The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

CHAP. VIII.

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. [ 40] SECT. I.

THE Question is not now of the Mysticall Presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament, which wee with the Fathere, especiallya 1.1 Gregory 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 perfect in a penny, as in a shilling. But neither hee, nor any Father ever sayd that a little Hoast,

(which Hoast 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 Sacra∣mentally, which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment; thereby to resemble the Spiri∣tuall nourishment of our Soules, which is the Body of Christ. So that all you have sayd maketh just nothing for the Corpo∣rall, and materiall Presence of Christs Body, which wee fur∣ther impugne. [ 10]

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

THE Body of Christ (as wee professe) had perfect Dimen∣sions and Distinctions of parts, an head exposed to prick∣ing with thornes, a Face to buffets, a Backe to scourges, Eyes to visible noddings and mockings, Eares to blasphemies, Hands [ 20] and Feet to piercing with Nayles. This is that Body which wee confesse to be the Body of Christ, and which wee cele∣brate in the use of this Sacrament, in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts, distinct one from another. Two of yourb 1.4 Cardinalls do both answer that Quantity,! Magnitude, Proportion, and Extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament: 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 Body of [ 30] 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, with all the parts thereof in the least Indivisible point [ 40] of the Hoast. SECT. III.

THE Canons of thatc 1.5 Councell of Trent decreed, as a Do∣ctrine 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 yourd 1.6 Jesuite) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast. So he. But wee demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of di∣stinct parts, which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body? Your distinguish, that thee 1.7 Body of Christ being in this Sacra∣ment 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 every least Part and Indivi∣sible [ 10] Point thereof.

CHALLENGE.

[ 20] THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome. The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illum∣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 Pro∣positions [ 30] 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 later times. SECT. IV.

ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your lear∣ned, [ 40] and ancient Schoolemen, who (as youra 1.8 Jesuite testi∣fieth) Though it impossible, that a Body, that hath Extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opi∣nion is ascribed by your Jesuites (as ancient) untob 1.9 Durand

andc 1.10 Occham. Now what greater injury can there be, than, after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to pro∣fesse (with your ancient Schoolemen) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast; to im∣pose upon mens consciences, as an Article of Faith, so found and so palpable a figment? That which seemed to the above-named Durand, Occham, and other1 1.11 Nominals such an Opinion, whence (as they thought) it must needs follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confouded with the legs: [ 10] which (as your Cardinal Alan truly said) were to make of the Bo∣dy of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether* 1.12 monstrous. {fleur-de-lys} And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order, who teacheth you to2 1.13 Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast. {fleur-de-lys}

That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be propor∣tionable [ 20] to the Dimension of the places, wherein they are; is proved by the confessed Romish Prin∣ciple it selfe. SECT. V.

THE reason, which your* 1.14 Cardinall layet 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, he taketh [ 30] from Magnitude, which is an Extension of parts into their proporti∣onable length, breadth, and depth: This saith he is inseparably uni∣ted to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition, in it selfe; but not so (saith he) in regard of the place.

CHALLENGE.

THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves, proving, that if the naturall disposition of the Body [ 40] of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe, it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space; because the three di∣mensions 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 lon∣ger 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 distinctly in other parts. But Hîc, and Huc∣••sque; Here and There, thus farre and so farre, being Relatives of Space, and Place, do demonstratively shew that that Exten∣sion of distinct parts of the Body, which they have in them∣selves 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 Mathematicall, or Phantasticall Body o•• Christ, you must deny the Article of Trent, untill you can beleeve, and make good, that a part of a divisible Body, lon∣ger [ 10] or shorter, broader or narrower, can be (and that equally) in one indivisible point.

This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body, (as you confesse it to be) now in Heaven, possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length, and breadth, as it had here upon earth, which it doth by the naturall Mag∣nitude, or Quantity thereof. But the sayd naturall Magni∣tude, or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is (according to your wone generall Doctrine) in this Sacrament. Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space, although not [ 20] of the same Space which is one earth.

Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these specu∣lations, if that the necessity of the Cause (by reason of the Ab∣surdities, of your Romish profession) did not inforce us hereun∣to; Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse, 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, do attribute all these to Quantities, and Qualities, and Accidents, without any other subject at all. So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrai∣ned [ 30] to beleeve, in effect, that the Cup is filled with Mathe∣maticall lines, the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours, and formes: that it is Coldnesse that is frozen, and Roundnesse which weigheth downe, and falleth to the ground; as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clo∣thed 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 [ 40] of ancient Fathers. SECT VI.

IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine, doubt∣lesse S. Augustine (who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery) would not have oppugned it, as hee

did, when unto that Question of Volusianus (whether the Bodie of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin) hee answered,d 1.15 That every Body, be it greater or lesse, where∣soever 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 di∣rectly Contradictory to your Article of Trent, for here is ex∣presse mention of Relation to Place and Space.

And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility, that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast, you have objected the Example of Man's Soule, which is sayd to be whole in every [ 10] member and part of the Body: Saint Augustine (as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour) pre-occupateth, saying, a 1.16 The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body. And againe the same holy Father, seeking to find 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 in∣stance in Wisedome, which (saith hee) is as great in a little man as in a great man; but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Pri∣vilege, for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude, In all such [ 20] Quantity, or Magnitude (saith hee) there is lesse in the part, than there is in the whole. And by this same Maxime (concerning Whole in respect of Place) hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood, by which you have 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, thatb 1.17 The little finger is lesse than the whole hand, and one fin∣ger [ 30] is lesse than two, and that one finger is one where, and the o∣ther another where. Vpon which where, and where, being notes of distinct places; wee may aske, where are your Disputers now? Nay yet furthermore, passing from grosser Bodies, he saith as much of Ayre; yea, and of the most subtill of subtills, the light of the Sunne; one part whereof (saith hee) cometh 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 belee∣ved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast, hee would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretike for beleevingc 1.18 The Body of Christ to have bin brought [ 40] into such a subtilty, that it cannot be felt. But a greater subtilty

there cannot be, than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point. Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church, within the compasse of the twelve hundred yeares after Christ, and then shall wee con∣ceive better of your Cause. And lest you may talke (as you use) of one Body penetrating another, wee lay unto you, as Da∣mascen sayd unto his Reader, thatd 1.19 This is impossible, but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder. Wee say furthermore, that though this were granted, yet would you your [ 10] selves deny that the other must follow, as you may discerne in Angels, who are Spirits, and moe of them may be naturally in one singular place, yet no one, can be naturally in two places at once.

That the Romish Objections, against our former Tenet, taken from Miraculous Penetrations, are feeble and vaine. SECT. VII.

[ 20] IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the doores being shut; his coming out of the grave, when it was covered with a sto••e (as some thinke;) 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 Miraculous indeed, as wee, with many holy* 1.20 Fathers, do willingly Confesse. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did passe through the sub∣stantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores, Stone, and wombe; and [ 30] 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 Dimensions at all, or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christs Body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to youre 1.21 Durand as incredible, as unto us; and is3 1.22 Impossible.

The principal Testimony, which is insisted upon, concerning the [ 40] passing of Christ through the Doores, is the saying of Chrysostom, viz.f 1.23 Christs Body was thinne, or small, changed from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, it's thicknesse, impalpable unto mortall mans hand, but only by Divine permission and dispensation. So hee. And this is al∣leged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament, voyd of Palpabilitie: never considering the Or∣dinary and confessed Hyperboles, wherewith Chrysostome em∣bellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that wee may oppose Chry∣sostome against Chrysostome, even in the point in question: who

else-where speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein * 1.24 Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene; wheras every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the contrary.

{fleur-de-lys} Would ye understand the judgement of4 1.25 Chrysostome indeed? then leaving his Amphibologies, consult with him in his plaine and direct Assertions, where hee doubteth not to say, that If Christ at his Resurrection had offered his Dis∣ciples only an Image of his Body, to the deceiving of their eyes, it had beene a Delusion. Next that, Howsoever the sight of his Disciples might have beene deceived, yet their touch could not [ 10] erre, in discerning a true Body. And is it not then a marvel∣lous Infatuation in your Professors, who whilest they Tast, See, and Touch Bread in the Sacrament, beleeve contrary to their senses, that they are meere Accidents? Thirdly, in Conclusion, hee saith that his Passing thorow the Doore was not in his Humane Substance alone, but by his Divine virtue. What can this meane, but that the Penetration made was not by extenuation of his Body, but by the Omnipotent power, constraining the place to make a passage to his Bodi∣ly Substance? {fleur-de-lys} [ 20]

