passe through the Needles eye; so is it as possible by his omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling Bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man, that hee, being truely mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himselfe, and at length enter into the King∣dome of Heaven.

CHALLENGE.

SHall not then the novelty of your Romish Article, which was not so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Chri∣stianity? Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Prin∣ciple? Shall not the expresse Testimony of S. Augustine, who as he was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father; so was he never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily Parts according to

proportionable dimensions of Space? Finally, shall not the affinity, which your opinion bath with damnable heresies, perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith?

Notes

• a 1.1

  Greg. Nyssen. in Orat. Catech. C. 37. Per totum orbem ••ide liū millibus uno die im∣pertitur, totumque cuiusque per partem evadat, & in seipso totū permaneat, &c. Obiected by Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. Subdiv. 1. [Answe∣red before, Chap. 4. Sect. 7.]
• * 1.2

  See below, Ch. 10.
• * 1.3

  See Sect. 3. fol∣lowing.
• b 1.4

  Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt cor∣pori Christi natura∣litèr & inseperabili∣ter—& Christus corpus suum carnem vocat, Ioh. 6. At certè substantia sinè quantitate & complexione quadam accidentium caro dici non potest—Denique in corpore Christi eius animainest: atqui anima in corpore esse nequit, nisi disposito & organizato. Secundò extensum esse in se, & partem habere extra partem, & proindè situm quendam intrinsecum & ordi∣nem habere, & dispositionem partium, omninò essentiale magnitudini est. Quid enim linea nisi extensio in lon∣gitudinem? &c. Si tollas igitur extensionem, & partes, tollis paritèr magnitudinem. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 5. Tol∣lere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis confusionem, ut ibi sit nasus, ubi oculus; & manus, &c. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 3. p. 444.
• c 1.5

  Totus & integer Christus sub specie panis, & sub qualibet eius speciei parte in∣est. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula. Catech. R••. de Euch. num. 29.
• d 1.6

  In singulis par∣tibus continuis, quan∣tum vis minimis, & e∣jusdem quantitatis. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. D. 52. Sect. 2. p. 679.
• e 1.7

  Respondeo, quod est difficillimum, ob humani ingenij im∣becilitatem. Dico corpus Domini habere partem extrà partem, si vox [extrà] dicat habitudinem ad subiectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad obiectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad locum. Resp. nego consequentiam, quià di∣stinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis: at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis, sed impediri potest. Bel∣lar. l. 3. de Euch. Ca. 7. Negatur esse impossibile, corpus quantum in indivisibili puncto collocari: quin potius im∣possibile est corpus Christi esse totum in toto, quùm sit etiam in punctis & terminis, quibus partes specierum Sacramentalium continuantur. Suarez quo supra p. ••83.
• a 1.8

  Totum Christi corpus in partib{us} in∣divisilibus specierum panis esse negarunt Albertus, Scotus, Ae∣gidius—quia vide∣tur impossibile, in se corpus extensum, & magnae molis cum tota organizatione, & figura in puncto collocari. Suarez quo supra. p. 683.
• b 1.9

  Opinio antiqua, quae fuit Durandi, di∣xit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non ha∣berequantitatē. Fun∣damentum huius o∣pinionis fuit, quod essentia quantitatis est, habere partes ex∣tra partes distinctas inter se, fieri aurem non possit, ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas, in Euch. sit to∣tum in qualibet parte. Teste Maldonat. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch. c. 8. Arg. p. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5.
• c 1.10

  Oc∣cham, & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia: ••ed ita, ut nulla sit figura, nec distinctio partium. Sic Occham. Bellar. ibid. §. At.
• * 1.11

  See above in this Chapter, Sect. 2.
• * 1.12

  See above, Sect. 2.
• d 1.13

  Aug. Nullum cor∣pus potest esse ubi{que} totum, quantum∣cun{que} corpus, vel quantulum••un{que} cor∣pusculum loci occu∣pet spacium, cun∣dem{que} locum sic oc∣cupet, ut in nulla e∣ius parte sit totum necesse est: longè a∣lia natura est animae, quàm corporis, quan∣to magis Dei? l. 1. Ep. 3. ad Ʋolusian: [Whose question to S. Augu∣stine was; Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus im∣pleverit?]
• a 1.14