For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Doore, should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe? The Fa∣thers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested against this, whose Resolution is, thatg 1.26 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 pe∣netration of Dimensions, or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe? Wee answer, that the Divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage, the Thicknesse of his Body continuing the same. Wee have Hierome for the first part [ 30] teaching,h 1.27 The Creature (saith hee) yeelded to the Creator? and ancient Iustine, for the second, most aptly, and exactly, i 1.28 As Christ did tread the Water, not by changing his Body into Spirit, but by his Divine power: So hee passed thorow both Doores and Sepulchre being shut, by his Divine power, above nature, in his unaltered Body. Hee proceedeth, shewing how; even as was his walking, by his Divine power working upon the water, without any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Peter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water. [ 40]

{fleur-de-lys} The Alteration then was not in his Body, but in the o∣ther things, such as were the Doores, thorow which hee passed:5 1.29 The nature of things being overcome by Christs Om∣nipotencie,

hee made his entrance, as saith Cyrill of Alexan∣dria. And why should not the Creature yeeld 〈…〉〈…〉 Crea∣tor, rather than the Creator to the Creature? Will you give you Jesuite Lessius licence to interpose his judgement, who maintaining a Possibility of a maner of Penetration of a Bo∣dy by a Body, yet discussing the maner [How, will tell you that6 1.30 It is done not by the Quality, whether naturall, or Su∣pernaturall in a glorified Body; but by Gods immediate Assist∣ance: and that the Saints themselves (who are sayd to pene∣trate other bodies with their bodies) have no other power than [ 10] that which may be called morall, which is to be willing to passe thorow any body: and God, according to their wils, assiteth to worke the effect. {fleur-de-lys}

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 sayd it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtil∣ty, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with [ 20] the Eutychian Heretikes, who (as yourk 1.31 Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the Ayre, and as the winde impalpable; as did also thel 1.32 Eunomians, and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great.

Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the maner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when wee answer, that Christ in his Birth opened the Wombe of his Mother, although without violation of her Sacred Vessel, wee are therefore presently branded by yourm 1.33 Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie. [ 30] Which objection nothing but personall malice could make, or Impudency defend, as the Objecters themselves well knew, one of them confessing, that divers Fathers, in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Ma∣ry, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the Wombe shall be holy unto the Lord; Luk. 2. did teach thatn 1.34 Christ alone did properly open the Wombe of a Woman, who onely found it shut. Hee reckoneth for this opinion these holyo 1.35 Fathers,

Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Hie∣rome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So hee. A faire company of fel∣low Heretikes with Protestants, wee trowe: to whom the same Jesuite joyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti & Catholici. Thus your owne spirit of Contra∣diction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresie, main∣tained the Miracle, and defended the Integrity of that sancti∣fied Wombe of the Blessed Virgin, (to wit) that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe, which was shut in respect of other Women (who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the Birth) [ 10] being preserved from all hurtfull violence, either from within or without; which could not be without a perfect Miracle.

Furthermore hearken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall find your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers; for your fore-nameda 1.36 Jesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom hee him∣selfe approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who sayd that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, spake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites, who denyed that Christ [ 20] had any true Body; because that els the sayd Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall, and on∣ly imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the judg∣ment of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Phantasticall. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his sufferage be ad∣ed to the rest, who in an Epistle calmely, and as it were in coole blood, teacheth thatb 1.37 Christ is the onely he, who by his Birth o∣pened his Mothers Wombe, and left it shut and sealed up againe. And maketh bold to tearme them Vnlearned, that thinke the contrary: who living above a thousand yeeres agoe, is there∣fore [ 30] so much the more competent a witnesse of the Catholike truth.

{fleur-de-lys} Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone, in this Doctrine, peruse the7 1.38

As for the Entrance of the* 1.39 Camell, which is said by Christ, to passe through the eye of a needle; the subtlty of your Objecti∣on 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 hee hath on him a great Bunch or grossenesse of confidence in his riches, and worldly [ 10] affections, to enter into the Kingdome of God. Although o∣therwise, as it is possible for God, by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell, that it may passe through the Needles eye; so is it as possible to him, by his Omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man, that hee, being truly mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himselfe, and at length enter into the King∣dome of Heaven.

{fleur-de-lys} This you might have learned from Saint Hierome, who saith that in this Similitude8 1.40 Impossibilitie is compared with [ 20] Impossibilitie, because as a Camell cannot passe through the Needles eye, no more can richmen enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. So he, speaking of the Rich-man, in Sensu Compositio, so living and dying, as making Mammon their God; and not using them unto works of Piety and Charity; for so the same holy Father expresseth himselfe,9 1.41 As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled) could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem, as soone as they were disburthened of their loads; So Rich men, casting off the load of their sins, may en∣ter [ 30] in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life.

A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary, for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast [ 40] SECT. VIII.

VVE are to insert in this place the (forgotten) Obje∣cted words, which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie, and recorded in your Papall decrees,10 1.42 where

there is part of Christs Body, (in the Sacrament) there is the whole: there being the same reason of this as there was of Man∣na, whereof it is written, Hee that gathered much had no more than others: and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse. Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament, to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body, under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament; none greater, under a greater.

Our Answer is Three-fold. I. That your Doctors could ne∣ver yet prove the writings, which goe under the name of Popes* 1.43 Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs, whereof [ 10] many of themselves have doubted, and which some al∣so have denyed. II. That the Comparison fighteth main∣ly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point, which you contend for. For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole, and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast, without all maner of situation therein, so, as not having the Head above, and the Feete below. This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense. But the Manna, which was diminished and augmented in Quan∣tity by Gods providence, had notwithstanding a certaine [ 20] determinate Quantitie, expressely mentioned in the same Text: Every man a Gomer, according to their families namely every one an equall, but yet a severall measure and Quantity; for one mans Manna was not the same which another had. This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one, and the same Body of Christ. Next, the Granes of the same Manna (for it was like Coriander-seed) had their seve∣rall situations and distinct places in every Gomer, some lying above, and some below, some on the right side, and some on the left side of the Measure; which differences you abso∣lutely [ 30] deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament. III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ: Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ, by Faith, whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast, without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article, which was [ 40] no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie? Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle? Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine, who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father; so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Exi∣stence

of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space? Finally, shall not the affinity, which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies, perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith?

Notes

• a 1.1

  Greg Nyssen in Orat. Catech. 6. 37. Per totum orbem fi∣deiium i••llibus uno die impertitur, to∣tumque cujusque per partem evadat, & in seipso totum perma∣neat, &c. Objected by Mr. Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. Subdiv. 2. [Answered before •• Chap. 4. Sect. 7.]
• * 1.2

  See below, ••. 11.
• * 1.3

  See. 3. following.
• b 1.4

  Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt corpori Christi natu∣raliter & inseperabi∣liter—& Christus corpus suum carnem vocat. Ioh. 6. At certè substantia sinè quan∣titate et complexione quadam accidentium, caro dici non potest—Denique in corpore Christi ejus anima inest: atque anima in corpore esse ne∣quit, nisi disposito & organizato. Secundò extensum esse in se, & partem habere extra partem, & proinde si∣tum quendam intrinsecum & ordinem habere, & dispositionem partium, omninò essentiale magnitudini est. Quid enim linea nisi extensio in longitudinem? &c. Si tollas igitur extensionem, & partes, tollis paritèr mag∣nitudinem Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Tollere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis consusio∣nem, ut ibi sit nasus, ubi oculus; & manus, &c. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 444.
• c 1.5

  Totus & inte∣ger Christus sub spe∣cio panis, & sub qua∣libet ejus speciei perte inest. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula. Ca. tech. Romde Euch. num. 29.
• d 1.6

  In singulis par∣tibus continuis, quan∣tumvis minimis, & ••••••••dem quantitatis. ••••••rez. Ies. Tom. 3. D. 5••. § 2 pag. ••79.
• e 1.7

  Respondeo, quod est difficili∣mum, ob〈…〉〈…〉 imbecilitatem. Dico corpus Domini habere partem extra partem, si vox [extra] dicat habitudinem ad subjectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad objectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad locum. Resp. nego conse∣quentiam, quia distinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis: at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis, sed impediri potest. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 7. Negatur este impossible, corpus quantum in indivisibili puncto. collocari: quin potius impossibile est corpus Christi esse totum in toto, quùm sit etiam in punctis & terminis, quibus partes specierum Sacramentaliam continuantur. Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683.
• a 1.8

  Totum Chri∣sti corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specie∣rum panis esse, nega∣•••••• Albertus, Scotus, Aegidius—quia videtur impossible, in se corpus exten∣sum, & magnae mo∣lis cum tota organizatione & figura in puncto collocari Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683.
• b 1.9