  In eo, quod di∣citur Deus ubi{que} car∣nali cogitationi re∣sistendū est, & mens •• Corporis sensibus amovenda, ne quasi spaciosa magnitudi∣ne opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi, ut aër, aut lux: om∣nis enim huiusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte, quàm in ro∣to: sed ita potius, ut est magna sapientia etiam in homine, cu∣ius corpus est par∣vum.—Nam si duo fint homines aequali∣ter sapientes, quo∣rum alter est corpo∣re grandior, non plus sapiuntambo, quam singuli; sic in minore corpore non minor est sanitas, cum mi∣nora, & maiora cor∣pora tam sana sint.—Dispar est profecto in membrorum mo∣libus quantitas: sed par est in disparatis sanitas—quae non quantitas, sed quali∣tas est. Non potuit ergo obtinere quan∣titas corporis quod Qualitas. Aug. Ep. 57. ad Dardan.
• b 1.15

  Idem. Minor est unus digitus, quam tota manus, & minor est digitus unus quam duo; & alibi est iste digitus, alibi ille, alibi coetera manus—Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis—sed etiam aeris partes suos implent locos—Lucis{que} pars alia infun∣ditur per hanc fenestram, alia per aliam, & maior per maiorem, per minorem autem minor. Idem. To. 6. Ep. fundamenti. c. 16.
• c 1.16

  Adiungebat (Haereticus) omne illud, quod in Domino palpari potuit, post resurre∣ctionem in subtilitatem aliquam esse red actam. Greg. Exposi. Moral. li. 14. c. 31.
• d 1.17

  Damascen. lib. 1. de Orthodox. fide. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.18

  Chrysost. Nazi∣a••z. Aug. Ambros.
• e 1.19

  Durand. Disp. 44. qu. 6. [Whom you ther∣fore reiect.] Teste Sua∣rez. Tom. 2. Disp. 48. qu. 54. Art. 4. §. 5.
• f 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. 87. in Iob. 21. [but accor∣ding to the Latine Edi∣tion. Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was obiected against P. Martyr in the Disp. at Oxon. fol 60.]
• * 1.21

  Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.
• g 1.22

  Conc. Ephes. Tom. 5. C. 1. Anathem. 3. Non alienum est ab illo corpus, quod sibi u∣nivit, quod ubique palpabile, & aspecta∣bile existit.
• h 1.23

  Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori.
• i 1.24

  I••stin. quaest. & Resp. ad Orthodox. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• k 1.25

  Aquinas. par. 3. qu. 54. art. 2. Respon∣deo. Vide corpus Christi non habuisse partes corporis na∣turales, pertinet ad errorem Eutychij, qui dicebat corpus nostrum in illa resur∣rectionis gloria im∣palpabile, & ventis aëreque subtilius: Et quòd Dominus post confirmata cor∣da Discipulorum palpantium, omne illud, quod in to pal∣pari potuit, in ali∣quam subtilitatem redegit, ut Greg. ex∣ponit, Moral. lib. 14. cap. 31.
• l 1.26

  Prateol. Elench. Haeret. Tit. Eunomi∣ani.—Dicebant corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem im∣palpabile esse & in∣visible; imò aere & vento subtilius: de qua haeresi Grego∣••ius Eutychium con∣vincit.
• m 1.27

  Bellar. l••de notis Eccles. cap. 9. Sander. de visib. Monarch. li. 7. pag. 321. Maldon. Ies. Com. in Luc. 2. 23.
• n 1.28

  Docue••unt—solum Christum ape∣ruisse vulvam. Mald. in Luc 2.
• o 1.29

  Origen in hunc locum. Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi. Ambr. & Greg. Nyssen. in testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis, Epiphan. Heres. 78. Hier. si. 2. cont. Pelag. Theophylact. & Euseb. [That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is fri••olous, even as his Imputation to Pro∣testants, saying, that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth; is slanderous:] and Janse∣nius Conco. cap. 13.—Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi uulvam ad solum Christum propriè pertinuisse asse∣runt. Theophyl. & Ambros. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit. Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14. in Luc. And Beatus Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi (before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors, and their In∣dex Expur••at.) durst say; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit; Mariam patefacti corporis lege peperisse.
• a 1.30

  Apud Maldon. Ies. in Luc. 2. Id Patres dixisse ardore abrep∣tos disputationis cō∣tra Marcionitas, ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere vi∣derentur, si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse.
• b 1.31

  Ibid. Pelusiot. lib. 1. Epist. 23. Aperire vulvam (Luc. 2.) non dicitur de quo∣vis primogenito [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.32

  Math. 19 24.