  Opinio antiqua, quae fuit Durandi, dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem. Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit, quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se, sieri autem non possit, ut si cor∣pus Christi habeat partes distinctas, in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte. Teste Maldonat. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.
• c 1.10

  Occham, & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem cor∣poris Christi in Eucharistia: sed ita, ut nulla sit figura, nec distinctio partium. Sic Occham. Bellar. ibid §. ••t.
• 1 1.11

  Suarez Ies. in 3. Thom. disp. 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi, existentem in Eucharistia, pe∣dem non distare ma∣gis à capite, quam collum. Ità Occham. & Ailliaco.
• * 1.12

  See above in this Chapter, Sect. 2.
• 2 1.13

  Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis, & partibus ejus: ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se, negandum est. Magister de media villa, S••raph. Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4.
• * 1.14

  See above, § 2.
• d 1.15

  Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse u∣bique totum, quan∣tumcun{que} corpus, vel quantulumcun{que} cor∣pusculum loci occu∣pet spacium, eundem∣què locum sic occu∣pet, ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum ne∣cesse est: longè alia natura est animae, quàm corporis, quan∣to magis Dei? Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian: [Whose question to S. Augustine was; Vtrum Christus in∣temeratae foeminae corpus impleverit?]
• a 1.16

  In eo quod dici∣tur Deus ubique, car∣nali cogitationi re∣sistendum est, & mens acorporis sen∣sibus amorenda, ne quasi spaciosa mag∣nitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi, ut aër, aut lux: omnis enim hu∣jusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte, quà in toto: sed ita potius, ut est magna sapientia eti∣am in homme, cujus corpus est parvum—N••m si duo sint ho∣mines aequal••er sa∣pientes, quorum alter est corpore grandi••r, non plus sapiunt am∣bo, quam singuli; sic in minore corpore non minor est sani tas, cum minora, & majora corpora tam san•• sine—Disp••r est profecto in mem∣brorū molibus quan∣titas: sed par est in disparatis sanitas—quae non quantitas, sed qualitas est. Non pot••••t ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod qualitas. Aug. Epist. 57. ad Dardan.
• b 1.17

  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 aëris partes suos implent locos—Lucis{que} pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram, alta per aliam, & major per majorem, per minorem autem minor. Idem Tom, 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fundament cap. 1••.
• c 1.18

  Au••ungebat (Haeretious) omne illud, quod in Do∣mino 〈◊〉〈◊〉 potuit, post resurrectionem in so••••itatem aliquam esse redactam. Greg. Exposit. Moral. lib. 14. cap. 31.
• d 1.19

  Damasien. l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉〈…〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.20

  Chrysost. Na∣zian••••. Aug. Ambros.
• e 1.21

  Durand Disp. 14, qu•• 6. [Whom you therefore reject.] Tes••e Su••rez. Tom. 2. Disp. 48. quaest. 54. Art. 4. §. 5.
• 3 1.22

  Impossibil••m etiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hac putat esse opinionem probibilem Teste Lo∣••ino 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Act. 5. 19.
• f 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. ••7. in Ioh. 21. [but according to the Latine Edition, Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Mar•••• in the Disp. at Oxo••. fol. 60.]
• * 1.24

  Booke 3. cap. ••. Sect. 6.
• 4 1.25

  Chrysost. de Resurrect. Hom. 9. Non est meum ludi∣ficare meos phantal∣mate, &c. See this Te∣stimony above Book. 3. Chap. 3. §. 9.
• g 1.26

  Conc. Ephes. Tom. 5. Cap. 1. Ana∣them. 3. Non alien••u esse ab illo corpus, quod sibi univit, quod ubique palpabile, & aspectabile existit.
• h 1.27

  Hier. Crea∣tura cessit Creatori.
• i 1.28

  Iustin Martyr quaest. ad Orthodox Quest. 117. pag 363. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• 5 1.29

  Cyri••. Alexandr. in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 53. Clausis foribus Dominius omnipotentiâ, suâ, superatâ naturâ rerum, intravit.
• 6 1.30

  〈…〉〈…〉. Ex quibus pa∣tet, juxta hanc sen∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 penetr 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ponere in ip∣••s beatis, nisi poten∣tam quindam mo∣r••••••, quae in eo consisti••, quod Deus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ipsis volen∣tibus, assistere ad hunc effectum. Lib. 7. cap 9.
• k 1.31

  Aquinas par. 3. quaest: 54. art. 2. Re∣spondeo. Vide cor∣pus Christi non ha∣buisse partes corpo••••s naturales, pertinet id errorem Eutychij qui dicebat corpus nostrū in illa resurrectio∣nis gloria impalpabi∣le, & ventis. ••eque subtilius: et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipalorum palpantrum, omne illud, quod in eo palpari potuit, in aliquam subtilitatem redegit, ut Greg. exponit, Mor••••. lib. 14••. ••ap. 31.
• l 1.32

  Pratent. E••ench. [ 40] Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani—Diceb in corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impa••••••bile esse & invisible; imò aëre & vento subtilius: de qua heraesi Gregorius Eutychium convincit.
• m 1.33

  Bellar. lib de notis Eccles. cap. 9. Sander. de visib Monarch. lib. 7. pag. 321. Ma••don. Ies. Com. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Luc. 2. 23.
• n 1.34

  Docuerunt—solum Christum aperuisse vulvam. Mald. in Luc. 2.
• o 1.35

  Origen. in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi. Ambr & Greg. Nyssen. in Testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis. Epiph••n. Haeies. 78. Hier lib. 2. cont. pelag. Theophylact. &. Euseb. [That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous, even as his Impuration to Pro∣testants, saying that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth, is standerous:] and Ianseni•••• Conco. cap. 13.—Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum properiè pertinu••••e asserunt. Theophyl. & Ambr. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit. Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14▪ In Luc. Aed Beat•••• Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi (before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors, and their Index Expurgat.) durst say; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit; Mariam patefacti coporis lege peperiss.
• a 1.36

  Apud Maldon. Ies. in Luc. •• Id Pa∣trea dixisse ardore abreptos disputatio∣nis contra Marcioni∣tas, ne Christum cor∣poreum phantasma facere viderntur, si dixissent matris u∣terum non aperuisse.
• b 1.37

  Ibid. Pelusiot. lib. 1. Epist. 23. Ape∣••i••e vulvam (Luc. 2.) non dicitur de quo∣vis primogenito 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 7 1.38

  The Fathers in their places above cited. Origen. Non sic quisquam aperuit vulvam matris abs{que} coitu. Ambros. in eum locum. Non virilis coitus vulvae secreta reser••vit—hic so∣lus ape••u••t sibi vul∣vam Hieron. Solus Christus clausas por∣tas vulvae virginitatis aperuit, quae tamen clausae vigiter permanserunt. Theoph. ineum locum. In Christum so∣lum hoc propri•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉—is enim virginis vulvam aperuit, cum reliquis mattribus vir aperuit. Tert. Dei filius—quis prop••tè vulvam matris suae aperuit, quam qui clausam patefecit. ••bio. Tert. Virgo quantum à viro, non quantum à partu Leo ad Flaviam cap. 4. pag. 36. Quiâ inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit. Aug. de Symbolo. cap. 5. Quae virum nesciens sibi portat.—Erasmus Annot. in Luc. 2. Certe Ambrosius ab Ori∣ginis sencentia non abhorruit, Ianscinius Concord in Luc. 2. Christum matris vulvam propriè adaperuisse, est sententia Theophylacti in hunc locum, Ambrosij, & Originis.
• * 1.39

  Matt. 19. 24
• 8 1.40

  Hieron. ad∣vers. pelag. lib. 2. Vndè difficultas dif∣ficultati, imo impos∣sibile impossibili comparatur, quià nec Camelus potest in∣trare per foramen a∣cus, nec divites in Regnum Dei.
• 9 1.41

  Hieron. in Matth. 19. v. 24. Sed si legamus Esaram, quomodo Cameli Madiam & Epha ve∣niant Hierusalem cum donis at{que} mu∣••••••bus: & qui p••ius curvi erant, & vitiorum pravitate distot••i, ingrediantur port••s Hierusalem: videbimus quomodo ••sti Cam••li, quibus Divites comparantur; cum dep•••••••••• grave in Sarcia•••••• peccatorum, & totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per a••gustam portam.
• 10 1.42

  Decret. de Consecratione Dist. 2. [Vbi pars.] ex Hila∣rio Papa. Vbi pars est corporis est & to∣tum: eadem est ratio in corpore Domini q••ae est in Manna, quod in cjus figura praecessit; de quo dicitum, Qui plus collogerat' non habuit amplius: neque qui minus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hab•••••• minus. Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio, sed virtus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉〈…〉? Non est quantitas aestimanda, ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi, & sub 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.43

  Legat qai ve∣lit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum.