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.

THE [ 10] FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence, arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution [THIS IS MY BODY] concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating, &c. [ 20]

CHAP. I.

The State of the Question. SECT I.

A Christian man consisting of two men, the Out∣ward, [ 30] or bodily; & the Inward, which is, Spiri∣tual: this Sacrament, accordingly, consisteth of two parts, Earthly and Heavenly: as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread & Wine, as the visible Signes and Objects of Sense; and of the Body, and Blood of Christ, which is the Spirituall part. Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian; the one Sacramentall, by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, united to mans body, in his Taking, Eating, Disgesting, [ 40] till at length it be Transubstantiated into him, by being Sub∣stantially incorporated in his Flesh. The other, which is the Spirituall, and Soules food, is the Body and Blood of the Lord, (therefore called Spirituall, because it is the Object of 〈◊〉〈◊〉) by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit, and mans Faith; which (as hath beene professed by Protestants) is most Reall and Ineffable.

But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants, as is Corporall; which* 1.1 you call [Per contactum] by Bodily touch, so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers. Our Method requireth, that wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Ortho∣dox Truth. Secondly, to impugne your Romish Vnion, as Ca∣pernaiticall (that is) Hereticall. And thirdly, to Determine the Point by comparing them both together. Our Orthodox Truth [ 20] will be found in the Propositions following.

That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body; but also a Spiritually-Reall. SECT. II.

IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Pro∣testants, [ 10] they are most especially vehement, violent, and vi∣rulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries, as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body, than onely Sacramentall and Figurative. For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie ofa 1.2 Him, who hath beene most oppo∣sed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause, to shew, first, what hee held not; and then what hee held.

If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not, hee will answer you, I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence. [ 30] And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure, in this Sacrament. What then did hee hold? III. Our Catehisme teacheth (saith hee) not onely a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein, but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules. And with Swinck∣feldius, maintaining onely a Figurative perception, wee have no∣thing to do. If you further demand what is the Feeding, where∣by wee are united to Christ's Body, in this Sacrament? hee tells you, IV. that it is Not Carnall, but Spirituall, and Reall; and so Reall, that the Soule is as truely replenished with the lively [ 40] virtue of his flesh, by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God, as the Body is nourished with the Corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament. If you exact an expression of this Spirituall Vnion, to know the maner, hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason.

If further you desire to understand, whether hee were not Singular in this opinion, hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants, professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession, as agreeing with him in judgement herein. Accordingly our Church of England (in the 28 Article) saith, that To such as worthily, & with faith receive this Sacrament. The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ, which Body is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner, the meane whereby as Faith. [ 10]

That the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule. SECT. III. [ 20]

WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, which are many, in this Point of Dispute, ha∣ving before us the judgement of yourb 1.3 Fathers of the Coun∣cell of Trent, and of yourc 1.4 Romane Catechisme, authorized by the same Councell? both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spirituall food of man's Soule. In which re∣spect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popesd 1.5 De∣cree. The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter, and last Section of this Fift Booke. [ 30]

That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be. SECT. IV.

THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man (because a Spirit immortall;) and the flesh of [ 40] Christ being the most Substantiall of all food; and theréfore cal∣led, as of anciente 1.6 Fathers, even so by your Fathers off 1.7 Trent, Supersubstantiall Bread; it must necessarily follow, that as it is named by Christ* 1.8 The true Bread, and the Life thereby (which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof) is the most true and Reall Life, because Everlasting: So the Vnion Spirituall,

which a Christian hath in his soules feeding, is the most Reall and true Vnion, as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie. To wit, that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments, for the conservation of man's bodily Essence, are therefore cho∣sen (as the Fathers teach) to represent and exhibit unto him (although, in themselves, but Signes and Symbals) the very Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ. Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament.

And such as is our food, such must be our Vnion, by feeding [ 10] thereon; which wee say is by Faith, in this Sacrament; and you may not gain-say it, who, to comfort your Disciples, are g 1.9 taught to instruct them, that even without this Sacrament the Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man, with the Body of Christ; and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ, by a Spirituall maner of Eating. And this (you say) is To receive Christ his Body truely; albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire. So you. Whence you perceive our Infe∣rence, viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith, and Desire, without this Sacra∣ment; then, in our Sacramentall Eating thereof, may the [ 20] Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire; the Sacrament it selfe being a S••••le of this our Christian Faith.

CHAP. II. [ 30]

That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Par∣takers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and thereby united to Christ; in the judge∣ment of Protestants. SECT. I.

[ 40] OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus; The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner, even by faith; wherein the wicked, and such as are voyd of faith, eat it not: although they do visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof. But your Romish Church flatly otherwise, as you all know; and

therefore hath your Sympresbyter Masterh 1.10 Brerely endeavou∣red to assume some Protestants to be on your side, whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse, as hee hath cited Master Calvin: than whom hee could not have, in this case, a greater Adversary. For although Calvin grant, with all Protestants, that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly, by way of Sacra∣ment, the Body of Christ; yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ, because the Vnion, which wee havei 1.11 saith hee) is Onely Spirituall; onely with the soule; onely with the heart; onely by [ 10] faith; and although it be offered to the wicked, to be really re∣ceived, yet do they not receive it, because they are Carnall. Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall. So Master Calvin.

It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement, and (as well in this case, as others) by doubting his owne eye-sight, had borrowed yourk 1.12 Cardinall his Specta∣cles: then would hee have clearly perceived that (together with other Protestants) Calvin held that The wicked, although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body, yet [ 20] the Body it selfe they doe not receive. So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants. For although, indeed, Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ; yet, explayning himselfe, hee added these two words [In Sacramento, that is, Sacramentally;] which in Calvin's style is taken for Symboli∣cally onely. As for the Consent of Protestants herein, wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion, their greatest Ad∣versary, to expresse.l 1.13 Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Cal∣vinists in one Consent, for denying the Orall and Corporall Ea∣ting thereof; and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith. [ 30] Yet lest any may say, that, in receiving the same Sacrament, hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby; you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements, as thus: The same outward word, concerning Justification by Christ, co∣meth to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers. But the Believers onely are capable of Justification. [ 40]

That the wicked Communicants, albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body, yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body, for not re∣ceiving Spiritually, (namely) through their Con∣tempt, in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby. SECT. II.

[ 10] THe Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever (saith hee) Eateth this Bread, and Drinketh this Cup unworthily, hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And (vers. 29.) eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe, not discerning the Lords Body.

Your Remish Professours (men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause) objecting this against the Protestants, call upon you, saying firstm 1.14 Here upon marke well, that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ, be they Infidels, or ill livers, for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not. Second∣ly, [ 20] That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread, or a Cup of Wine, though they were a true Sacra∣ment; for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament, with will and intention to continue in sinne, or without repentance of former sinnes; but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sa∣crament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood, but here, where the unworthy Receiver (as Saintn 1.15 Chrysostome saith) do vill any to Christs owne Person, as the Iewes and Gentiles did, that crucified him. Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes, that Christ is herein really present. And guilty is hee, for not d••s∣cerning the Lords Body, that is, because hee putteth no difference [ 30] betweene this high meat and others. So your Rhemists.

Your Cardinall also, as though hee had found herein some∣thing for his purposeo 1.16 fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian, who accounted them, that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion, without repentance, to offer more injurie to Christ, by their polluted hands and mouthes, than they did in denying Christ▪ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods mi∣raculous vengeance upon those, who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament. So hee. All these points are reducible unto three heads. One is, that Ill men might not be held guilty of the [ 40] Body of Christ, except they did receive it, as being materially present in this Sacrament. Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament, which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament, therfore the injury is to be judged more personall. The last, that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts, for Contempt hereof, have beene more extraor∣dinary: which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former. Before wee handle these points in order, take our next

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Position for a Directory to that, which shall be answered in the sixt Section.

That some Fathers understood the Apostles words, 1. Corinth. 10. Spiritually, (namely) as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh, and drinking his Blood; both in the Old Testament and in the New. SECT. III.

VPon those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. [They [ 10] ate of the same Spirituall meate▪ &c.] The Iewes received the same Spirituall meatep 1.17 saith Saint Augustine; namely they who were faithfull. Yea (saith yourq 1.18 Cardinall) the Iewes received the same among themselves, but not the same with us Christians. So hee. Albeit the words of Augustine are plain∣ly thus; The same which wee eate: so plainely, that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it, that your Jesuitr 1.19 Maldonate, not able to gain-say this Truth, pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age, hee would thinke otherwise, especially per∣ceiving [ 20] Hereticall Calvinists, (ands 1.20 Calvin himselfe) to be of his opinion. So hee. Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites! surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation, of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and Corporall Vni∣on; against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine; whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes: whomt 1.21 Bertram followed in the same Exposition: and by your leave, so did [ 40] youru 1.22 Aquinas also; The same (saith hee) which wee eate. Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition, in the very words of Saint Augustine, The same which wee eat. Thus much by the way. Wee goe on to our Answers.

That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body; not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily, but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament there∣of Symbolically. SECT. IV.

THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine (who is still a re∣solute [ 10] Patron of our Cause) hath beene alwayes as gene∣rally acknowledged, as knowne, wherein hee will have us to discerne, in the Eucharist, the Sacrament from the thing repre∣sented, and exhibited thereby. Of the Sacrament hee saith that* 1.23 It is received of some to Life, and of some to destruction: but the thing it selfe (saith hee) is received of None, but to Salva∣tion. So hee No Protestant could speake more directly, or Conclusively for proofe; First, That, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked, as to the Godly. Secondly, That the Wicked for want of a [ 20] living faith, have no Hand to receive it. Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it, is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood. Fourthly, and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them.

{fleur-de-lys} If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked, for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament, in Contempt thereof; as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver, it Determinateth the Point in question, to prove the inconsequence of your reason, wher∣of you conclude, that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth [ 30] from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body, Now Saint Augustines words are, that1 1.24 Hee that contenineth to eate this, hath no life in him, and shall be deprived of life eter∣nall. Which is by his Contempt, not in the Receiving, but in the Not-Receiving thereof.

All which both the Evidence of Scripture, and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme. For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence, because Saint Pauls words are not; Hee that eateth the Body of Christ, and drinketh his Blood unworthily, is guilty of his Body and [ 40] Blood: but, Hee that enteth the Bread, and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily, &c, Which wee have proved through∣out the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine, the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood, after Consecration. And (to come to Antiquity) All the Fathers hereafter cited, who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ (albeit knowing, as well as you, that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of

Christ) will thereby sufficiently confute your Consequence, which is, that because the Wicked are guiltie of Christs Body; Ergo his Body is Corporally present in them. But wee pursue you yet further.

That a Guiltinesse of Contempt of Christs Body and Blood is to be acknowledged in all Prophane Neglect, even in not com∣municating thereof, by whatsoever person ca∣pable of this Blessed Sacrament. SECT. V. [ 10]

GVilty of the Lords Body:] that is, Guilty of the Con∣tempt thereof, as you well know. Now because Con∣tempt of a good thing is as well seene in a wilfull refusing to receive, as in a Contemptuous maner of Receiving; the Guilti∣nesse by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing of∣fered, whether it be Corporall or Spirituall; and Consequ••nt∣ly against the Giver himselfe. In which respect Christ com∣pareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salva∣tion unto beastly Hogs, which trample under their feete Pearles [ 20] of highest price, even because they would not beleeve them: Beleeving being our Spirituall Receiving. From the same Guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnesse to punishment, de∣nounced by our Saviour;* 1.25 To shake off the dust of their feate for a testimony against them, in not receiving the Gospell of Peace. Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacra∣ment, * 1.26 Contempt of a Sacrament (saith hee) is the Contempt of him whose Sacrament it is: As also that other of Rupertus, saying; y 1.27 The not receiving the Eucharist (if it be in Contempt) doth [ 30] separate the Contemner from the society of the members of Christ. Hence it was, that whereasa 1.28 Chrysostome called mans Ind••∣votion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous, hee named the Contempt of Not participating thereof, Pestilence, and death it selfe.

But not to presse you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers, wee shall referre you to your Divines of Collen, who in their Councel censured those, who Contemptuously refused to Communicate of this Sacrament, to be butb 1.29 only in name Christians, worse (say they) than the Capernaits, offering Contumely (marke wee pray you, against your Rhemists) to the [ 40] Body and Blood of Christ; and are made thereby Obnoxious to the terrible judgement of God. A Conclusion, whereby is satis∣fied, from your owne Doctors, your owne maine Objection, even in Terminis terminantibus, as the Schoole speaketh: pro∣fessing both mans Guiltinesse of Christs Body in not receiving this Sacrament, and Obnoxiousnesse thereupon unto Gods

judgement; as also hath beene evinced by the Judgement of S. Augustine, in the former Section.

As for the objected speech of Saint* 1.30 Cyprian it is of ••asie disgestion, because Comparisons of Magis, and Minus, (as lear∣ning teacheth) are altered upon all different respects. Some in persecution denyed Christ, in the extremity of their feare; and some in their wilfullnesse prophaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Christ. This latter is the greater sin∣ner before God, who judgeth sinne not onely Secundum actum, [ 10] aut effectum, according to the wicked deed done; but Secun∣dum Affectum, that is, but much more according to the De∣praved Affection▪ and Disposition of the mind of the Doer. In which respect wee may well thinke that Iudas his traiterous, and scornefull Kisse was more hainous than Peters perjurie. Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith, and vow of Baptisme, saying,* 1.31 They Crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God? which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guilty Receiver of the Eucharist; yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporall pre∣sence [ 20] of Christ in the Water of Baptisme. And as in the Guilt of sinne; so is it in the Guilt of punishment also, which followeth sinne, as a shadow doth a Body. In which consideration Au∣gustine doth parallell Baptisme, and the Eucharist together, say∣ing, c 1.32 As hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne judgement: So doth hee who receiveth Baptisme unworthily.

By these Premises you will furthermore easily discerne, that you other Romish Doctors have beene no lesse ignorant than they were arrogant, in concluding it to be an Infallible Conse∣quence, [ 30] that because Christ receiveth an injury in his Body and Blood, by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; therefore his Body and Blood is Corporally present therein. As if they would teach, by the like Inference, that because the Empresse d 1.33 Eudocia was (as is confessed) reproached by the Citizens of Antioch, in their despight wrought upon her Image; therefore was shee personally present in the same Image. Yea and your selves, when you plead for the Reverend use of Images, can be content to take your reason from thee 1.34 Example of Kings or Princes; as being injured by the abuse of their pictures.

[ 40] You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this ••oly Sacrament; it is well; yet were it better that you saw your owne Guiltinesse to repentance: Forasmuch as every one is an Vnworthy Receiver (in the judgement of Saintf 1.35 Am∣brose) who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himselfe. Your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution in this Sacrament (discovered in the First Booke) convinceth you of a Ten-fold Guiltinesse of the Vnworthy Receiving of this

Mysterie. Your last Objection of Guiltinesse hath beene ta∣ken from the Executions of Gods punishments. Wee there∣fore rejoyne.

That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things, without respect to the Corporall presence of Christ therein. SECT. VI. [ 10]

COme wee to the open judgements and punishments of God, upon the Contemners of this Sacrament, The visible Testimonies of his Justice, and Arguments of the preci∣ousnesse and holinesse of this Mysterie. These wee beleeve to be true, And the Apostle hath made it manifest, where (speaking of the great plague, which fell upon the Corinthians, who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) hee pointeth this out as their sinne, saying,* 1.36 [Ob hanc causam] For this cause are many sicke among you, and many [ 20] sleepe, &c. Yet was not this for no Discerning the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Eucharist (as your Disputers pretend:) but (to use Saintg 1.37 Hieromes words) They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, because they despised the Sacra∣ment of so great a Mysterie; (namely) by their prophane beha∣viour at their receiving thereof, as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanalls: or, as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause, h 1.38 For that they tooke it as homely, as their common bread.

{fleur-de-lys} And why should you conceive that to be singular in this one Sacrament, which Saint Hierome teacheth to be com∣mon [ 30] in all other?2 1.39 When the Sacraments (saith hee) are violated, hee, whose Sacraments they be, is violated and vilified. {fleur-de-lys}

All can point at the dolefull Example of Gods vengeance upon Iudas, the first unworthy Receiver; and therefore the sub∣ject of the first Document of Gods judgement, notwithstan∣ding that hee received but the Sacrament onely, and not the very Body of Christ, as Saint Augustine observed, saying; * 1.40 Hee received not the Bread, the Lord, but the Bread of the Lord. And how justly may wee thinke, did God punish certaine [ 40] k 1.41 Donatists, who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs, were themselves devoured of Dogs? Neither have these kindes of Gods judgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament onely, as you have instructed men to believe; for looke into the sacred story, and you shall find the men of* 1.42 Ashdod, for modling with the Arke of God, afflicted with Emrods: the men of* 1.43 Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter, for but peeping

into Gods Arke. Also* 1.44 Vzzah, no Priest; doth but touch the same Arke, (albeit with a good intent, to support it) and hee is suddainly strucke dead.* 1.45 Nadab and Abih•• prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering st••a••ge fire thereon; and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven, and perished▪ * 1.46 Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred boles of Gods Temple, in the Contempt of God, and of his Law; and be∣hold a Writing upon the wall, signifying that his Dayes were at an end, as it came to passe. And yet was there not any peculiar [ 10] existence of God in these Things.* 1.47 Boyes are mocking Gods ••rophet in Bethel, by noting him for a Bald pate, and are de∣vo••red by Beares. Th••* 1.48 People loathing Manna, are choaked with Quail••••.

If sacred stories will not prevaile, peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you: so the•• yourl 1.49 Bozius will tell you of them, who were suddainly strucke with the plague, called Saint Anthonies plague, one by for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image. Have you faith to believe this? and can you not conceive a like right Judgement against [ 20] the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ him∣selfe?

Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you, that the Sa∣crament, which is celebrated by Protestants, although▪ it con∣teine no Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ, yet is it not so Bare Bread, as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you, but that God hath manifested his Curses upon pro∣phane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery, which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Body and Blood of Christ. One example, whereof wee reade, is of one that [ 30] being afflicted in Conscience for his abuse of the Sacrament, in receiving it but in one kind,m 1.50 Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window, and so dyed. The other is that which hee (who now writeth these things) saw and can testifie, viz. n 1.51 A Bachelour of Arts, being Popishly affected, at the time of the Communion, tooke the Consecrated Bread, and forbea∣ring to eat it, conveyed and kept it closely for a time; and af∣terwards threw it over the walls of the College: but a short time after, not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience, hee threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chap∣pell, [ 40] and some few houres after ended his Life.

That onely the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and thereby Vnited unto him, is not Contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fa∣thers, as is Objected. SECT. VII.

YOur Doctor hath performed great diligence in collecting Sentences of Ancient Fathers, sounding to the Contrary, [ 10] out of3 1.52 Chrysostome, Speaking (saith hee) of the traytor Iu∣das his Receiving Christs Body; and what satisfaction (saith Chrysostome) shall wee give, if after wee have beene nourished with this Lambe, wee shall be turned into Wolves? And againe, 4 1.53 I will suffer rather than deliver Christs Body to the unwor∣thy Receiver. Thirdly,5 1.54 Thou art bold with uncleane hands and lips to touch the Body of Christ, thou wouldest not kisse the King with a stinking breath. Fourthly, out of Basil6 1.55 The ungodly handleth the Body of Christ. Fiftly, out of Theodo∣ret 7 1.56 That Christ gave to Iudas his precious Body. And [ 20] Lastly out of Saint Augustine8 1.57 That hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily, drinketh Iudgement unto him∣selfe. So your Doctor. Wee shall helpe him with ano∣ther Testimonie of9 1.58 Augustine, that Iudas sinned in wic∣kedly receiving the Body of Christ. But (not to usurpe in this place the Answer of your owne Doctors unto the Ordinary speeches of Chrysostome in his Homilies noting his Rhetoricall Hyperboles) wee answer directly from Saint Augustine him∣selfe, [ 30] who hath already told you, that the calling Bread the Body of Christ, is not spoken in the strictnesse of the truth of the thing, but in a Mysticall Signification, that is (said your owne Romish* 1.59 Glosse) unproperly.

The same Answer may serve for the Objected place of 10 1.60 Cyprian, wherein furthermore wee find a cleare Distin∣ction, betweene the Being of Christs Body Sacramentally in the Eucharist, (together with the Receiving thereof) and it's Being Spiritually; Concerning the Sacramentall virtue (namely the thing signified) which is ministerially offered to every Communicant, in every Divine Sacrament; but that this should be effectuall to any Communicant, it is ne∣cessary [ 40] that his Receiving be Spirituall. For Grace is the virtue of Baptisme to every Person baptized; yet (accor∣ding to the termes of Schooles) Hee, who either by his Infi∣delity, or Impenitency shall Obicem ponere, that is, set a

Barre, and resist that Grace, hee doth not receive it. A man that receiveth with his hand a politike Instrument, and Scale offered unto him, yet if hee yeeld not his Consent to accept of the Guift it selfe, therby conveyed, and in the ma∣ner that hee ought; it may well be sayd, that the thing thus bequeathed is really tendered, yet in respect of the Parties Contemning it, although it be touched and taken after the publike and Civill touch, yet notwithstanding is hee not partaker thereof: For which Cause it is added in Cyprian, that These are therefore the Savour of Life unto Life, to some; [ 10] and the Savour of Death unto the Contemners of them; which, as the Scripture teacheth, is common to the preaching of the Word of God likewise. Besides, do you not marke tha•• Cy∣prian speaketh of [Sacramenta, Sacraments,] in generall: But you have* 1.61 told us, that the two parts of the Eucharist, make but One Sacrament, and then may you, by the same Alchymie, as well extract a Corporall Presence of Christ out of Bap∣tisme, as out of the Eucharist.

[ 20] That the Vngodly do not Communicate of Christs Body in Re∣ceiving the Eucharist, is the Determinate Iudgement of Antiquity, and Consequently argueth a No-Cor∣porall presence of Christ, as an Vnion with him in the Eucharist. SECT. VIII.

AFter that you have heard the Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers, so Dissonantly objected for proofe of a Bodily [ 30] Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Hearken, I pray you, to their accurate and Determinate Resolutions, to the Contra∣ry. The Fathers (in the Margin) deliver their Judgements sometime in an Affirmative locution, concerning each true Communicant and partaker of Christs Sacred Body and Blood, saying of every such a one, that11 1.62 Hee is a mem∣ber of Christ. So Irenaeus. And12 1.63 Hee that eateth this Bread of life is joyned with Christ, and Christ dwelleth in him. So Cyrill. And13 1.64 Whosoever eateth of this meate shall live for ever. So Origen. And14 1.65 It is living Bread, which who so [ 40] eateth, liveth everlastingly. So Ambrose.15 1.66 The Vnion is that whereby the Eaters are sayd to be the members of Christ. So Chrysostome. Sometime more Emphatically, in a Nega∣tive style,16 1.67 Origen, No wicked one can eate this meat. As also Hierome,17 1.68 All that are not holy, do not eate Christs

Flesh or drinke his Blood. Wee reserve Saint Augustine for a peculiar Section, and our reason is, because your Dispu∣ters do so earnestly struggle to draw him to your part; but yet most vainely and unconscionably, as will appeare in the Section following.

Now whether side, yours, or ours, can more satisfactorily reconcile the seeming Contradictions of the Fathers, in say∣ing and gain-saying the Eating of Christs Flesh by the Wick∣ed, it will stand with equity and good Conscience, that they may carry the Cause. Your All-answer, and the An∣swer [ 10] of you All, is by Distinction, saying, that The wicked eate the Body of Christ Corporally in this Sacrament, by a Bodily Touch; but they eate it not Spiritually: for they eate it not wor∣thly, and in that respect are said not to eate it. So you. As if the Fathers, in denying the Wicked to be partakers of Christs Flesh, must have meant that they Eate it not wor∣thily. But this Distinction cannot possibly accord with your owne Romish Faith, which teacheth a Bodily Eating, with a Bodily Touch by a Bodily. Vnion of the Eater with the Body of Christ, common as well to Iudas, as to Peter; to the Pro∣phanest [ 20] miscreant, as to the Godliest Saint: yea to the very Beasts, as really as to Men.

If this had beene the ancient Catholike Faith, then could not these Fathers so peremptorily and precisely have deny∣ed, that any Wicked is joyned and united with Christs Body, and especially when they mention in expresse termes a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, by this Sacrament; which you your selves interpret to be spoken of your Corporall Vnion by a Bodily Touch; nor would Origen give this his absolute [Non posse,] [ 30] The Wicked cannot (saith he) be partakers of the flesh of Christ, which is implyed in the Sayings of the rest of the Fathers, when they speake so universally of the True Eater of Christs Body,* 1.69 That every such are joyned with him to Immortality. Whereof somewhat more hereafter.

But our Protestant Distinction, for reconciliation-sake, is, that the Fathers, in affirming The Wicked to eat the Body of Christ, spake onely Symbolically, to wit, as they called the Sacrament of Christs Body, the Body of Christ, Sacramen∣tally and Figuratively (as hath beene* 1.70 copiously and convin∣cingly [ 40] proved;) So do they affirme the Body of Christ to be Eaten of the Wicked, that is to say, Symbolically, by eating onely the Sacrament of his Body: But in affirming that the Godly onely eat Christs flesh, they spake of the Spiritually-Real Eating by Faith, which was the maner and meanes Spirituall of being truly Vnited to Christs flesh, and so to his person, God and man; and so, as his lively members, made Capa∣ble

of Immortality it selfe, as well in Body, as in Soule. This our Distinction, wee have received from Saint Augu∣stine, for whom both you and wee strive, as for the Homer of his age, and Patron of our Faith in this Point, which is to be tryed in the Section following.

In the Interim, you (who so earnestly plead against this privilege of the Godly to be partakers of Christs Body, by making the Wicked to be as Capable thereof, as any Sancti∣fyed member of Christ can be) thinke but with your selves, [ 10] how that Satan is sayd to have entred into the heart of Iudas, after his receiving of this Sacrament; and then tell us, if the Wicked be really partakers of Christs Body, and not to Contradict that Scripture, which denyeth that there can be any Communion with Christ and Beliall; yet will you inferre (in Iudas,) a Communion betweene Christ and Satan.

That Saint Augustine (to whom both sides appeale) is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause, for proofe, that the Wicked [ 20] eat not the Body of Christ: And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporall Presence in this Sacrament; noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine, by a Ro∣mish Doctor. SECT. IX.

YOu allege, and wee as willingly acknowledge, that Saint [ 30] Augustine said, that the Wicked, (and among others, even Iudas,) doe eat the Body of Christ; which hee meant (say wee) Metonymically and Figuratively, in as full a sense as if hee had flatly sayd, The Wicked eat onely the Sacramen∣tall Signe of his Body, because hee spake so, onely [Sacra∣mento tenus] that is Sacramentally. Which Distinction, as oft as it is seriously used by us, is as scornfully rejected by you: and therefore it will be requisite, that wee produce some Author hereof; who may be beyond all exception: And none, thinke wee, rather than Saint Augustine himselfe, [ 40] especially seeing that your Disputers do collect Testimonies out of him, in prejudice of this our defence; which is, that Saint Augustine denyed, that the Wicked receive the Body of Christ properly but onely the Sacrament thereof.

There were Prophane Spirits in the dayes of Saint Au∣gustine, who pampering themselves in their vices, notwith∣standing presumed of Salvation, because of their professing of the Catholike Faith, and of their being the Members of

Christs mysticall Body, which is his Church, and Conclu∣ded thereupon, That they, in communicating of this Sacrament, eat not onely the Sacrament, but indeed the Body of Christ. These Saint8 1.71 Augustine confuteth at large, instancing in the Eating of Christs Body, saith First, that They cannot be sayd to eat the Body of Christ, who are not to be reputed the mem∣bers of Christ: But are then the Wicked to be esteemed, by Saint Augustine, the Members of Christs mysticall Body? Saint Augustine himselfe saith no, and proveth as much from the Apostles words, [You cannot be the members of Christ, and the members of an Harlot.] How then are they sayd, in [ 10] the beginning of that Chapter of Saint Augustine, To eat, and now in the end thereof, Not to eat Christs Body? This [Hovv] is the very Birds eye, let therefore our ayme and levell be at this.

Those foresayd Prophane livers tooke to themselves this presumption for their Pillow to leane and sleepe upon, in indulging themselves in their wickednesse. Wee (say they) do eat, no onely the Sacrament, but indeed wee eat Christs Body it selfe, because wee are members of his mysticall Body. S. Au∣gustine answereth directly, that Christ by saying [Hee that [ 20] eateth my flesh abideth in mee,] sheweth what it is to Eat Christs Body [non Sacramento tenus] that is, Not onely as con∣cerning the Sacrament, but [Indeed,] So hee. Where wee have a flat opposition, betweene that which is called [Re∣vera] a Reall eating, against Eating onely Sacramentally. So that the Antithesis falling betweene these Termes, of Ea∣ting Christs Body [Revera, Indeed] by the Godly; and of Eating it onely [Sacramento tenus] as much as to say, Not indeed, by the Wicked: It must necessarily follow, that the [ 30] Wicked do not eat, Indeed, the Body of Christ; and Con∣sequently, that there is [not Indeed] in this Sacrament, the Corporall Presence of Christ, which your Profession tea∣cheth to be Eaten as well of a Wicked man, or of vile Myce, as it can be of the most Faithfull member of Christ. Againe Saint Augustine once told us, That the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ, not in the Truth of the thing, but in a Signifi∣cant mystery, which your owne Romish Glosse expoundeth to meane, that It is called Christs Body Improperly.

The Second Assertion of Saint Augustine will accord to our former Conclusion,9 1.72 Hee that abideth not in Christ [ 40] (saith hee) although hee presse with his Teeth, the Sacrament of Christs flesh; yet doth hee not Eat the Spirituall flesh of Christ. The Observable is, that hee saith not, They eat not Spiritually the flesh of Christ; But [They eat not the Spirituall

flesh of Christ:] therefore called Spirituall, because it is Hypostatically united unto his Deity. So then, that which they properly Eat, is not Christ Body, but onely the Sacra∣ment thereof: allowing no Corporall Touch with the Teeth, but onely of the Sacrament it selfe. Compare wee now this Doctrine of Saint Augustine of Pressing onely the Sa∣crament of Christs Body, and not Christs Body it selfe; with your Pope Nicholas his Profession of Tearing of Christs Body with mens Teeth,* 1.73 (above mentioned) and then will it be easie [ 10] for any man of but ordinary Capacity to collect, that Pope Nicholas, by his Affirmation, meant as directly to proclame your Romish Article of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament; as S. Augustine, by his Denyall, meant utterly to disclame and abandon it.

In the thire place, Saint Augustine, for your better instru∣ction, and apprehension of his meaning, exemplifyeth it by two notable Instances and Comparisons; the First, between two different kinds of Communicants, at our Lords owne Table, namely Christs faithfull Apostles, and the Reprobate [ 20] Iudas, saying,10 1.74 They received the Bread, the Lord; (mea∣ning the Body of Christ) But Iudas, What? Hee received but the Bread of the Lord (which was but the Sacramentall Bread.) The onely Answer which youri 1.75 Cardinall vouch∣safeth is, that Saint Augustine spake so, because Iudas ate the Bode of Christ Vnprofitably: as if the Difference of Eating, and, Not Eating, Christs Body had beene betweene the Dif∣ferent effects, Eating Profitably, and Not Profitably, which you call Spiritually, and not Spiritually, which is the Evasion of others: when as indeed the Comparision is expresly be∣tweene [ 30] the divers Subject matters of Eating; The one be∣ing Bread, the Lord, which is Christs Body; the other be∣ing the Bread of the Lord, which is the Sacramentall Bread; as any, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but an Halfe-eyed man, may easily discerne. Another Comparision remayneth, whereabout wee are to have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conflict with your Doctor Heskins.

A Vindication of a Speciall Testimony of Saint Augustine, in the same point, against the notorious Falsification [ 40] of his words, by Doctor Heskins. SECT. X.

DOctor Heskins, before that he deliver the Sentence it selfe, as a man but about to put on his Harnesse, and yet sounding a Triumph before the victory, prefaceth say∣ing; This place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so hard, that they have no refuge. So hee. The words of Saint

Austine (speaking of Moses and other Faithfull, in the Old Testament, who in eating Manna, ate Christ Spiritu∣ally, and therefore although they died in Body, yet died not Spiritually in their soules) are these11 1.76 [Multi mandu∣caverunt Manna & mortui non sunt, Quare? quia visibilem cibum Spiritualiter acceperunt—nam & hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus; sed aliud est Sacramentum, Aliud virtus Sacra∣menti. Quàm multi de Altari accipiunt & moriuntur?] That is, Many of them (the Jewes) ate Manna and died not; (namely in Soule) But why? Because they understood it Spi∣ritually; [ 10] For wee also, at this day, do receive the visible meat: But the Sacrament is one thing, and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing. How many do receive from the Altar and do die, and eate damnation to themselves. So hee. Namely (say wee) Because they ate onely the Sacrament, as the visible meat, and not the Virute, that is the Bodie of Christ signified thereby: And by this our Paraphrasis Saint Augustine is fully Pro∣testant, professing with us, that the Wicked Communicants do not eate the Body of Christ.

Your Doctor, to make Saint Augustine as flatly a Papist as [ 20] himselfe, hath framed12 1.77 See the Margin) a false Allega∣tion, by depraving the latter part of the Sentence of Saint Augustine, alleging them thus: Nam & multi hodie de Altari accipimus cibum visibilem: [Sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud Virtus Sacramenti? quam multi accipiunt & moriuntur.] that is, Many now rèceive from the Altar the visible meate; [But the Sacrament is one thing, and the Virtue of the Sacrament ano∣ther thing, which, many eating die.] And thereupon taking a full Cariere in a large Discourse (See the margin) argueth [ 30] thus. By the word [Virtue] (saith hee) is meant the Body of Christ: And by [Dying] is meant the death of the Soule; But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eate of this [Vir∣tue] or Body of Christ. So hee; Point-blanke Contrary to our Interpretation as can be, not but that wee confesse, that Saint Augustine by this word, Virtue, meant the Body of Christ; and that by Dying, is understood the Death of mens Soules; but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach here∣in That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Soules, do eate

the Virtue which is the Body of Christ; is a plaine Imposture by a Grossely false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustines words thus: [Aliud est virtus Sacramenti. Qudm multi &c.] wherein you see a full point, as a deepe Ditch, to sever virtus from the immediatly following word, Quàm, which your Doctor joyneth together, whereby the word, Virtus, is Vitiously abused. Then is he injurious to Quàm, which being an Adverbe, and carrying the Adverbiall Ac∣cent above-head, as a Badge of Distinction, hee notwith∣standing [ 10] turneth into a Pronoune-adjective, Quam; And thirdly, He wrongeth the Construction of them both, in matching, as it were in marriage, a little^u in Virtus, with a great Q in Quàm, whereas every Grammarian, by all the rules of Syntaxis, would forbid the Banes.

Wee know you (Romish Priests) to be reasonable men, and will therefore demand; whether hee had not reason, by some other Edition of Saint Augustine, to justifie his Al∣legation, and thereby his owne Conclusion, as if Saint Au∣gustine had meant, That the wicked do Dye in their Soule, by [ 20] unworthy Eating of the Reall Body of Christ? Wee answer, no: It is Impossible hee should evade by any such excuse, and lest wee may seeme to speake partially, wee shall offer un∣to you a witnesse hereof, without all exception, and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himselfe, the Expositor of his owne meaning in the very same Tractate, and in his words a little after expresly concluding the Contrary, saying: that 13 1.78 [Hee that eateth of this, so farre as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament, cannot Dye; albeit otherwise in respect of Ea∣ting onely the visible Sacrament, he do dye.] Where you see, [ 30] that none that eate the Virtue, which is (as hath beene con∣fessed) the Body of the Lord, dye the Death of the Soule. And for better explanation, hee distinguisheth, affirming that the Maner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament, is, Eating it, [Intus corde, Inwardly in the heart:] and the Eating of the other Sacrament it selfe, is Eating outwardly, and with the Teeth.

Now then, that your Doctors Error is found to be so pal∣pable, and our Cause so Justifiable, even by the Judgement of Saint Augustine, will you, (as you are reasonable) be also [ 40] so Conscionable to permit us, upon so great advantage, to retort that Epiphonema, wherewith your Doctor concludeth against us, after his Discourse of this and other Testimonies of Saint Augustine, already Answered, viz. Thus have you received the minde of Saint Augustine, as the Catholike Church teacheth, and not as the malignant feigneth. {fleur-de-lys}

CHAP. III.

Of the Capernaiticall Heresie, concerning the Bo∣dily Vnion with Christ by Eat∣ing, What it was.

1. That the Errour of the Capernaites, Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ. [ 10] SECT I.

MAster Brerely, the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse (lately published, and largely applauded by all of your profession) doth bestow a wholea 1.79 Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites, so that it must whol∣ly reflect (forsooth!) upon the Protestants. It is not needfull wee should deny, that in this Chapter of Saint [ 20] Iohn, Christ doth speake of the Eucharist, which if wee did, wee might be assisted by your owne Bishopb 1.80 Iansenius toge∣ther with divers* 1.81 others, whom your Jesuitec 1.82 Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned, Godly, and Catholike; yet fretteth not a little at them, for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn, there was no speech of the Eucharist, because by this their opposition hee was hindred (as thec 1.83) Jesuite himselfe saith) That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently in∣veigh against Protestants. Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth, as some [ 30] of the Fathers thought; but yet onely Sacramentally, and not Properly, as by them will be found true.

Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest,* 1.84 Christ having spoken (saith hee) of Eating his Flesh, and the Capernàites answering [How can hee give us his Flesh to eate?] They under∣stood eating with the mouth, yet were (a speciall observation) ne∣ver reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words, a strong reason that they understood them rightly; but for not be∣leeving them: and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh, and drinking of his Blood, and requiring them to beleeve, and [ 40] when hee saith [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth] it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence, or to qualifie his former sayings, but to admonish them not to judge things by carnall reason, and yet more evidently in the words following [There are some of you that beleeve not] Hee sayd not (saith Saint Augustine) there be some among you that understand not: so plain∣ly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand, but how to

beleeve; for had hee, for their better understanding, intended hereby to have qualified, or corrected his former sayings, as to be meant Eating Spiritually by Faith, hee would have explained him∣selfe in plaine termes, and so have satisfied the Iewes. Vpon which premises I do conclude, that because our Saviour did reprove his Scrupulous hearers not for want of understanding, but for want of beleefe, it doth from thence, and from other premises abun∣dantly follow that his fore-sayd promise was not obscure, and Figu∣rative, but plaine and literall for our receiving of him without our [ 10] bodily mouthes.

Thus farre your celebrious Priest, namely so, as in almost all other his Collections, not understanding the Truth of the mat∣ter. His Inferences stand thus. First, Christ reprehended the Capernaites, for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh: but not for not understanding them. Therefore it fol∣loweth that they understood his words, of Eating his Flesh, right well. Secondly, They understood his Speech: There∣fore Christ, in saying, The Flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, did not thereby qualifie his former speech, to [ 20] instruct their understanding: Thirdly, They needed no instru∣ction of their understanding; Therefore Christs words of Eating his Flesh, were not Figurative. Fourthly, these his words were not Figurative: Therefore his words of Eating his Flesh, teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament.

Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly; as confidently. For common learning teacheth, that there is a double consideration of Truth, in every True speech; the one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉that it is True; the second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉what is the Truth, or true sense thereof? To the apprehending of the first is requi∣red [ 30] Beliefe, whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Schollar, that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art (to wit) Oportet discentem credere: A Schollar is bound to beleeve. The other point, touching the Truth, or true sense, what it is, is the Object of mans understanding; so that there is a great dif∣ference betweene both these in the case of a Reprehension. As for example; the Master teaching the definition of Logick, say∣ing; It is an Art of Disputing rightly, may justly reprove his Schollar for his not beleeving it, because his not beleeving is wilfull: so can hee not for his not understanding it, for that hee [ 40] therefore learneth, because hee doth not understand; except it be, that being taught hee either through carelesse negli∣gence, or else affected ignorance will not understand.

This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Iohn 6. verse 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth, which descended from Hea∣ven to reveale the will of his Father, might justly exact Beliefe, that whatsoever hee spake to the sonnes of men was most true: as it is written, The will of God is, that whosoever beleeveth in

mee, &c. verse 40. viz. That they must Eate his Flesh. But his hearers could not understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉What was the true sense of these words, which caused them to say, This is an hard saying. There∣fore (like Schollars of preposterous wits) would they not be∣leeve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely That they were True: hence it was that Christ reproved them for not beleeving onely verse 64. and not for not understanding. Because it was as lawfull for Christs Dis∣ciples to be ignorant of his darke sayings and Parables (which were therefore so spoken, that his Schollars might more ear∣nestly labour to know them) as it was after lawfull for them to [ 10] seeke of their Master, (whose precept is to* 1.85 Seeke, and pro∣mise to Find) how to understand them. As it is written;* 1.86 His Disciples sayd unto him, Declare unto us the Parable of the Seed: and Christ answered them, Hee that soweth, &c.

That admirable Doctor of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Schollar of Christ (see his Testimony) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ, in the first place, Beliefe of Christs-words, that they are True, before they did understand what was the Truth thereof: con∣firming his Rule by that Scripture; Except you believe you shall not understand. O, but) the Capernaites (saith Master Brerely) [ 20] did understand Christs words right well. And Saintd 1.87 Augu∣stine contrary to Master Brerely, expressely answereth, They did not understand the Truth of Christ his Speech, but apprehended it foolishly and literally; nor was there ever any Father, or Author, no not in your owne Romish Church (wee thinke) before one Master Brerely, that thought otherwise. Wee are willing your Bishop Iansenius may moderate this Difference. (See the1 1.88 Margin.)

His second Assertion, touching that speech of Christ, [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickneth,] That it was [ 30] not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh, is very like also to be his owne, being flatly contrary to the same Father, whom hee avouched; for Saint Augu∣stine saith that Christ, by these words, taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating Spiritually; a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master, Cardinallf 1.89 Bel∣larmine, hath published, alleging for proofe thereof the Te∣stimonies of other Fathers, saying; Chrysostome, Theophylact, Euthemius, and also Origen so expoundeth it. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} Who notwithstanding should not have balked Tertullian, where [ 40] speaking of these Carnall Hearers, hee saith, that2 1.90 They

thought that speech of Christ to be hard and intollerable, as if Christ had determined to deliver his flesh to be (Marke) truly Eaten: therefore Christ added, saying The flesh profiteth no∣thing,] But for giving of Life, is required the Spirit, [The words which I speake are Spirit, and Life.] What can be more plaine to prove that the Truly proper Eating must needs sig∣nify an Eating Carnall, and Capernaiticall. {fleur-de-lys}

Master Brerely his third Inference is; Therefore the words, speaking of Eating his flesh, are not Figurative; which indeed [ 10] is the maine Controversie, for never any but an Infidell de∣nyed the speech of Christ to be true; nor yet did ever any, but an Orthodoxe, understand the Truth of the speech, what it was, that's to say, whether the Truth be according to a Literall sense, (as Master Brerely would have it) or else in a Figurative; which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke, from all kind of Evidences of Truth.

Here therefore wee are onely to deale with Master Brerely, and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine, to whom hee [ 20] would seeme to adhere. Notwithstanding (that wee may be∣leeve Master Brerely himselfe)h 1.91 If wee should attend to the properiety of Speech, Christs Blood is not properly drunke. So hee; albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood, as for Eating his Body. And hee (wee suppose) will confesse, that every speech, which is Vnproper, is Figurative. As for Saint Augustine, hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sense of Eating Christs Flesh, calling it* 1.92 Fla∣gitious. Besides, rather than wee should want witnesses, to averre this Truth, Divers Jesuites will be ready (in the* 1.93 following [ 30] Chapter) to tell Master Brerely flatly, that if hee say the words, Eating Christs Flesh, are properly spoken, he speaketh False.

II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence, as Pro∣testantly as can be. SECT. II.

MAster Brerely his Conclusion, taken from Christs speech of Eating, is to inferre a Corporall presence of Christ in [ 40] the Sacrament. {fleur-de-lys} But Saint Augustine upon these words of Christ, Iohn 6.3 1.94 [When you shall see the Sonne of man as∣cending into Heaven where hee was first] saith that Christ by those words, Assoyleth the doubt, which troubled and scanda∣lized

the Capernaites, who thought that Christ should give them his Flesh to eate; by saying, that he was to ascend into heaven, doubtlesse with his perfect Body; and that therefore they were not to thinke that his Body was to be given unto them, in the ma∣ner which they conceived, by eating it by Bits and Morsels. {fleur-de-lys} Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Au∣gustine to be, that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world, that hee being Bodily absent from the Earth, his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder. Thus hee against the Capernaites, which must as necessarily Confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his Flesh, whether it [ 10] be by Chewing, or Swallowing; whether Visibly, or Invisibly it mattereth not; because it being the same Body that ascended, were it Visibly, or Invisibly, it is equally absent from Earth.

{fleur-de-lys} As for the Remainders of that which is eaten of in the Sacrament, the* 1.95 Fathers (as wee have heard) have called them Fragments, and Bits. And that which Iudas received from the hand of Christ, Saint Augustine himselfe calleth 4 1.96 Buccella, a Morsell. If then by the judgement of Saint Augustine, Christ his Bodily Ascension into Heaven, proved that hee was not to be Eaten by Morsels here on Earth; then [ 20] must it thereupon necessarily follow, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, given to Iudas, which Saint Augustine calleth a Morsell, was not the Body and Flesh of Christ. {fleur-de-lys} Wee have no list, after so plaine a discovery of Master Brerely his manifold ignorances, to play upon his Person, but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors hee may be reduced unto the Truth, now, after his (fondly miscalled) Strong Reasoning to the Contrary.

CHAP. IV. [ 30]

That the now Romish maner of Vnion, and Bo∣dily receiving of the Body of Christ, is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds. SECT. I.

TEll us not that no Doctrine of your Church can be [ 40] called Hereticall, before that it be so judged by some Generall Councell: no, for Rectum est In∣dex sui & Obliqui, and therefore an evident Truth, written in the word of God, doth suffi∣ciently condemne the Contrary of Heresie, as well as Light doth discover and dispell Darkenesse. And this is manifest by

the example, which wee have now in hand, of the Capernaites, old Heretikes, (as all know) even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ his words of Eating his Flesh; and thereupon to have departed from Christ, Iohn 6.

• Your Romish particular maner of Corporall Re∣ceiving [ 10] of the Body of Christ in this Sacra∣ment, is Five-fould.
  • to wit in the
    • 1. Hand, by Touch, for Eating.
    • 2. Mouth, by Eating.
    • 3. Throat, by Swallowing.
    • 4. Belly, by Commixture.
    • 5. By Vnion in the Inferiour parts, unworthy to be named.

{fleur-de-lys} That the First maner of Romish Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants, by Bodily Touch, is Capernaiticall, and the Testimonies of the Fathers are unconscionably urged to the Contrary. [ 20] SECT. II.

VNion of Christ his Body, by a Bodily Touch, in gene∣rall, is the Adequate and Proper Subject of this whole Question, concerning Christ his Conjunction with the Bodies of the Receivers, in this our present Discourse; whether it be Touch by Hand, or Mouth, or Throat, &c. and there∣fore wee begin with the First degree of Touch, as it were by Hand; which, in the generalitie thereof, may imply all the other Touches. Your Objected Testimonies are, either our [ 30] of Cyrill, talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies, by parti∣cipation of this Sacrament to a1 1.97 Kin-like Touch of Christ's Bodie; or from Saint Chrysostome, where speaking of this Sacrament,2 1.98 Many (saith hee) desire to see the forme of Christ, and here Christ yeeldeth himselfe (in this Sacrament) not onely to be seene, but also to be felt and Touched. And this will your Doctors needs inforce upon us, for proofe of a Cor∣porall Touch, and Consequently a Corporall presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist.

But do you not see, in this Testimony, the word [See,] [ 40] as well as the word [Touch?] and are you now to learne that which you all teach, that Christs Body, as it is in this Sa∣crament, is altogether Invisible beyond mans Imagination, and not to be seene of men; no, nor yet to be discernd by the very Devills. Besides, that All mens eyes, by Contemplation, can avouch it to be nothing lesse than Seene. So that the word [Seene] being so Vnproperly and Figuratively spoken, might have given you reason to discerne, that hee used the same

Impropriety of Phrase in the other word [Touch.] Yea, and Chrysostome himselfe will tell you, that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch; when in an Homily hee willed the People3 1.99 To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet.

But what need many words, your owne Doctor and Di∣ctator of Romish Profession, Aquinas affirmeth also4 1.100 That the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is not subject to any sense at all. And more particularly, for the sense of Tou∣ching, your Vasquez speaking with Assurance,5 1.101 Christ, (saith hee) as hee is in this Sacrament, can neither touch, nor [ 10] be touched of any thing. And your* Schoole againe giveth rea∣sons hereof.

Therefore can it be no lesse than a blind Boldnesse, to urge the word [Touch,] as Properly spoken by these Ancient Fathers, which you have learned, by your Fathers, of the Romish Profession, cannot properly agree with the Body of Christ. What evasion have you now? Forsooth6 1.102 The Cause (saith the same Vasquez) is, as it was with Christ when he sayd Who Toucheth me] when men touched him, but not immedi∣atly, but by Touching his garment. So he. But soft Sir, you your selfe have already affirmed, That Christ cannot possibly either [ 20] Touch or be Touched of any thing in this Sacrament, accor∣ding to the Doctrine of Aquinas, who giveth this reason, for* 1.103 That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christs Body herein, not so much as by the Accidents, or formes of Bread and Wine, neither mediatly nor immediatly; which sheweth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christs Vestment, (and thereby his sacred Body, which was touched by the same Vestment immediatly) and here Touching Christs Body by the Accidents of Bread, [ 30] which you grant, do neither Touch Christs Body, nor are Touched by it; because Christs Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents. From the Manuall Touch, by Handling, wee proceed to the Orall, by Eating. {fleur-de-lys} [ 40]

CHAP. V.

Of the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with Christs Body by Eating.

That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ, which is by Orall Eating, once professed in the Church of Rome, was both Capernaitically-Hereticall, and [ 10] is also still no lesse, in the Profession of di∣vers in the same Church. SECT. I.

THe first member wil appeare by the Faith of the Church of Rome, in the Dayes of Pope Nicholas, whose Faith (about the yeare 1509.) may be best known by the Oath, which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius, concerning the Eating of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament. Which Oath [ 20] (as youra 1.104 Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the Sto∣ries of those times) Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councel held at Rome revised, approved, and prescribed to Berengarius to take, for the abjuration of his Errour, concerning the maner of Eating the Body of Christ; and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authority throughout all the Cities of Italy, France, and Germany; and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come. So hee. You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath, which must be as truly Romish, as either Romane Pope, or Romane Councel could devise.

[ 30] Marke then the enjoyned tenour of the Oath. I Berengarius Archdeacon, &c. do firmely professe, that I hold that Faith, which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath com∣manded mee to hold, (to wit) That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament, not onely as a Sacrament, but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest, and broken and torne with the Teeth of the faithfull. So the Oath. The same forme of Ab∣juration is registred in the publike Papallb 1.105 Decrees: and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth. The same Faith was im∣braced [ 40] afterwar••••••ds of somec 1.106 Schoolemen, who, without

any Distinction, used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth.

Secondly, of aftertimes, yourd 1.107 Canus asseverantly in∣ferreth of the Body of Christ, that If it be eaten, then cer∣tainly it is broken and torne with the teeth. But most Emphati∣cally your Cardinalle 1.108 Alan. It is sayd (saith he) to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull, no lesse properly, than if it should be sayd so of the Bread, if it were eaten. {fleur-de-lys} Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your owne Pope Innocent the third, tea∣ching that1 1.109 Not the Body of Christ, but the formes of Bread are sayd to be broken, because this notifyeth a Corruption (mea∣ning) [ 10] of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torne. {fleur-de-lys} Yea and your Cardinallg 1.110 arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward , for proofe of Transub∣stantiation, hath recourse unto the same Romane Councel, which hee styleth Generall, and noteth the thing defined to have beene the Iudgement of the Church; and that the same Iudgement was Delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curs•• against the Gain-sayers: and therefore Hee, with his Disciple Masterh 1.111 Fisher (who also allegeth the same) are Challengea∣ble to hold it according to the literall sense thereof; because it will not admit any qualification, by any Trope or Figure that [ 20] can be devised. First, because the words are purposely set downe, as a Forme of Recantation and Abjuration of Heresie: but (asi 1.112 you confesse) There are no formes of speech more ex∣act and proper in phrase, concerning the matter of faith, than such as are used by them that abjure Heresie. And Secondly, for that this Forme of words, of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ, was also made purposely for Abjuration, and abandoning all Figurative sense, for the Defence of the literall Exposition [ 30] of the words of Christ [This is my Body, &c.] therefore was it taken literally: But what (thinke you) will Calvin say to this your (then) Romish forme of Profession, in the literall sense? k 1.113 A man should rather wish to die on hundred times (saith hee) than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine, so monstrously sacri∣legious. Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good.

That the foresayd Romane Faith, of Properly Eating the Body of Christ, is Capernaitically-Hereticall; as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church. SECT. II.

YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation of Heresie, according to the faith of the (then) Romane Church, in [ 10] Breaking the Body of Christ, and tearing it sensibly with their teeth. Hearken now a little, and you shall heare, in a maner, an Abrenuntiation of that (then) Romane faith, by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne, even by the Jesuites themselves.l 1.114 Reall Eating (saith your Salmeron) requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten: but the Body of Christ is not torne with teeth, or touched by them that eat him, because hee is herein impartible. So hee. Your Jesuite and Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward is as it were in a maze, say∣ing [ 20] and gain-saying, as you may perceive: yet notwithstan∣ding, whether hee will or no, must perforce confesse no lesse, when hee saith thatm 1.115 The Body of Christ is not absolutely ea∣ten, but eaten under the formes of Bread: and that is to say (saith hee) the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten. So hee. If this imported a literall maner of Eating, then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe; My Clothes are torne, therefore my Body is rent in pieces. Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy, that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours. But to the point.

If onely the Accidents of Bread be (as hee saith) sensibly ea∣ten, then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs [ 30] Body sensibly, in your Cardinalls opinion, not True. And upon the same Ground it is, that your Iesuitn 1.116 Suarez, out of Thomas, and other Schoolemen, affirmeth the word [Broken] to be a Metaphoricall phrase, not properly belonging to the Body of Christ; because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken. So hee, as also your* 1.117 Canus hath concluded. And youro 1.118 Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you, that these Propositions, The Body of Christ is Eaten, is Broken, Torne with the Teeth, or Devoured of us (properly taken) are false. Thus your Iesuites, as [ 40] if they had expressely sayd, that to thinke the Body of Christ to

be eaten, torne, or devoured (properly taken) is a Carnall, Caper∣naiticall, and (as your ownep 1.119 Glosse in Gratian concludeth) an Hereticall opinion.

Will you have any more? It is but the last day, in respect, whenq 1.120 one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body, that hee called the Ob∣jecting hereof against your Church, in his blind zeale, Blas∣phemie: and answereth, that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh, than Caiphas tore his, when he rent his Clothes. The case then is plaine enough, for Confutation of your more ancient Ro∣mish [ 10] Faith.

That the former Romish and Popish Faith, for the Maner of re∣ceiving of the Body of Christ, is at this day but some∣what altered; yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse. [ 20] SECT. III.

PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation against your Romish Professors, to prove their Infidelity in that which they seeme to professe. As first, that the Ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ, when hee sayd [Take, eate, this is my Body:] yet now are you compelled to say, that Properly eaten, is no proper, but a false sense.

Your Second Doctrine is, that the Judgement of a Romane [ 30] Pope, in a Romane Councell, in a matter of Faith, is Infallible. Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas, with his Romane Councel, is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration, which of all others (as hath beene confessed) is most Literall, and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ; and forth-with published throughout Italy, France, Germany, &c. to direct men in the Faith of sensuall Ea∣ting, breaking, and tearing the Flesh of Christ with their teeth: yet notwithstanding, your common Judgement being now to reject such phrases, taken in their proper Signification, and in [ 40] a maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation, what is, if this be not an Argument that either you say, you care not, or else you beleeve you know not what? Let us goe on, in pur∣suit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating, which you still maintaine, and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough. And lest that you may evade, by pretence of Not-Chewing, wee adde as followeth.

That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament, was an∣ciently by Chewing. SECT. IV.

CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating, at the time of Christ his Institution, as is proved by your owne* 1.121 Confession, in granting that the unleavened [ 10] Bread, which Christ used, was [Glutinosus,] that is, gluish, clam∣mie, and such as was to be cut with a knife. But that the same maner of Eating, by Chewing, was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times, is not read of by any Canon; yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church, whether Greek, or Latine: among whom, Saint Augustine called the maner of eating, a* 1.122 Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth. That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty yeares after Christ, is not obscurely implyed in the for∣mer tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius, prescribed by the [ 20] same Church; which was to eat (as you have heard) By tearing it with teeth. And lastly, that this hath since continued the or∣dinary Custome of the same Church, is as evident by your Car∣dinall Alan, and Canus,* 1.123 who have defended the maner of Ea∣ting, by Tearing. Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of yourr 1.124 Jesuites, not enduring Chewing, perswaded the Contrary. Which kinds of Eating, whether by Chewing; or Swallowing of Christs Flesh, being both Orall, none can deny to have beene the opinion of thes 1.125 Ca∣pernaites. First of Chewing; and then afterwards of Swallow∣ing [ 30] in the sixt Chapter following, in it's due place.

That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie, is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. SECT. V.

[ 40] SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Ca∣pernaites, set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false inter∣preting the words of Christ, when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh, which they understood literally. But this literall sense a 1.126 Origen calleth a Killing letter, that is, a pernicious interpre∣tation,

even as of that other Scripture [Hee that hath not a Sword, let him buy one: &c.] but this latter is altogether Figu∣rative, as you know, and hath a Spirituall understanding, there∣fore the former is Figurative also.

Athanasiusb 1.127 confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corpo∣rall Eating of Christs Flesh, will have us to observe, that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh, did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven, but why? That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense, namely, of Eating it Corporally upon Earth, which is your Romish sense. {fleur-de-lys} His [ 10] Reason, Reduced into Logicall forme, must have beene this, against the Capernaites (who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh.) That which was to ascend into Heaven, could not be eaten Corporally on Earth: But Christ sayd that his Bo∣dy should ascend into Heaven. And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth; which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves. {fleur-de-lys}

Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying, [It is the Spirit which quickeneth] because the Capernaites so under∣stood [ 20] the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh, As if (saithc 1.128 Tertullian) Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten. Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating.d 1.129 Augustine, out of the sixt of Iohn, bring∣eth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh, and saying, You are not to eate this flesh which you see, I have com∣mended unto you a Sacrament, which being Spiritually understood shall revive you. Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally; and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body: and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating, A [ 30] pressing of Bread with the teeth. Wee say Bread, not the Body of Christ. For, when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh, hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments, and requireth only the Spirituall, saying,e 1.130 Why preparest thou thy Tooth? It is then no Corporall Eating: and hee addeth; Believe, and thou hast eaten. Saint Augustine goeth on, and knowing that Cor∣porall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing, by dividing the thing eaten into parts (as your owne Iesuit hath* 1.131 confessed) lest wee should understand this properly, hee teacheth us to sayf 1.132 Christ is not divided into parts. Contrarily, when [ 40] wee speake Sacramentally, that is, Figuratively, and improper∣ly, hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament, but remayneth whole in Heaven.

Say now; will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist, in a literall sense? your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so. And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body, in a literall sense? then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech, which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ.

{fleur-de-lys} Wee may not conceale the Evasion, which your Dispu∣ters have devised, for blunting the Di••t of this notable Sen∣tence. [ 10] You see not the same Body (saith Saint Augustin)1 1.133 That is (say they) not after the same maner (namely) not in a visible and mortall shape. So they. Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant, by skipping from the Predicament of Substance, to the Predicament of Quality? You shall not eat the same Body (saith Saint Augustine) What then shall they eat? Hee addeth, I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten. Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augu∣stine, is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body, and the Sa∣crament of Bread; as betweene Substance, and Substance; [ 20] for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it, to signify the maner of Eating invisibly: but you are not to eat That which you see; as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight; even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse him∣selfe, as well in that place where hee called his Body, The Bread, the Lord: and the Sacrament, The Bread of the Lord: like as your owne2 1.134 Schoolemen discerned his meaning in the other words, of Eating▪ as yet not making parts of his Body, but of the Sacrament of his Body. {fleur-de-lys}

Lastly, do but call to mind Saint* 1.135 Augustines Observation [ 30] (just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius) to wit, Christs mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth, lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his flesh; and these Premises will fully manifest, that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish, as Heaven is distant from Earth. Wee still stand unto Christs Qualifica∣tion of his owne speech, when hee condemned all Carnall sense of Eating his flesh, saying thereof, The flesh profiteth no∣thing, &c.

For Conclusion of this Point, you may take unto you the [ 40] Commentary of Sainti 1.136 Chrysostome, as followeth; Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh? farre be it from us (saith hee) so to thinke! for how shall that flesh not profit, without which none can have life? but in saying [The flesh profiteth nothing] is meant

the carnall understanding of the words of Christ. And that you may know how absolutely hee abandoneth all carnall under∣standing of Christs words, of Eating his flesh, hee sayth, They have no fleshly, or naturall Consequence at all. So hee. Ergo, say wee (to the Confutation of your Romish Beliefe) no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths, no Corporall Eating with your teeth, no Corporall Swallowing downe your throat; how much less any Corporall mixture in your Bellies or Guts, as your Romane * 1.137 Church professeth. [ 10]

CHALLENGE.

WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eate Christs Flesh raw, or roasted; torne, or whole; dead, or alive; seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof, properly taken, is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall, it cannot be that the Romish maner of Eating should accord, in the Judgement of Antiquity, with the Doctrine of Christ. Notwithstan∣ding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity, [ 20] by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers; and wee are as willing to give you Answering.

The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers, in wrest∣ing the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ, proved by just eviden∣ces out of the Fathers [ 30] themselves. SECT. VI.

IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers, by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fa∣thers in a literall sense, against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary. I.k 1.138 Origen (say you) will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe unworthy, that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth. Right, hee saith so, but in the same sense wherein hee equivalently sayd, that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor, must know [ 40] that now Christ entreth under his roofe, namely, Christ, Figura∣tively. II. Chrysostome (who speaketh in the highest straine) saith thatl 1.139 Wee see, touch, eate, and teare with our teeth the

Flesh of Christ. True, but, to note that hee spa••e it in a Rhetoricall & Figurative sense, he equivalently saith also in the same place; Our tongues are made red with his Blood. And elsewhere, to put all out of question;* 1.140 These (saith he) are Spirituall, and containe no Carnall thing. Yet what need you our Comment? Your Josuit Maldonate would haue gladly prevented us,3 1.141 The words of Chrysostome (saith hee) of tearing the Flesh of Christ, cannot be o∣therwise understood, than Sacramentally. Euen he, which concluded but now, that to say* 1.142 We eat Christs Flesh, properly, is a false pro∣position. [ 10] {fleur-de-lys} And touching the other Phrase, S. Augustine as Em∣phatically of Baptisme,4 1.143 It is red with the Blood of Christ. {fleur-de-lys}

III. Gaudentius (say you) saitho 1.144 We receive the Body which Christ reacheth, making of Bread his Body. We grant he sayd so, but hee interpreteth himselfe, saying; Christ would have our soules sanctified with the Image of his Passion. Againe, scan but his former words, Christ made his Body [de Pane, of Bread] in the literall Sense, and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin. IV. Butp 1.145 Augustine teacheth that We receive the Body of Christ both with heart and mouth. Which yourq 1.146 Ob∣jector [ 20] noteth, as being very not able for the Orall Receiving, Cor∣porally; albeit the same S. Augustine immediatly expresseth, that this, & all other such speeches are to be understood figuratively; and unproperly. V. But Pope Leo is brought in, saying [r 1.147 Gusta∣mus] Wee tast with our Flesh the Flesh of Christ. Nay, but you have corrupted his Saying, for his word is [Gestamus] We beare or carrie it, (namely) by being Baptized (as there is expressed) whereof the Apostle sayd; You have put on Christ. VI. But Pope Gregorie (say you) saith;s 1.148 The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both Posts, when we receive it both with heart and mouth. Which (we say) he spake with the same Impropriety of speech, wherein he addeth equivalently, that The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon [ 30] the upper postes, when wee carry in our fore-heads (by Baptisme) the Signe of the Crosse. VII. Butt 1.149 None receiveth (saith Hesychius) save hee that perceiveth the truth of his Blood. But how? even as hee himselfe there addeth, By receiving the memory of his Passion.

{fleur-de-lys} In all the former Sentences of Saint Augustine, Pope Leo, and Pope Gregorie, all that wee reade of is, that the Body of Christ is Received in the Sacrament, not onely with the heart, or by Faith; but also with the mouth. And so will any Protestant affirme, not only in the same words of the Fathers, but also in their owne genuine Sense: if Saint Augustine, who is ob∣jected in the first place, may interp••et his other Contests, who (in a Section before) sayes, as you have heard, that Bread is called Christs Body, not in the Truth of the things, namely, of propriety of speech, according to the letter, but [ 10] in a Significant mysterie, or Mysticall Signification. To sig∣nifie unto us that Christs Body is in our heart Really, and in our mouths Sacramentally. {fleur-de-lys}

VIII. But Optatus tels usu 1.150 that The members of Christ are upon the Altar: And that The Altar is the Seat of his Body and Blood: and that it is an bainous thing to breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ, &c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus, indeed, which you have objected: but, alas! my Ma∣sters, will you never learne the Dialect of Ancient Fathers, af∣ter so many examples, as it were lights, to illuminate your [ 20] judgements? Wherein (as other Fathers have done) Optatus will instruct you in his owne language, who presently after in∣veighing against the same Donatists, saith; Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar. So hee; by the Hyperbole making Christ to be beaten, wherewith hee sayd Christ was seated on the Altar. Yea and that the Members of Christ are carried also on the same Altars: meaning thereby the Faithfull Communicants, as is confessed by your owne* 1.151 Bishop (in the margin.) Namely in the same Rhetoricall sense, wherwithx 1.152 Augustine sayd of all the Faithfull Christian Communicants: You are on the Table; [ 30] you are in the Cup.

IX. Augustine doubted not to say of this Vi•••••• word, the Sacrament of Christ,y 1.153 The Lords Blood is po••••ed out into the mouthes of the faithfull. And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God, that when it is preachedz 1.154 The Blood of Christ (by it) is powred into the eares of the Hearers.

Mastera 1.155 Brerly would thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie, in the name of Cyprian; Wee are joyned with his Blood, not onely outwardly, 'but also inwardly our soules are for∣tified with the Sprinkling thereof. So Cyprian. What meaneth [ 40] this? not onely outwardly, meaning in Body (saith Master Brerely, and addeth) which convinceth our Bodliy Receiving ther∣of

So hee. From the same Cyprian, who, in the same place, saith in the same style,b 1.156 Wee cleave to his Crosse, sucke his Blood, and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer, which are all Sacramentall, Allegoricall, and Tropologicall Phra∣ses; as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe, in respect of our outward man, and spiritually of the inward. Wee shall de∣sire Cyprian to be Moderator betweene us in this question, be∣fore wee come to an end of this Booke.

CHALLENGE.

[ 10] BY this time it may appeare that all your so serious and ex∣quisite Collections out of the Fathers, for proofe of a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and Vnion with the Partakers thereof, are found by this Encounter of just Pa∣rallels, to be indeed the idle imagination of your Teachers, and the erroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples, who yeeld assent unto them. For to interpret the Figurative spee∣ches of the Fathers literally, is all one, as to sticke Goose-fea∣thers in their Caps, and plainely to befoole them; by making [ 20] them of all others the most egregiously absurd (as you have al∣ready heard,) and no lesse fond in the outward letter, than are these others that follow; (to wit) of Gaudentius;c 1.157 Wee are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity, with the feete of his Incarnation. Or the saying of Saint Hierome;d 1.158 When Christ sayd, Hee that drinketh my Blood, although it may be understood in a Mystery, yet the truer blood (saith hee) is the word of Scrip∣ture. Or as before him, Origen;e 1.159 Wee drinke the Blood of Christ (saith hee) not onely by the rite of a Sacrament, but also in receiving his word, whereof it is sayd, My words are Spirit and [ 30] Life. So they.

And so just Cause have wee to complaine of the Vnconsci∣onablenesse of your Objectors, by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers; insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your owne Senensis:f 1.160 I have often given warning (saith hee) that the Sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidnesse of their words, because they use to speake many times HYPERBOLICALLY, and in excesse, being ei∣ther transported by the vehemency of their Affections, or carried with the Current of their Speech. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} Thus have wee [ 40] satisfied the objected Testimonies of the Fathers, by the Fa∣thers owne Equivalent Phrases and Expressions; All which challenge your Objectours of Vnconscionablenesse, for alleging them contrary to their owne Sense. Our next Section of Vnconscionablenesse will pierce deeper, by pro∣ving that you have alleged the fore-sayd Testimonies of the Fathers against your owne more direct, and free Con∣fessions.

The Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Disputers, in Object∣ing the former Testimonies of Ancient Fathers: from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. VII.

THis Section is to be divided into two Classes of Authors: One is of the Sayings of the Fathers, which you have [ 10] earnestly objected: And the other must be of the Confessi∣ons of your owne Doctors, as well Iesuites as others, by whom the literall sense of the same Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers, are as liberally and expresly rejected. The Termes of the Fathers, which have beene alleged in the two former Sections were of these kinds; to wit, Christs Body, received in this Sacrament, is Tasted, Divided, Broken, Torne with the Teeth; And his Blood Sprinkled, and Powred into our mouths, and Drunken. If any Protestant should say that these speeches of the Fathers, are all Improper & Figurative, [ 20] and therfore prove not your Conclusion (which is, that they meant Really a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament) you would say that he interpreted the sayings of the same Or∣thodox Fathers falsly & Heretically, according to your maner of phrasing and en••tyling Protestants, to make their Answer•• seeme Odious. Wherefore wee now crave leave of you that wee may beleeve your owne Doctors themselves, from their owne Confessions, (See the Margin:) wee meane such, who, without exception, are privileged in your Church. By name, Lumbard, Aquinas, Alphonsus de Castr••, [ 30] together with your Jesuites arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward , Suarez, Maldonate, Salmeron, Sa, Vasquez, Costerus, and others, all which tell us* 1.161 Respectively. I. Of [Taste.] Wee cannot say that one doth Taste of Christs Body properly, but by a Figure. II. Of [Dividing.] Christ, in this Sacrament, is whole in every part thereof, and cannot be Divided; because hee is impartible. III. Of [Broken.] Christs Body is not sayd to be Broken in it selfe, but onely in the Sacrament of Bread; and to say that Christs Body is properly Broken, were a false speech, and not agree∣able to Christs Body. IV. Of [Tearing.] Christs Bodie [ 40]

(say they) cannot be sayd to be Torne, but onely Tropically, be∣cause it is not Divisible: and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christs Body is Torne with the teeth of the Commu∣nicants, is Blasphemous. V. Of [Eating.] The Body of Christ is not absolutely Eaten, because if absolutely Eaten, then should it be torne with the Teeth, and if so, then also divided into parts: It is therefore sayd to be torne, by a Figure, because the formes of Bread are torne with the Teeth. Of the VI, and VII. [Sprinkling, and Powring out of Blood.] Those [ 10] are not to be attributed to Christs Blood in the Sacrament; be∣cause these betoken a Shedding thereof, which is a Separation of it from his Body, which was never but once on the Crosse; nor is it properly Drunken. So they. That is to say; So have they Objected the Sentences of the Fathers: and So have they answered: and consequently So have also confu∣ted themselves. {fleur-de-lys}

[ 20] CHAP. VI.

The Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ, with the Bodies of the Com∣municants, is with Swallow∣ing it downe. SECT I.

YOur Generall Tenet is, That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers, So long as the formes of Bread and Wine do continne. Nex thata 1.162 It is swallowed downe, and transmitted unto the Stomach: Yet further, that your Priest in your Romane Masse is injoyned to pray, saying;b 1.163 O Lord, let thy Body which I have taken, and Blood which I have drunke, cleave unto my Guts, or Entrails. And a lessec 1.164 Mis∣sall (but yet of equall Authority) teacheth all you English Priests to pray, saying; O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food, grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be [ 40] awanting either to our Bodies, or Soules. {fleur-de-lys} Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth,1 1.165 That the Body of Christ cea∣seth not to be in this Sacrament, so long as the forme of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof. So hee. Not excepting any Eater, whether it be Man, or Beast; thereby embracing this

Opinion; namely,2 1.166 That a Beast eating this Sacrament, thereby doth Devoure the true Body of Christ: which you call The Common Opinion of your Church, taught and defined by Pope Gregory the Eleventh. {fleur-de-lys}

That this former Doctrine is fully and fil∣thily Capernaiticall [ 10] SECT. II.

IN this Romish Profession every one may see, in your Cor∣porall presence, two most vile and ugly Assumptions; One is, of your Devouring of Christ, and feeding bodily on him. The other is a Possibility of (saying your presence) passing him downeward Into the Draught and Seege; that being as ill, this peradventure worse, than any Capernaiticall Infatuation; for which cause it was that your Jesuite Maldonate, although gran∣ting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomachs, yet [ 20] * 1.167 denyed, for shame, that you are Devourers thereof.

But, I beseech you, what then meaneth that, which your Ro∣mish Instructions, Decrees, and Missals (as wee have* 1.168 heard) do teach you to do with the Hoast, in case that any either through Infirmity, or by Surfet and Drunkennesse, shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomach? Wee demand, may your Com∣municants be [Vomitores,] to cast it up againe, and can you de∣ny but that they must first have beene [Voratores,] to have de∣voured that which they do so Disgorge? Will you beleeve [ 30] your Jesuiref 1.169 Osorius? To Devoure a thing (saith he) is to swallow it downe by Chewing. Say now, do you Swallow the Sa∣crament by Chewing it? then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christs Body. But do you Swallow it without Chewing? then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof. Say not, that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt, therefore he cannot be said by Corporall Swallowing to be Devoured: for his Body was not corrupted in the G••ave, and yet was it truly Buried; and his Type thereof, even Ionas without Mastication was Swallow∣ed up into the Belly of the Whale, and yet had no hurt. Not∣withstanding, [ 40] he was first caught and devoured, who was after∣ward cast up and vomited.

That the same Romish maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly, is proved to be Capernaiticall, by the Iudgement of Antiquity. SECT. III.

TTheophylactg 1.170 noted the Capernaites Opinion to have bin, that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, De∣vourers [ 10] of flesh, where as the words of Christ (saith he) are to be un∣derstood Spiritually, and so will it be knowne that wee Christians (what?) are not Devourers of Christ. So he. But, that Swal∣lowing (properly taken) is a Devouring, hath beene proved: and, if Devoured, then why not also (that which is the Basest of all Basenesse) passed downe, by Egestion, into the Seege? where∣of the Antient Fathers have thus Determined. Origen, that h 1.171 The materiall part of this meate, Sanctified by prayer, passeth into the Draught: which (saith hee) I speake of the Symbolicall Bodie, &c.

[ 20] Here will be no place for youri 1.172 Cardinalls Crotchets, who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist, would have us by Materials to understand Accidents in respect (saith hee) of Sanctification, which they had, and of Magnitude, which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing, than to the forme: and by Symbolicall Body, to conceive, that this was meant of the Body of Christ it selfe, as it is present in this Sacrament, a Signe, or Symboll of it selfe, as it was on the Crosse. So he; as if he meant to Crosse Origens intention throughout every part of his Testimony.

[ 30] For first, That which he called Bread, hee calleth also meat Sanctified. Secondly, That Meat he termeth Materiall. Third∣ly, This Materiall, he saith, passeth into the Draught. Lastly, concluding his speech, concerning the Sacramentall Body, and saying; Hithe•• have I spoken of the Symbolicall Body; immedi∣atly he maketh his ••ransition to speake of the Incarnate Body of Christ, as it is the True Soules meate. But first, meerely Ac∣cidents were never called, by Ancient Fathers, Meats. Second∣ly, never Materials. Thirdly, never Magnitude in it selfe, without a Subject, was judged otherwise than Immateriall. [ 40] Fourthly, never any Immateriall thing to have Gravity, or weight in pressing the guts, to make an egestion into the Draught. If every one of these be not, yet all may make up a foure-fold Cord, to draw any Conscionable man to grant, that Origen was of our Protestants Faith.

{fleur-de-lys} And although Obstinacie it selfe should struggle with us, touching the former sentence of Origen, yet his words imme∣diatly following, should (we think) challenge a Consent: Be∣cause

cause, after he had spoken of Sanctified meate, meate Materiall, meate which goeth into the Belly, Meate whose matter doth not profit the Eater, Meate passing into the Draught, Meate named the Symbolicall Body; (which your Cardinall teacheth to betoken Christs owne naturall Body:) He immediatly after maketh a Transition from this Meate, to that which he calleth the True meate, and saith;3 1.173 Further more many things might be spoken of the word, which was made Flesh, even the True [ 10] Bread, which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever: which no wicked man can eate, else should hee live for ever. Direct∣ly opposing this Word made Flesh, to that which he had cal∣led the Symbolicall Body. Ergo say wee, Origen (your Car∣dinall must pardon us) taught the Symbolicall Body, and Christ True and proper Flesh to be two different Subjects. And againe, for better manifestation, hee distinguisheth in their effects; the one to be insufficient to give life, the other to be Salvificall in it selfe, even to Life everlasting. And Thirdly hee differenceth them in their Eaters, intimating, [ 20] that The wicked may be partakers of the former Symbolicall Bo∣die; because, of this flesh, whereof the Scripture saith, [The Word was made flesh,] called the True meate, he testifieth and professeth, that No wicked man can eate this.

If, in imitation of Origens discourse upon the Eucharist, one should say of the Baptisme of a man of yeeres and growth, thus; Water in Baptisme, is in it selfe a Liquor, although profitable to the Receiver, according to the pro∣portion of Faith, yet doth it clense onely the flesh, and is afterward cast out of the Font into the Channell: (adding immediatly) Thus much be spoken of the Symbolicall Water: [ 30] and should furthermore say many things of the True Water, which is the virtue and grace of the Holy Ghost, which who∣sover shall partake, shall live for ever: but whereof, No wic∣ked man can be partaker: What man can be so seely, as not to apprehend a plaine distinction, made bet•••• ••••ene the Symbo∣licall Water, and the Truly Spirituall, which is the Grace of the Holy Ghost, as differing in respect of their Essences, Ef∣fects, and in the Persons capable thereof? {fleur-de-lys}

As for your Cardinalls Pageant of Christs Body in this Sa∣crament, as being a Signe and Symboll of it selfe, as it was on the Crosse, it* 1.174 hath once already, and will the* 1.175 second time come into play, where you will take small pleasure in this [ 40] figment.

Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe,l 1.176 Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Bellie, or into the Draught; andm 1.177 Chrysostome (as judging the very thought thereof Execrable) denyeth it with an [Absit!] Finally,n 1.178 Am∣brose is so sarre from the proper Swallowing of Christ in this Sa∣crament,

that Distinguishing betweene Corporall Bread, and the Body of Christ, (which he calle••h Super substantiall Bread, and Bread of everlasting life, for the establishing of mans Soule) hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body. If any Mouse (which, you say, may run away with the Hoast) be wholly fed thereon for a moneths space, the Egesti∣on of that Creature will be as Absolute a Demonstration as the world can have, that the matter fed upon, after Consecra∣tion, is Bread. And why may you not as well grant a power of Egestion, as confesse (which you do) in that Creature a Di∣gestion [ 10] thereof?

Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession, concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist, in the dayes of S. Au∣gustine; both which that holy Father did utterly explode. The first was by the Manichees, who teaching, thato 1.179 Christ was Hanged on every tree, and tyed unto all meates which they eate, would needes have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession. An Imputation which Saint Au∣gustine did abhorre, namely, that it should be thought that there was the same reason (concerning Christs Body) of the opinion [ 20] of Mysticall Bread, among the Orthodox, which the Man••∣chees had of their Corporall Bread. As for example, that Christ should be fastned or tyed to mens guts, by eating, and let loose againe by their belching. Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish, which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs Body into, and Cleaving unto mens * 1.180 Guts by eating? and a Repasse againe by Vomiting, albeit the matter, so fast and so loose, be (in the judgement of Saint Augustine) Bread still, after Consecration?

[ 30] The Second Calumniation aginst the True Professours, was by others, who testifyed that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus, after the maner of the Pagans. What answer, do you thinke, would a Romish Professour have made in this Case? doubtlesse (according to your Doctrine of Cor∣porall Presence) by saying thus: Whereas some affirme that wee do adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, yet the truth is wee adore that, whereunto Bread and Wine are Transubstan∣tiated, (to wit) the Body and Blood of Christ the sonne of God. But Saint Augustine, as one fancying nothing lesse; Wee (saith hee) [ 40] are farre from the gods of the Pagans, for ••ee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. This is all, and all this hee spake after Consecration.

Whereupon wee are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect, because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fa∣thers, whereof take unto you this presentp 1.181 Example. The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of Saint Augustine thus: Noster panis—Mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted [Corpus Christ;] albeit the sense be full without this Addition, to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall (according to Saint Augustines owne Exposi∣tion, [ 10] saying that wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup;) and also the Phrase of [Panis fit Corpus Christi; Bread is made Christs Body] be repugnant to a common Principle of all Chri∣stianity, which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread. So that the aforesayd Addition is not a Correcting, but a Cor∣rupting of the Text.

{fleur-de-lys} The miserable straights of Romish Disputers, in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine, concerning [ 20] Christs words, of Eating his flesh; and of the Romish Shift in saying, they do but Swallow it. SECT. IV.

SAintq 1.182 Augustines Determination is set downe in that his one famous Sentence, for the expounding of those words of Christ [Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. Ioh. 6.] thus: Whensoever wee find in Scripture [ 30] any speech seeming to forbid any laudable good thing, or to com∣mand any haynous evill Act, the speech is Figurative; Vt cum aicitur [Nisi manducaveritis] that is, As when it is sayd [Ex∣cept you eat my flesh:] which seemeth to command some hainous Sinne, therefore it is Figurative, commanding us to communi∣cate with Christs passion, and sweetly and profitably record in our memory, that his flesh was crucifyed and slaine for us. So Saint Augustine; which one Sentence hath beene alwayes held, of Protestants, to be convincent, for strangling of your Romish Cause. Which your Cardinall seeing as it were [ 40] gasping, hasteneth to give it some short breath.r 1.183 Augu∣stine

(saith hee) meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tro∣pically, inrespect of an Essentiall Eating, wherein is required onely, that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the sto∣macke, by vitall Instruments: but called it a Tropicall Eating, in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating, by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells, and that it be sod, and not raw. But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is re∣ceived whole, invisibly, and without any hurt, by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ; which is thus [ 10] proved: because First, It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually, and without hurting it; and Secondly, because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence, the Capernaiti∣call maner of eating thereof, namely by Tearing it in pieces. So hee. Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces, for Confutation of each particular point, lest otherwise a Gene∣rall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity.

Your Cardinall thinketh to evade, by multiplicity of Distinctions. Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth, but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke. Sol. This is [ 20] False, because the Apostles in their receiving of it, did use Chewing, your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sa∣cramentall Bread in Christ's time was* 1.184 Glutinosus: And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome, as also used among some of your Church at this day, as hath beene* 1.185 proved. And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth, who (as the4 1.186 Cardinall himselfe confesseth) mentioneth the* 1.187 Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth. Secondly, Ob. But the maner of Tearing (saith hee) is not [ 30] essentiall to eating, but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke. So hee. Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh (as hath beene shewed* 1.188) whereof you have also heard your Iesuite* 1.189 Salmeron confesse, saying, that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing, even as your Cardinall himselfe, calling Eating, by Dividing into Parts, a Proper ma∣ner of Eating. Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ, and not as ours is, Invisible. Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth. Ob. 4. But [ 40] Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod, and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw, or Sod, could distinguish a Canniball. Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him, which appeareth by this, that hee called the maner of Eating, which hee spake of, an Hainous offence. Sol. As though your* 1.190 Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe, appearing in his visible shape, notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart

thereby. Ob. 6. But he spake against the Caper∣naiticall maner of Eating, which was Tearing it in pieces, and requireth a Spirituall order in eating; and ours is Spirituall. Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree, which is False. Because as the Capernaites interpre∣ted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly, so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten. And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body? or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing [ 10] of meat without Mastication, or Tearing? Or can you deny but the Primitive* 1.191 Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh? And Secondly, where Saint Augu∣stine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall, could hee possibly meane your Romish kind, which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths, and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack, whether Visibly, or Invisibly, whether Sod, or Raw? No no, nothing lesse, but the flat Contrary, a meere Spiri∣tuall maner of Communicating of Christs passion (saith hee) [ 20] and by* 1.192 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once cruci∣fyed for us. Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart, that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth. {fleur-de-lys}

CHAP. VII.

The Fourth Corporall maner of Vnion of Christ [ 30] his Body, by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants (professed by some Romanists at this day) is Capernaiticall. SECT. I.

WEe heare your Iesuit reporting thata 1.193 Many latter Divines in your Church, have beene authorized in these dayes to write, labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch, as to perswade ab 1.194 Reall, [ 40] Naturall, Corporall, and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants: even almost all of late (saith hee) who have written against Heretickes. So hee.

Among others wee find your Cardinallc 1.195 Alan, who will have it ••eally mingled with our flesh, as other meats, Transubstan∣tiation onely excepted; as did also Cardinalld 1.196 Mendoza. And what else can that sound, which wee have heard out of your Roman* 1.197 Missall, praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts? just Manichean-wise, as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine. {fleur-de-lys} And it may be you have Faith also to believe your own Legendae, telling you of the1 1.198 Hoast taken out of the Guts of a Malefactor, by the [ 10] Virgin Mary, before his Execution. {fleur-de-lys}

The Confutation and Expulsion of this Foggie Mist of [ 20] Error, by your owne more Common Confessions. SECT. II.

THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ, Corpo∣rally with mans Bodily parts, what thinke you of it? Your Iesuite calleth itf 1.199 Improbable, and as repugnant to the dignitie and majestie of this Sacrament:* 1.200 Rash, and Absurd. Iustly, [ 30] because if this Doctrine were true, you must likewise grant that the same Body of Christ, which you say is eaten of Mice and Rats, is mingled within their guts, and entrailes; and so such vile Creatures should be as really Capable of the Com∣munion of Christs Body, as the most sanctifyed among Chri∣stians can be: for which the Beasts themselves, if they could speake, would (as the Asse unto Balaam) condemne the foolish∣nesse of your Prophets, namely those, of whom you have* 1.201 heard your Iesuit confessing, that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Divines; which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to ano∣ther. [ 40]

It onely remaineth to know with what Spirit these your New Divines have thus written; your* 1.202 Suarez. telleth us, saying, That they spake so in hatred of Heretikes (meaning Protestants) against whom they write. Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants, to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddinesse against them, that by the just judgement of God they are be∣come

so strake blind in themselves, as that they fall into opini∣ons not onely (as is confessed) Rash and Absurd: but also Caper∣naitically-Hereticall? And indeed they who imagined a Corpo∣rall Eating, how should they not as well have conceived a Cor∣porall fleshly Commixtion?

CHAP. VIII. [ 10]

Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers, for proofe of an Vnion of Christs Body by a Bodily Commix∣ture with the Bodies of the Communicants.

SOme of their Objections are taken from the Sentences of the Fathers, Some from their Similitudes, and Some from their Histori∣call Reports. Wee beginne with their Sen∣tences. [ 20]

That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion; but are proved by their owne Dialect to be unconscionably alleged. SECT. I.

THe expresse Testimonies of the Objected Fathers you may reade in the Margin, as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuita 1.203 Suarez, to wit, Irenaeus, Chrysostome, Cyril Alexand. Greg. Nyssen, Pope Leo, and Hilarie. The summe is, The mixture of Christs Body with ours, by a Corporall and Naturall Vnion in∣deed, [ 30] and not onely in faith or affection.

Two kind of Semblances are to be Observed, one in their like Hyperbolicall Phrasing, concerning Baptisme; and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ.

Of Baptisme, Hilarie the VI. objected, saith, Christians by Baptisme, which is one, are made one, not onely in affection, but also in nature. Leo the V. objected, saith also that By Bap∣tisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ cruci∣fyed. And furthermore marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine, namely thatb 1.204 Infants, by being Baptized, are made partakers of the Eucharist, because they are Members of the Mysticall Body, and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament, (that is to say) of the thing [ 10] signifyed, Eating his flesh, and Drinking his Blood. So hee. By which your Objectour must be inforced to admit a like Reall Conjunction, and Consequently of a Reall presence of Christ in Baptisme, as they have for the Bodily Vnion and Pre∣sence of Christ in and by the Eucharist.

Yea, and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things:c 1.205 Isidore Pelusiota of the word of God, that It feedeth mens soules, and is in a maner mingled therewith. Of the Baptized, that by Baptismed 1.206 They are incorporate into Christ, saith Augustine: And that thereby [ 20] e 1.207 They are made bone of Christs bone, and flesh of his flesh, saith Chrysostome. Of the Eucharist,f 1.208 It is mingled with our soules. So Damascen. Of the participation of the Bread of Idolaters, with the participation of the Sacramentall Bread of the Lords Supper, thatg 1.209 As by the one Christians are made partakers of Christs flesh, so by that other are men made partakers with Devils. So Primasius.

Wherefore your Disputers, by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former, if they shall take them as spoken properly, and not Sacramentally and Figuratively, shall [ 30] be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishings of mans soule, by the word. First, a proper Mingling of Gods spirit with Man. Secondly, a proper Incorporating of man into Christ; and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils. And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers, ob∣jected by you, with these now alleged by us, concerning the Eucharist it selfe, it will necessarily follow, that by the same reason, wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of Proper presence of Christs Body, and Transubstantiation, and Vnions you must allowh 1.210 Foure more: One of Christs [ 40] Body into the Body of the Communicant; a Second of a

Christian Communicant into Christ Body; a Third of a Na∣turall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves. And Fourthly (which is Damascen's) of Christs Body into mens soules. All which kind of Presences, Vnions, Mixtures, and Transub∣stantiations, taken in a proper sense, you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and senselesse, in your owne Judgement; not∣withstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers, for your Corporall Conjunction.

{fleur-de-lys} The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fa∣thers, [ 10] more vehemently (and as unconscionably) insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril. Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav. SECT. II.

WEe have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these twoi 1.211 Fathers, as being, in your Choice, More speciall, because that all your Disputers, whensoever [ 20] they produce them, for proofe of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Vnion, they esteeme them Insoluble above all others; Insomuch that one of your Doctors, after hee had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus, Greg. Nyssen, Damascen, Leo, and Saint Augustine, no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilarie, but prefaceth of it, saying; This is a more notable Place. Another concludeth the Doctrine of Cyril to be so abso∣lutely Romish, that he accounteth Protestants no better than Men sold over to the Devill, for not assenting to your Com∣mon Interpretation of him. But this Flash of your Doctor [ 30] will appeare to be but an Ignis fatuus, or a Blind Zeale with∣out knowledge, when wee come to this Particular.

In the Interim, that you may know wee meane to deale clearely, wee First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers, in their Discourses. Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretikes by defending a Naturall Vnion of the Godhead of Christ, the sonne of God, with God the Father. Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Here∣tikes, for proofe of an Hypostaticall Vnion of the two Na∣tures, Godhead and Manhood, in one person of Christ. Se∣condly, [ 40] wee grant that both the Fathers, together with that Generall Councel at Ephesus, call the Flesh of Christ, which Christians participate in this Sacrament, [Vivificatricem,] that is, Vivificall, or giving life to the Receivers, even unto Immortality. Thirdly wee grant, that they name our Con¦junction of Christ by this Sacrament to be, not onely an Vnion in Affection and Concord, but also a Naturall and Cor∣porall

Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Bodie of the Communicants. And Lastly wee grant, that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Vnion of Waxemelted with Waxe. And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknow∣ledgements and Grants, wee presume to affirme, that all these Testimonies teach, indeed, a Mysticall, not your Ro∣mish Missaticall Vnion, by a properly Corporall Touch of Christs owne naturall Body, with the Bodies of the Recei∣vers. Our ground is the same, which wee have often layd [ 10] in our former Confutations (to wit) by paralleling this Vnion of the Eucharist (as it is to be seene in the Margin) with other Vnions mentioned by both these same Fathers, in as Aequivalent and Equipollent termes (equally named by them both) Naturall and Corporall; albeit voyd of any Corporall Touch of the Body of Christ, as you your selves will grant.

For the Instances, used by these Fathers, are divers, Some consist onely in Relation, and some in Application also. The Instance given in the Relative onely, is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ, when hee tooke the same nature of our flesh upon him; which Relation of a Christian mans flesh

with the Humane flesh of Christ, is universally in all persons, at all times (even without this Sacrament) called by Hilarie, [Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi] that is, an Vnion wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh, being the same Specifi∣cally with his; and notwithstanding it is called by him an Vnion Naturall and Corporall, and not onely the Vnion of Will and Affection, albeit voyd of all Bodily Touch.

Next of the Vnions made by Application, some are Spiri∣tually onely, and some are Sacramentall also. Of the Spi∣rituall Vnion (which is also free from all Bodily Touch) they [ 10] say of Christ, and of True Christians, that they are Vnited by the Vnity of Faith; which notwithstanding is likewise called by him, a Corporall Vnion, and not onely in Will and Af∣fection. I come to the Sacramentall Vnion. Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments, and some in the Eucha∣rist it selfe. Of others it is indefinitely here sayd, that Chri∣stians are united by the Sacraments, and namely (as is confes∣sed) The Regenerat, by Baptisme, have an Vnion Corporall with Christ, and not onely in Affection and Concord: albeit this also be (as you know) exempted from all Bodily Touch. [ 20] Accordingly of the Vnions made by the Eucharist; Some are of Christians among themselves; and some of Christ with us. Of the former, the Vnion of the faithfull Com∣municants, as the Members of Christ, is named by them a Naturall and Corporall Vnion, and not onely in Concord, although (as you know) this can be no coincident Corpo∣rall Touch of their Body reciprocally.

Thus these holy Fathers. And now that you may under∣stand, from them, Foure several Vnions, One Relative; Ano∣ther Spirituall; A third Sacramentall in Generall; And a [ 30] Fourth (as I may say) Eucharisticall; (peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist) all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions, and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely; notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure, being named Naturall and Corporall, Improperly, onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body, by the virtue of the same words, Naturall, or Corporall? Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason;2 1.212 It is not the same thing with Hilarie (saith [ 40] hee) Some things to be one Naturally; and to be one in another Naturally: For things to be one Naturally, it is sufficient, if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one; and so hee calleth all Christians one Natu∣rally by Faith. But to be one Naturally [In] another, it is ne∣cessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other: and so (in the meaning of Hilarie) is Christs Bo∣dy

sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist. This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement, whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke, immoveable; which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed; both False and Fond; (as you may finde in the Marginalls.)

For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions, which hee calleth Naturall, by reason of Christs Incarnation, in taking our nature of Flesh upon him, saith that wee are [In him.] Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False. Next [ 10] of the very Sacramentall Vnion, whereof it is sayd, that Christ is [Naturally In us,] it is also as expressely sayd, that wee are likewise [Naturally In Christ.] But none can affirme, that Wee, in true propriety of speech, are Naturally in the Body of Christ. Therefore is his Answer most Absurd. But you will aske, how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers, for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies, by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ? First thus; By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament (according to Christs Institution) [ 20] is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ, giving eternall life un∣to the world; which (as these Fathers truly teach) it could not do, if it were the Flesh of a meere man: And therefore he is, by Nature, God; one with God the Father. Ergò Avant! Thou Arian-Heretike. The Second thus; The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue, except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead; and therefore is Christ both God and Man; and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely, but by an Hypo∣staticall Vnion of two Natures. Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike [ 30] Recant.

The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough, by their owne Sentences, as is now proved; which if it nee∣ded any further Illustration, might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius, who, from this Ar∣ticle, of Christ his Incarnation onely, whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh, spared not to say:3 1.213 that By his flesh, thus assumed of the word, (God) wee men are Dei∣fyed and made Gods. So hee; without any Relation to the Sacrament at all. And againe, when he spake of the same Ar∣ticle [ 40] of Christs Incarnation, he hath Relation to a Sacrament, and saith as much of Baptisme, as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist.4 1.214 Wee, (saith hee) being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, are all made alive by Christ; and our flesh is no more Earthly, but now by that [word, God] Wordi∣fyed, and made the same by him, that for us was made flesh. So hee. And so, according to the Romish presumption of Arguing, from the like words of the Fathers, concerning

the Eucharist, Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme. I. That the Substance of water is changed. II. That by it, there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized. III. That by the same, the Flesh of the Bapti∣zed is made the Word, God. Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive, or Impudencie utter, or else Obstinacie de∣fend. [ 10]

The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable, by their owne Confessions, in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense. SECT. III.

ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs (concerning the Speeches of the Fathers, objected [ 20] by them, through the whole Treatise of the Masse, for proofe of a Bodily Presence) is, whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly, as they sound to the eare; or Impro∣perly and Figuratively, as they are to be apprehended by our understandings, in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mysti∣cal Signification. And whether you can conclude from them a Properly (so called) Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body; whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast, Mixture, or Nutri∣tion and Augmentation thereby, or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers: will you be so good as heare them [ 30] againe, both relating the Expositions, which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected, and afterwards enforced, by good evidence, to interpret the Fathers accor∣dingly.

These you Doctors certifie you (see the Margin) that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech, for extolling, and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament. So hee, of Calvin. Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors (saith your Vasquez) Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine, did interpret the words of the Fathers, as spoken Hyperbolically. And if you [ 40] shall reject these, as the meaner Some; wee shall enquire in∣to other Some, of better eminencie. As namely your Bellar∣mine, and Tolet, both Cardinalls: your Suarez, and even Vasquez himselfe, all Iesuits in their Times.

Let them (wee pray you) make their owne Answers in order, as they have beene Cited. First arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward ;5 1.215 It is ordinary (saith hee) with these Fathers, to wit, Irenaeus,

Hilarie, Nyssen, Cyril, and others, to say that the Eucharist nou∣risheth our Bodies: But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition, or augmentation of our Bodies; for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly, and not for the soule, than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd. So hee. Cardinall Tolet is the Second, wee desire to heare his Judgement.6 1.216 These Fa∣thers (saith hee) Cyril and Hilarie, when they tell us, that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament, are not to be understood, as if our Bodies and Christs [ 10] Body were made one, in Entity: this were a Doctrine unworthy of them; but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection, Christ being within us Really, as the Cause thereof. So he. Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd, that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, have One naturall Being; because of their other Sayings, that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nou∣rished and Augmented by Christs Body. All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech, and not properly, as you heare. Francis Suarez his Course is next;7 1.217 I say (saith he) [ 20] that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught (namely, as out of the Fathers) that Christ's Body is so united with our Bo∣dies, that they are both joyntly mingled in parts, one with another. Which is an Opinion Improbable, and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament, which was instituted by Christ, not for a Corporall, but for a Spirituall Conjunction: and the other Con∣junction is False and Absurd. So he. Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne, first to make his Preface, and then to deliver his Opinion.8 1.218 Although the Ancient Fathers, in expounding these [ 40] mysteries of Faith, use words not so usuall in our Schooles, yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so, that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity, yet not to take them contrary to their [ 30] meaning without due advise, and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity. So hee. And for Instances hee bringeth divers, and

more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction, already ob∣jected out of Cyr••l; As waxe with waxe melted are joyned toge∣ther. And this (if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words) hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body, or else a Substantiall Conversion into them.

All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous, and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors, of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church, do minister unto us matter of Astonishment, to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these [ 10] Sentences of the Fathers, as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech; seeing that now, after some Delibe∣ration, they find the same to be so glowing hot, that they them∣selves, not daring to touch them with their bare fingers, take hold of them with a Distinction, as it were with a paire of Tongs, saying, that9 1.219 Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours, excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other, under formes of Bread: The Vnion, spoken of by the Fa∣thers, is not Physicall, or Naturall, but Spirituall. So Suarez. Not Physicall, or Naturall, but Metaphoricall. So Vasquez. But yet [ 20] how Mysticall it is, this will be handled in the next Section.

Can there then be any thing more Odious or Vnjust, than for your Disputers to proclame their Adversaries Heretikes, for expounding the aforesayd Sentences of the Fathers, in an unproper Sense; which liberty, They themselves both now have practised, and also instructed Others to doe the like by their owne words and examples? wherein as they are gene∣rally found Contradictory to themselves, so are they more particularly one to another. For Doctor Heskins objecting the Sayings of Chrysostome and Cyril, concerning the Conjunction [ 30] of Christs Body with ours, to be like as when Waxe is melted with waxe in one Vnion, Hee himselfe waxed wroth with Protestants so farre, as to iudge them Men given over to the Devill, because they did not believe them according to the outward letter. Notwithstanding your owne Vasquez (as you have heard) taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strict∣nesse of the Termes; as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying, that to Interpret them Literally, were to detract from the Wis∣dome of those Fathers, and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itselfe. Lastly, albeit your* 1.220 arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward presseth [ 40] much this Testimony of Cyril, wherein the Christian Com∣municants are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Cariers of Christ; yet your Suarez expounding this, and that other of Damascen, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Ioynt Bodies with Christ, and so partakers of the Divine Nature; alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carying of Christs Body, and Vnion therewith, but onely a Spirituall, that is, of Grace and Affection.

That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, in two more especiall Points. SECT. IV.

[ 10] ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants, which your Romish ••aith tea∣cheth, consisteth onely in a Mutuall Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs, as your Iesuites every where teach. Our Observables hereupon, at this present, are especially two. One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Vnion: The other in respect of the Persons united toge∣ther. Of the former, you professe by your10 1.221 Jesuite, that Christ is but onely so long in the Bodies of the Receivers, as the formes of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt. And, concer∣ning [ 20] the Persons, you hold of this your Bodily Vnion (as your 11 1.222 Suarez relateth) that It is common to the wicked, and to the faithfull Communicants of the Body of Christ. So you. And now (O you great pretenders of Antiquity!) behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers against you, both in respect of Continuance of Time, and of the Difference of Persons: to wit, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Au∣gustine, Hilarie, Cyril of Alexandria (under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuites, to whom wee may adjoyne both Basil, and Theodoret) acknowledging, that whereas the Vnion which you believe to have with Christs Body in this Sacrament, onely by Bodily Touch, is Transient, during [ 30] 12 1.223 no longer, than the formes of Bread and Wine, eaten and transmitted into the stomacke of the Eater, are uncorrupt, (this Conjunction being indeed momentary,) They, I say, do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent, even to Immortality it selfe.

And againe, your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men, and this Conjunction, spoken of by the Fathers, being13 1.224 Proper onely to the Godly and Faithfull, who are joyned together in Faith with Christ, and in Charity with all Christians (which therefore you your selves call a [ 40] 14 1.225 Morall and Mysticall Vnion:) It followeth in both these Respects, that you may easily deserne in your Romish Faith notable degeneration from the Judgement of Anti∣quity. The seeming Contradictions of the former Spee∣ches of the Fathers will be reconciled in the next Chapter, and the Third Section.

CHAP. IX.

Of the Second kind of Objections out of the Fathers, from their Similitudes, especially insisted upon by Romish Sophisters, because of their calling Christ both Feast and Guest, and the Eucharist Viands and Pledge; Confuted by the like language of the same Fathers, in respect of [ 10] other things. SECT. I.

LEt us looke downe to the Idiome and language of the Fathers, and compare their Sayings to∣gether, and wee shall finde these Testimonies no lesse vehemently, than violently and uncon∣scionably objected.1 1.226 Hierome is alleged, as calling Christ both Feast and Guest, (namely) by giving this Sacrament to be Eaten of others, and Eating it himselfe: [ 20] which you (for proofe of his Corporall Presence in the Eu∣charist) Interpret to be Properly understood. But wee say not Properly, but Figuratively and Vnproperly, even as well as are his words following, where hee nameth our Drinking Christs Blood, the Pressing out, with the feet, the elect and cho∣sen Vines: as also, in calling the Church of Christ, the Kingdome of the Father. Might not these his latter Improper Phrases of Speech have beene cleare Spectales unto you, to Diserne the like Impropriety in the former? The same Answer may be given to the like objected speech of Chry∣sostome, [ 30] concerning Christs2 1.227 Eating himselfe, which is, toge∣ther with the former, to be Discussed in the next Section following.

In the Second place, the Eucharist is called in the Greeke 3 1.228 Liturgies, and in the Councell of* 1.229 Nice, the Viati∣cum, that is Viand, or Provision for our Travell in our way to Life everlasting. A word objected by your4 1.230 Aquinas and others, which notwithstanding can prove no more for your (properly) Corporall Receiving the Eucharist, than it can for receiving the same Corporally in Baptisme, which is cal∣led [ 40] by5 1.231 Basil and6 1.232 Gregorie Naxianzene our Viaticum. (See the7 1.233 Margin.)

The Third is the Title of Pledge, which your8 1.234 Car∣dinall hath urged out of Optatus, naming the Eucharist, the Pledge of Salvation, helpe of Faith, and hope of our Re∣surrection. Which are (say wee) delivered in the same Te∣••or, and sense of speech, wherein9 1.235 Basil, and10 1.236 The∣odoret termed Baptisme, the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come, and of our future Resurrection. The Common Id••ome of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar, equally for Baptisme, as for the Eucharist; who can but admire the Bold∣nesse [ 10] of our Adversaries, in their so instant pressing and in∣culcating of those former Sentences, which cannot be more earnestly Objected for the one, than they may be easily Confuted by the other; as will be more conspicuous in our Relation in the next Section following.

That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity, concerning Feast and Guest, &c. Viand and Pledge, do, in them∣selves, altogether Confute your Romish Pretence, to the further manifestation of the Vncon∣scionablenesse [ 20] of your Romish Disputers. SECT. II.

CHrist, by Saint Hierome (as you have heard) is said, in receiving this Sacrament at his first Institution thereof, to have beene both Convivium, and Convivam, that is, both Feast and Guest, Eating his owne Body. And your Doctor Heskins Instan••eth in the like speech of Chrysostome, saying: [ 30] that11 1.237 Christ himselfe dranke thereof in the behalfe of his Disciples, lest they should be troubled with his words of [Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood] therefore did hee himselfe first receive, that hee might induce them to take it with a Quiet Minde. So Chrysostome; whom your Doctor allegeth for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ; and then applying himselfe to his Reader, Now you have heard (saith hee) the mind of Chrysostome upon the words of Christ, and by the same also, you may know, both how He, and how also the Apostles (who first received the Cup at Christs hand) did believe. So hee. [ 40] And wee shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodoxe mea∣ning of Hierome and Chrysostome (for they Both agree in one.)

Thus then, Christ must have beene a Guest and Feast him∣selfe unto himselfe, in Eating his owne Body, either Naturally, or Spiritually, or Romishly, or else Sacramentally. But not Na∣turally, to have his Body fed by the same his owne Body; for this Conceipt, in your* 1.238 own Judgement, is Absurd. Nor Spi∣ritually;

Because hee needeth not any Spirituall helpe of any Sacrament, for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soule. Nor yet Romishly, by a Bodily Touch (which is your Professed Corporall Vnion;) Because it was never heard, that any man was fed and feasted by an onely Touch. A Bul∣let, (for example) transmitted into the Belly, doth Touch, not feed: Nutrition and Feeding being, Properly, a Sub∣stantiall Change of a thing Nourishable, into the Substance of the Body Nourished. And againe, what can be more grosse, than to imagine (albeit but in a Dreame) of a man Eating [ 10] with his Mouth, his owne Mouth; Swallowing with his Throat, his owne Throat; Disgesting with his Stomacke, his owne Stomacke? All which Consequences follow upon a mans wholly Eating his owne Body.

Therefore must wee apprehend such Speeches of the Fa∣thers in a fourth sense, to wit, Sacramentally, by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Signe, as wee teach; which sense the Objected Testimony of Chrysostome doth con∣firme unto us: who saith not, that Christ Dranke or Ate himselfe; but that hee dranke of the Passeover, lest they that [ 20] heard him should say, What shall wee drinke his Blood? which is as much as if Chrysostome had directly sayd, that Christ therefore dranke of the Cup, that they, seeing him drinke, might thereby understand, that Hee did no more drinke his owne Blood, than Hee, in Eating, did appeare to Eat his owne Flesh. Hee therefore Dranke (saith Chrysostome) lest they should be troubled to thinke; what? what, but that hee Dranke his owne Blood? which sense of Chrysostomes the sentence it selfe doth evince: lest that (saith hee) they should [ 30] say within themselves, Shall wee drinke his Blood? Such In∣terrogative speeches (as your owne Schoole teaches you) have Vim Negationis, that is, imply a Negation, and import as much, as to thinke that Christ did not Drinke his owne Blood. Will you have any more? Chrysostome explayning the words of Christ, Ioh. 6. of Eating his Flesh, and Drin∣king his Blood, giveth all Christians a Caveat, not to under∣stand them Carnally;12 1.239 And what is it (saith hee) to understand them Carnally? even to understand them simply, as they are spoken, and not conceive any thing else.

The Atribute of Viaticum is next, which having so great [ 40] Consanguinity with the Communion by feeding, may af∣ford us the same Reason of Retorting the same Argument (borrowed from the same word) upon your Objectors them∣selves, which wee permit to your owne wits to examine, that with more Brevity wee may descend to the last Ad∣junct, which is, a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality, which hath beene applyed by your Cardinall as peculiar to

the Eucharist, to prove a Corporall presence of Christ therein; It being a Terme taken from the mouth of the Father Opta∣tus, whom wee have answered out of two Fathers, Basil and Theodoret, who have as well given the same word [Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality] unto the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme. From whom it may be your* 1.240 Jesuite Coster borrowed his Assertion, where hee also nameth Baptisme, the Pledge of our Resurrection to life everlasting; which one word [Pledge,] now Objected by you, will prove as good as Bellerophon's [ 10] Letters to confute your selves, and to vanquish your Romish Defence, even from the nature of a Pledge, as it is applyed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by three Fathers.

I. Hierome,13 1.241 Christ (saith he) left this his last memoriall of his Passion, like as one that is travailing into a strange Coun∣try, leaveth a Pledge with his friend for a memorandum of his benefits. II. Gaudentius thus:14 1.242 Christ (saith hee) being about to be Crucifyed, left that Hereditary gift of the new Te∣stament, as a Pledge of his Presence. And III. Primasius, concerning the Institution of this Sacrament saith, that [ 20] 15 1.243 Christ left us an example, that as often as wee celebrate this, wee should call to remembrance that Christ dyed for us. And therfore is it called the Body of Christ, (saith hee) that, as often as wee remember, wee be not ingrate and unthankfull to his gratiousnesse; like as when one, Dying, leaveth a Pledge of remembrance unto his friend.

All these holy Fathers (you see) interpret this Sacrament to be unto us as a Present Pledge of a Friend Absent, whether hee be a living Travailer, or one departed this life. Primasius his Observation of the [Pledge] is very remarkable, when [ 30] hee saith of this Sacrament (thus called a Pledge) that It is Therefore called the Body of Christ, giving the name of the Thing to the Token thereof; than which Similtude what can be more pregnant and pertinent for the Confuting of your Tridentine Faith, concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Seeing now that the Ancient Fa∣thers have shewne themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause, it will become us, as true Children, to do them right. To which purpose wee adde, and shew

[ 40] That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves; and yet Re∣pugnant to the Romish Profession. SECT. III.

FOr our making good of this Section, it will be required that wee performe it so, that the Doctrine of the Fathers

(notwithstanding this Reconciliation) may appeare to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction; and al∣so agreeable to our Protestant sense, as well in respect of the Sacramentall, as of the Spirituall Conjunction, which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ.

The Repugnancie of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction.

Sometimes the Fathers are found, in this Sacrament, to [ 10] speake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is Exactly and precisely, and sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Improperly. When they speake of a Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body, Exactly and sim∣ply so taken, so often they appeare to deny it absolutely from point to point. As I. by their16 1.244 No Bodily Touc•• of Christ after his Resurrection. So Ambrose. II.17 1.245 No me••t for Teeth. So Augustine. Nor For the Iawes. So the same Father. III.18 1.246 Not to be devoured with Throat. So At∣talas the Martyr. IV.19 1.247 Not for the Belly. So Cyprian. [ 20] V.20 1.248 Not for Bodily Conjunction of Persons, nor for Vnion of Substances. So also the same Father. VI.21 1.249 Not to be cast into the Draught. So Cyrill of Hierusalem. Whereunto you may adde, as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest, that of Chrysostome concerning this Sacrament. * 1.250 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, Having no fleshly thing, nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof, namely of fleshly Vnion. In w^ch you have all as ••••at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Vnion, by your Bodily Touch, whe∣ther by Hand, Mouth, or Belly, as the Ancient Fathers could [ 30] have given, if they had concluded their Judgements in a Synod. But how then (will you say) did they speake so ex∣pressely of an Vnion, by Touching, Eating, Tearing, and of your Corporall Conjunction, even unto the Feeding thereby▪ This is the next Doubt, which wee are now to assoyle, in the next Section.

The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants. [ 40] SECT. IV.

THe Sacramentall Vnion, which Protestants teach, (be∣sides that which they call Spirituall) consisteth wholly in the Resemblance, which is betweene the Body of Christ, and the Substance of Bread and Wine, and this is Analogicall:

which was the Ground of all the Fathers former Speeches, concerning a Bodily Vnion with Christs Body in every De∣gree. First then the Fathers, in their Symbolicall language, have called Bread the Body of Christ, onely Sacramentally; because it is a Sacrament and Signe of Christs Body; which was the Conclusion of our Second Booke. II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies, a Change of Christs Body into ours, in a like Sacramentall signification, as hath beene shewed in the Third Booke. III. Vpon the [ 10] same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason, they have used to say, that wee See, Touch, Tast, and Eat Christs Body, albeit Improperly, as hath beene plentifully declared, and con∣fessed in this Fift Booke. IV. (Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater, by the thing Eaten,) they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body; which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken; in the same Booke. V. Almost all the former Vnions Corpo∣rall of our Bodies with Christ, have beene ascribed by the [ 20] same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme; wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch, or Conjunction at all.

As for example, in saying; I. That Wee, in Baptisme, hold the feet of Christ. II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood. III. Do Eat his flesh, have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection. IV. Being made Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh. V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resur∣rection to Life: And a Pledge (as you have now heard) is of that, which is Absent. Each one of these, and many other the [ 30] like, are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse. The summe of all these Premises is, that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers, concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body, their Symbolicall and Sacramentall, that is, Figurative Meanings. And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof, [ 40] we adjoyne the Section following.

The Divine Contemplations, which the Holy Fathers had, in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body, and Nou∣rishment thereby to Immortality; for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and [ 10] Blood. SECT. V.

YOur Jesuites, arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward , Tolet, Suarez, and Vasquez, have already instructed you, not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered, lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves, or Derogatory to the Dig∣nity and Majesty of this Sacrament. And they say well. But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein; which wee [ 20] must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers; to the end that you, and wee, may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament. They have sayd, I. That Christ hath a Na∣turall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father. II. That this Godhead of Christ, by his Incarnation, is united Hyposta∣tically into our Nature of Manhood in him; whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction. III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together, his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God, his Blood the Blood of God. IV. That these being the Flesh [ 30] and Blood of God, are become thereby to be Vivificall, that is, giving Life, Blisse, and Immortality, both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ. V. That the Faith∣full, by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane na∣ture, with the Humane Nature of Christ, are made par∣takers the reby of his Divine Nature, and of all the In∣finite Vivification and power of grace, in this world; and of Glory and Immortality, in the world to come, wrought by his Death and Passion. VI. Both by Baptisme, and by the Eucharist, wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ, mystically; in as much as the Sacra∣ment of Bread and Wine (the Choycest Refections of mans [ 40] Bodily Life) are Touched, Tasted, Eaten, and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same, untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance un∣separably. Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality, and an Earnest of our Resurrection.

Lastly, from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion, continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament, even all their life long; and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall, that is, (as they interpret themselves) from the Nature of Faith, by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh, the same Specifically with ours: Which Vnion, your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge, to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion, but Spirituall and [ 10] Mysticall, wrought onely in the Soule. But how? This in∣deed is worthy our knowledge, as a matter full of Christian Comfort. Thus then: The Disposition of the Body, in Christian Philosophy, followeth the Disposition of the Soule: For when the Soules of the Faithfull, departing this life in the state of Grace, and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin, shall resume their owne Bodies; by virtue of that Resump∣tion, shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Bo∣dy and Soule; and the Wicked (contrarily) of Curse and [ 20] Damnation in both, according to that Generall Doome, Come you Blessed, unto the one, &c. and Goe you Cursed, to the other, &c.

Nor will your learned Suarez deny this.22 1.251 The Glory of the Body (saith hee) dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule, and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein; neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body, but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule. Which is Divinely spoken. And yet wee have a more An∣cient than your Jesuite, even Cyprian, one of the Ancientest [ 30] of the Primitive Fathers, whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fa∣thers. Hee, in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord, the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion, which the Faithfull Com∣municants have in receiving it;23 1.252 As by meat and drinke (saith hee) the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth, in health; so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Ali∣ment. For what Meat is to the Flesh, that is Faith to the Soule: and what Food is to the Body, that the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity, than [ 40] can our Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being. So hee.

Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith, which is by Application in Speciall, taught by our Saviour, in saying to his Disciples, [Take ye, Eat, this is my Body, given for you, and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you.] Hereby (although it be spoken, as hath beene proved, Sacramentally and Figuratively) to instruct every of his

Disciples in taking thereof, to apply those words [Body gi∣ven for you, &c.] as verily spoken to himselfe, as if hee had sayd, Take thou Iohn, and Take thou Peter, My Body given for thee Iohn, and for thee Peter, &c. in a Sacramentall Ana∣logie. So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread, the Signe of Christs Body; and my Bodily mouth eateth, and my Bodily stomacke digesteth, and turneth it, as nourishment, into my flesh; so my Soule saith that I be∣lieve that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed, and his Blood shed for mee, whole man, Body and Soule: And that [ 10] thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion, both for Redemption, and for Everlasting Salvation; whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge, by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh: According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke. {fleur-de-lys}

CHAP. X. [ 20]

Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon, out of Iustine, concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh, sprung (as is pretended) from the Catholike Do∣ctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist; which is their First Argument. [ 30] SECT. I.

MAny leaves are spent by M.a 1.253 Brerely in pressing this Objection; the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus: Iustine Martyr, in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour, when he was in discourse of the Eucharist (The reported Doctrine whereof, concerning the Reall [ 40] Presence, was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander;) and when hee should have removed the suspicion thereof, did not∣withstanding call the Eucharist, No common Bread, but, after Consecration, the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed, &c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument (as follow∣eth) borrowed from theb 1.254 Cardinall, to wit, Iustine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Om∣nipotencie,

and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively. Then is brought in* 1.255 Attalas the Martyr, whilest he was under the Tortures, and Torments of his Perse∣cutors, saying, Behold your Doing, [Hoc est homines devorare] This is a Devouring of men: wee Christians do not Devoure men. To whom is joyned Tertullian, making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising a Childe, and Eating his flesh, [Ad no∣strae Doctrinae notam:] To the infamie of our Profession. At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth; So evidently [ 10] doth this Slander, thus given forth by the Iewes, argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Reall presence, and Sacrifice: and for as much as the Slander went so generally of all Christians, it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular.

So hee. {fleur-de-lys} And so, long before him, Doctor Heskins; 1 1.256 This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians, proveth the Presence. Meaning the Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist.

[ 20] That the Romish Objection is, in it selfe, most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers; and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. II.

VVHat? That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient [ 30] times, concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, should have beene the Cause; yea, or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes, of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh? This is the first Argument, which your Objectors, from Historicall Rela∣tions, use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr; In Confutation whereof wee produce (see the Margin) the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers2 1.257 Augustine, 3 1.258 Irenaeus,4 1.259 Tertullian,5 1.260 Epiphanius, and6 1.261 Ori∣gen; [ 40] together with the Confessions of your owne Romish

Authors,7 1.262 Maldonat,8 1.263 Baronius, and ⁹ Lorinus, men of chiefest note in your Church; witnessing concerning that lowd and lewd Slander cast upon Catholike Christi∣ans, by both Iewes and Gentiles, that it was occasioned by Hereticall, and Fanaticall Christians, in the Primitive Age of the Church; such as were the Montanists, the Cataphryges and Gnosticks, who did indeed and Really eate Humane flesh. So they.

But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Storie it selfe, which by the Relation of the foresaid [ 10] Fathers, Confessions of the former Romanists, and Tenor of the Histories themselves, was, The Eating of a Child or Infant; which maketh the falshood of your Objections to seeme, in a maner palpable unto us; because Christ being crucified by both Jewes and Gentiles, when hee was above thirty yeares of Age, and the whole Church of Christ pro∣fessing as much, it was not possible that the Eating of an In∣fant onely, should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth; much lesse could it be credible, that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist, if (as your French 10 1.264 Bi∣shop [ 20] teacheth) This their Eating the flesh of a Child, was not practised in the Feast of the Lord's Supper, but at their Love-Feasts, called Agapae. So hee. And consequently so sandie and boggie is this foundation of your maine Objection, for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Second Romish Argument out of Justine, termed Insoluble before all others, is, because when hee called the Eating of the Eucharist, the Eating of the Body [ 40] of Christ, hee wrot to an Heathen Emperour. SECT. III.

IVstine writeth an Apologie unto Antoninus Pius, an Heathen Emperour, at what time the Slander of Eating Humane

flesh fell upon the Orthodoxe Christians, Originally from the impious Practice of Hereticall Christians, as you have heard; and now are you to heare the Insoluble Argument forsooth, which your Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine extracteth from thence.11 1.265 This Dilemma (saith hee) remaineth Insoluble. Either could Iustine truly have sayd, that the flesh of Christ is Eaten of Christians onely in a Signe: or hee could not have so sayd. If hee could, then did hee play the Praevaricator in be∣traying the Christian cause, by making the Christian Profession [ 10] most odious, to the increasing of the suspicion; when as in one word hee might have made it probable, and so have blotted out the Infamy conceived against Christians. And if hee could not say that Christ is Eaten in the Eucharist, onely as in a Signe; doubtlesse the reason why hee could not, must have beene because the flesh of Christ is not given to be Eaten therein as in a Signe onely. So he, Ostentatively of his owne Argument, insigned by himselfe Insoluble, as you see; Notwithstanding this may admit divers and sundry Solutions.

[ 20] That the Hornes of your Cardinals Dilemma are easily blunted by a Three-fold Solution. The Firs is by shewing the Cause to be Impertinent. SECT. IV.

[ 30] IVstine12 1.266 shewed to the same Emperour, that no Im∣piety at all (upon any Inquisition formerly made) could be layd to the charge of Orthodoxe Christians, in this Case, by good proofes. First Iustine propoundeth the Let∣ters of the Emperour Adrian, Father to Antoninus, who, upon experience of the extreme malice of his Heathen peo∣ple against Christians, required, that his Officers should not prosecute against any Christian without proofe of some Impiety. As also the Epistle of Marcus, Emperour before his Father, who became both a Patron to justifie the Case of Christi∣ans, [ 40] in respect of such Crimes objected against them; and a Protector of their Persons; commanding that whosoever should accuse a Christian13 1.267 Onely for being a Christian (that is for his Profession sake onely) should be burnt Quicke. And should not the Sacrifising of Infants (if any such had beene practised by the Christians) have beene held Capitall Crimes with those Emperours, trow yee? Besides this Iustine allegeth unto this Emperour Antoninus himselfe, his

owne Epistle, whereby he testifyed in the Behalfe of Chri∣stians, 14 1.268 that None of those Crimes and Impieties, whereof they were accused, could be proved against them; which pro∣veth, that notwithstanding all the Inquisition that Malice it selfe could make into the Mysteries of Christians, concer∣ning the Eucharist, either in Word, or in Act, was not held offensive unto those Emperors, upon any Information, made by their Adversaries, against them.

The Second Solution, to prove their Dilemma [ 10] Insufficient. SECT. V.

OVr next Reason of the Insufficiencie meeteth with the Cardinalls Reason, enforced by the First Horne of his Dilemma, thus:* 1.269 If Iustine (saith hee) could have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten in the Eucharist, onely in a Signe; then did hee praevaricate in the Case of Christians, and make their faith most odious, in increasing the Suspicion of the Crime objected [ 20] against them. Wee Answer, that although hee might have sayd, that Christs flesh is eaten Bodily, onely in a Signe, yet was not this necessary for the freeing of the Christian Faith from that Suspicion of Eating a Child. One Reason may be, Because nothing was more familiar, even unto the Heathen themselves, than to use the like language, in calling their Sacramentall and Mysticall, Signes, by the names of the Things signifyed thereby, whereof you have heard a Me∣morable example out of* 1.270 Homer; where, even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread, [This is my Body;] So those [ 30] Heathen, in Sacrifising of Lambes, for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants, called those Sacrifices their Oaths. And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen, you may know by that Proverbiall speech; Sine Cerere & Libero friget Venus: without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth lan∣guish: where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres, and the name of God Bacchus to Wine.

Secondly, and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine, immediatly after the place now objected, thus: 15 1.271 Christ (saith Iustine) receiving Bread, saith [This is my [ 40] Body:] and taking the Cup, sayd [This is my Blood:] and delivered them onely in those words; the which also even the wicked Devils, by Imitation, have taught to be done in the My∣steries of their Mithra, (namely) for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion, in the Sacrifices, by Addition of certaine words, as you either know, or might have knowne. So Iustine,

To the Heathen Emperour. Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries (as16 1.272 Tertullian witnesseth) affect Divine Rites; And by Imitation play Christs Apes, as other Fathers use to speake; And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies, such as are Bread and Cup, but also in their Verball, by Addition of words, as Iustine sheweth. Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries, and (that wee may so call them) Sacraments: even as Saint Paul did with the Athe∣nians [ 10] out of the Inscription of their owne Altar.

It happened not above a quarter of a yeare, after that had set downe this Observation, that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning, Master Isaac Casaubone, I found this my Opinion fortifyed, and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement, shewing out of his most exquisite Reading; that17 1.273 The Devils did, in aemulation of Christians, use in their Mysteries of Mythra, Symbols of Bread and Cup, adding solemne Mysti∣call words. Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie, that [ 20] in their Religious Communion, they had certaine Aenigma∣ticall expressions; Calling their Communicants, if Men, Lions; if Women, Hyenas; and if Ministers, Crowes. Still (as you see) using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites. Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth. Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ, now published by Iustine, were spoken Figuratively, signifying the Outward Eating of his Body, Bodily, in a Signe onely; or they did not. If they [ 30] did know so much, then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians, or Scandalized thereby. And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mysti∣cally to be understood, then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame (as you see they did) but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants; which Act, among these Heathen, was held to be Criminall and Capitall. And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concea∣ling his Figurative sense of Christs words, it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases, [ 40] used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra.

The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine. SECT. VI.

NO Heathen, that heard of the Catholike Faith of Chri∣stians, concerning the Body of Christ, in those Primi∣tive times, published by Ancient Fathers, and by Iustine himselfe, could, except it were against their Consciences, [ 10] impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ. For, first, the Articles of Christian Faith (for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world, by Martyrdome) being this; that Christ, the Saviour of the world, God and Man, ascended into Heaven, and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse, adored of all Christians with Divine worship. Another Ar∣ticle, Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers (as hath been* 1.274 proved) that the Body of Christ was ever, notwith∣standing his Resurrection and Ascension, Circumscribed in one place. And thirdly, All knowing that this Principle [ 20] was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen (namely) To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once. Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth, which they believed was Circumscribed, and conteined in Heaven. Fourthly, That this was the Faith, which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and pub∣lish at that time, is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iu∣stine himselfe. [ 30]

That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibi∣lity of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth; And that Attalas (objected) condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body. SECT. VII.

IVstine, in the same Apologie, now objected, and by him di∣rected [ 40] unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly, before his words of Eating Christs flesh, setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven, saying 18 1.275 that God the Father assumed Christ, after his death, into Heaven, there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, To detaine him, untill hee van∣quished the Devils, and filled up the number of the Godly. An

Argument (as Athanasius, and Augustine observeth) which was used by Christ himselfe, as that which ought to have perswaded the very Capernaites, that Christ was not to be Bodily Eaten upon Earth (as hath beene* 1.276 proved.) The same Iustine in his Resolution of Questions, made by Ortho∣doxe Christians, shewed that Christ denyed to have a Con∣tinuall Conversation with men, after his Resurrection, which hee had before his Passion: Namely that19 1.277 Hee would by little and little disuse and unaccustome them with his [ 10] sight and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Presence. Do you heare his with∣drawing his Presence? That is, will you say, his Visible Pre∣sence. Nay, but whatsomever Locall Presence, which hee had among them formerly; whether (saith Iustine) of Being Seene, or of Not being Seene among them. This is plaine.

Of Averroes his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God. [ 20] SECT. VIII.

WEe are not ignorant what some of you would Reply, by Instancing in Averroes his upbrayding of Chri∣stians with Devouring of their God, which wee may justly conceive hee spake in the spirit of Malignancie, and against his owne knowledge, as the Premises have proved, and against the expresse Profession of Ancient Fathers, detesting the same Conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh (as you have [ 30] formerly heard.) Just like as our Romish Adversaries deale with us, who, as often as they labour to confute our Doctrine of Iustification onely by Faith, do inveigh against Protestants, as professing a Iustifying Faith without Good works and Repen∣tance. And notwithstanding the same Objectors themselves, expressing the very words of Protestants, confesse that their Iustifying Faith, which they teach, is a Living Faith al∣wayes joyned with Contrition of heart for sinne, and purpose of Amendment of Life, and that this Iustification by Faith can be no more separated from Sanctification of Life, than can the [ 40] Light in the Fire from the Heart thereof.

How be it the Observation of some other is very proba∣ble; to wit, that Averragës understanding of the Decree of Pope Nicolas (above20 1.278 discussed) in his Romane Synod, and imposed upon the Faith of all Christians within his Romish Jurisdiction, teaching them to believe, that The Body of Christ is sensually Eaten and Torne with the Teeth of all the Commu∣nicants of this Sacrament: Which tenour of Speech hath

beene abandoned by your owne Doctors; some censuring it as harsh and false, and some as Hereticall. It can be no mar∣vaile (say wee) that Averro••s hearing of this, Then professed by Papall Christians, did deride and detest all such Eaters of their God, and that most Justly. Because that Devouring (as hath beene confessed by your Jesuite) is nothing else but a Transmitting without mastication, or Tearing, into the stomack▪ else could not Scriputre have sayd, that Ionas was devoured [ 10] of the Whale. Which your Corporall Swallowing of Christs Body, if it had beene held Christian in the Dayes of Anti∣quity, then could not Attalas (as hath beene objected) have upbraided the Heathenish Persecutors at the time of his Martyrdome, saying,* 1.279 This (your persecuting of Christi∣ans to death) is a Devouring of men, Wee Christians do not Devoure men. Such is the Vnluckinesse of your Objectors to urge most vehemently and eagerly, still, that which ma∣keth most against them. And indeed the Romish must needs be sayd to Devoure that which they professe to Eat, Swallow, [ 20] and sometime to passe into their Bellies, and after into the Draught.

CHAP. XI.

Of the Fift, Last, and Basest Romish maner of Vnion with Christs Body, in the Infe∣riour [ 30] parts of your Com∣municants.

HItherto have your Romish Disputers laboured to bring the Body of Christ into your Bellies and Entrailes: Now, as if they thought this not a sufficient Vilfication of the Blessed Bo∣die of Christ, they proceede to depresse it lower, into the Basest place of Baseness, which is the Draught and Seege it selfe: so vile, that the very Inke may seeme to blush, in setting downe the Sordi∣dity [ 40] thereof; which (in respect of other Readers, than your selves, who teach this) wee may not further adventure to mention without Preface of Reverence; under our Readers patience therefore wee proceed, as followeth.

Shewing the Romish Doctrine of an Vnion of Christs Body with the Basest parts of Mans Body, to be more Beastly than the Carnall and Capernaiticall conceipt of Eating Christs Body is read of ever to have descended unto. SECT I.

[ 10] CApernaites, when they were offended at Christs words, concerning the receiving of Christs flesh, are not read to have proceeded further in the grosenesse of their Imagination, than to a Proper Eating thereof. Our Saviour shewing the Ordinary Course of meat, in the superfluity thereof, above that which is turned into nourishment, and changed in the Substantiall parts of mans Body, saith that Coming into the Belly, it descendeth into the Draught. A Saying which holdeth true, as well in meat Sacramentall, as Naturall; as Manna, for example (called Angels food) and the Paschall [ 20] Lambe, neither of both were privileged from the ordinary course of Nature. And as for the materiall part of this Sa∣crament, Origen saith as much of it, that* 1.280 Going into the Belly, it passeth into the Draught. But what now is your Ro∣mish Doctrine? The generall learning of your Schooles is, that The Body of Christ is under the formes of Bread whereso∣ever, so long as they remaine uncorrupt. Which is so verily your Romane Faith, that one of your Cardinalls in his Cate∣chisme, telleth his Catechumenist, that21 1.281 No man, that hath his wits, can doubt thereof.

[ 30] This Ground being thus layd, wee propound unto you the Consequences hereof, as wee finde them divulged in print by your owne Authors, and in their privileged Books, Antoninus was (as22 1.282 you know) an Arch-Bishop living, and being dead, Canonized a Saint by Pope Nicolas. Hee shall be our Relater of the Doctrine of Paludanus, whom your Jesuite23 1.283 commendeth for a Famous Divine, and some∣time a Patriarch. This Petrus Paludanus, from your former Generall Principle, argued, saying that24 1.284 The formes of Bread and Wine do as verily goe into the Stomack, and so after [ 40]

into the Draught, as could the Substance of either of them, if they were there, and yet sometimes passe out uncorrupted, in Bodies infirme, and especially those that labour of the Fluxe: Because some so diseased persons do let passe from them that which they eat, as uncorrupt as they received it, whether it be by Vomit, or by Egestion into the Seege. So hee.

Which againe is a Doctrine so verily Romish, that your owne Casust, in his Booke enstiled Morall Resolutions, propoundeth two Cases; and afterwards manerly (saving your presence) resolveth them thus:25 1.285 that If any, after [ 10] the receiving of the Body of Christ, shall be provoked by Vomit, upward; or else by Egestion to cast them out, then, that the formes of both may be Reverently licked up, if any can per∣forme this without loathsomnesse. So hee. Might this be Possible! Wee returne to your Relater Antoninus, out of Plaudanus, giving you an example of a Devout man much commended by one26 1.286 Hugo For Licking up the Hoast vo∣mited; [ 30] and after affirming that the suffering on Saint Lau∣rence his Gridiron had beene more tolerable than this. So they. How like you this? For mislike it you may not, it being the naturall Brat and Off-spring of your Generall Romish faith, [ 20] Believing (as hath beene sayd) that the Body and Blood of Christ is under the Consecrated formes of Bread and of Wine wheresoever, so long as the same formes remaine uncorrupted. This Theme will not permit much Discussion, for, as the Saying is, Omne Coenum ma••è olet, commove, & senties odo∣rem. Wee hasten to the next Section.

That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have beene held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable. SECT. II.

THe Holy Fathers (if they had beene of your Romish [ 40] Faith, concerning the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament) must have held also your Romish Conclu∣sion, of a Possibility of Egestion; the Conceipt whereof they did greatly abhorre. For* 1.287 Cyril of Ierusalem, to the end that hee might abstract mens mindes from all such mon∣strously-prophane and Base thoughts and conceptions, con∣cerning

the Body of Christ, denyed peremptorily, that Christs Body can passe into the Seege. Which also seemed to be so unsavorie and loathsome to* 1.288 Chrysostome, that hee spit at the first thought thereof, with an Absit! as much as to say [Fy upon it!] in execration thereof. Some Creatures are said, for keeping Hunters from pursuing them, to cast Dung and Filth backward in their faces: and so it falleth out (in a maner) here, where the Turpitude and Beastlinesse of your Doctrine forbiddeth us to inlarge our Confutation, [ 10] and therefore wee hasten to a Conclusion.

That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food onely for the Soule, and not for the Body, according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie. SECT. III.

[ 20] THis Proposition hath beene already* 1.289 confessed by your Councel of Trent, and Romane Catechisme, and confirmed by the Consent of* 1.290 Antiquity it selfe; where it was ma∣nifested, that albeit they sometime make mention of it's being Food and Life to the Body also; yet was not this (as your Jesuites have* 1.291 confessed) so sayd in respect of any im∣mediate Bodily preservation therof, in this Life, but in the Everlasting Life of Glorification, in the Day of Resurrection, after it be reunited to the Soule, according to that Promise of Christ, Ioh. 6. excepting only the Analogicall and Sacra∣mentall [ 30] maner of Feeding, which wee defend (that is to say) As the Body Feedeth Corporally on the Sacrament, Bread; so is the Soule nourished Spiritually with Christs Body and Blood. Otherwise the Ancient Fathers maintayned a sole Soule-feeding on Christs Body; in which respect (as one of your27 1.292 owne learned Authors hath informed you) The Greek Fathers called that which wee receive [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] that is, Supersubstantiall Bread.28 1.293 Wee adde the particular ac∣cordant Testimonies of diverse Fathers, of whom if you aske, What the Meat is, which you must believe to Eat in [ 40] this Sacrament? They will tell you, Not of the Body, but of the Soule. If Who must be the Eater? Not the outward, but the Inward man. If What it is that hungreth for this? The Inward Soule. If What must taste it? The Soule. If with What mouth? That, whereof Tertullian said (speaking of Christs Flesh) It is to be devoured with the Eare, ruminated with the Minde, and disgested with Faith. If How? Let Saint Augustine make up the whole harmony; Eat his Flesh▪

* 1.294 This (saith hee) is a Figurative Speech, commanding us to communicate of his Passion; and sweetly and profitably close up in our memories, that his Flesh was wounded and crucifyed for us. So the Fathers. Besides many other like Sayings, by us already related in the former Sections, wherein hath beene opposed out of the Fathers, against your Corporall Touch, saying of Christ, Touch mee not: against your Orall Eating thus, Not meat of the Tooth; but of the Minde: against your Swallowing thus, Wee Devour not Christs Flesh: against your Corporall mixture therewith thus, Wee mingle not the Persons and Substances: And against your Corporall [ 10] Transmitting the same Body downe by Egestion thus, It de∣scendeth not into the Draught.

Wee therefore (according to the genuine sense of Pri∣mitive Fathers, answerable to the Doctrine of Christ) con∣clude; that such as is our Feeding of Christs Body in this Sacrament, such also must be our Eating, because Eating is ordained for Feeding. But by the universall Consent of all Christian Professours, of all ages, whether Primitive, or Successive, Greeke or Romane, Protestants or Papists; our Spirituall Feeding of Christ Body, in this Sacrament, is de∣voyd [ 20] of all Corporall Instrument, or effect. Therefore our Spirituall Eating is no way Corporall. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

THrice therefore, yea foure times unconscionable are your Disputers, in Objecting the former Sentences of holy Fathers, as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christs [ 30] Body with the Bodies of the Communicants; once, because they, in true sense, make not at all for your Romish Tenet: next, be∣cause they make against it: then, because the Corporall Con∣junction, though it be of the Body of Christ, and Bodies of Chri∣stians, in respect of the Object, yet for the Matter and Sub∣ject, it is of Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies, in a Mysticall Relation to the Body of our Redeemer; and lastly, and that principally, because they meant a Spirituall Conjunction properly, and perpetually belonging to the San∣ctifyed Communicants, and herein consonant to the profession [ 40] of Protestants. Wherefore Primitive and Holy Fathers would have stood amazed, and could not have heard without horrour of your Corporall Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills, in Mawes of Beasts, in Guts of Mice, Wormes and Dogs, and at length into the Seege, as you have taught. Fie, Fie•• Tell it not in Gath, nor let it be once heard of in any Heathenish Nation, to the Blaspheming of the

Christian profession, and Dishonouring of the Broad Seale of the Gospel of Christ, which is the Blessed Sacrament of his pre∣cious Body and Blood.

{fleur-de-lys} Thus much of the Romish Consequence, from their Proper and Literall sense of Christs words [This is my Body] so farre as concerneth Corporall Vnion. The next Conse∣quence will be touching the Proper Sacrificing thereof; whereunto wee proceed, nothing doubting but that wee shall finde your Romish Disputers the same men, which [ 10] hitherto they have appeared to be; Peremptory in their Assertions, Vnconscionable in their Inforcements of the Sentences of Antiquity, Contradictory to them∣selves; and Vaine and Absurd in their Inferences and Con∣clusions. {fleur-de-lys} [ 20] [ 30] [ 40]

Notes

• * 1.1

  See below Ch. •• Sect. ••.
• a 1.2

  Calvin. in hi••s libris, viz. Consensio in re Sacramentaria•• & Di••ensio contra 〈◊〉〈◊〉 et Ex∣plicatio de vera par∣ticipat. coenae Dom. I. F••teor me ab∣horrere ab hoc cras∣so commento localis praesentiae. Substan∣tiâ Christi animae nostrae pas••untur: sed secundùm Virtutem, non secundùm Sub∣stantiam. II. Signum tantum p••••rigi, centies con∣trà. Quasi vero cum Swinck••••ldio qui••∣quam nobis commu∣ne—III. In Catechis∣mo disserui, non so∣lùm beneficiorum Christi significatio∣nem habemus in coe∣na; sed substantive participes, in nam cum eo vitam coa∣lescimus—Figu∣rata locutio, fateor, modò non tellatur rei veritas. IV. Neque enim tantùm dico, appli∣cari merita, sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas, non secùs ac terreno pane cor∣pus vescitur. Vim car∣nis suae vivisicans spi∣ritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit. Spiritu∣alem dicimus, non carnalem, quamv•••• realem, ut haec vox, provera, contra fallacem sumitur: non secundùm substantiam, quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas no∣stras pros••uit. V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus, quod & naturae sines, & sensus nostri modum ex su∣po••at; quod Christi caro nobis sit com nuuis, & nobis in alimentum datu••—Modus incomprehensibilis. VI. Si nos in con∣sesu, quem continet Augustana confes∣sio, complexos esse dixi, non est quod quis me astutiae insi∣mule••. Verbulum in ea Confessione (qua∣lis Ratisbonae edita fuit) non extat do∣ctrinae nostrae con trarium. De Philip∣po Melancthone, ejus Authore, viro spectatae pietatis, dico, non magis me à Philippo, quàm à proprijs visce∣ribus divelli posse, Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse, luculentis testimonijs probare mi∣hi semper promptum erit. Lutherus, meae sententiae non ignarus, propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare. Quum Marpurgi essem, diconciliatio facta est: ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem, quo ante, loco, Oecolampadium & Zuinglium habere, quos illic fratrum loco posthàc fore sancte pollicitus est. Hacte∣n•••• Calvinus.
• b 1.3

  Summus Sal∣v••tor hoc Sacramen∣tum voluit esse tan∣quam spiritualem a∣nimarum cibum, quo alamur, & confor∣temur, viventes vita illius, quo dixit, [Qui mand ucat me, &c.] Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. ca. 2.
• c 1.4

  Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam: Catech. Trid. de Euch. num. 29.
• d 1.5

  Decret. ex Ambros. de mysterijs. Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale. Dis••. 2. ca. In illo.
• e 1.6

  Ambros. lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4.
• f 1.7

  Conc. Trident. Panem illum super∣substantialé frequen∣ter accipiant. Sess. 13. ca. 8.
• * 1.8

  Ioh. 6. 32.
• g 1.9

  Alanus & alij ex citatis Autho∣ribus dicunt, quando reipsa non potest sus∣cipi hoc Sacramen∣tum, ad perficiendam hanc unionem, suffi∣cere quod hoc Sacra∣mentum in voto sus∣cipiatur, quia hoc sa∣tis est, ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum, & uniatur illi. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spirituali∣ter manducatur in voto, etiamsi non Sa∣cramentaliter. Aco••••a Ies. de. Indorum Salute. lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere & Spiritualiter sumunt, qui fide tenent, sub iltis speci••bus verum esse corpus Christi, & simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant. Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29.
• h 1.10

  Mr. Brerely Tract. 2. §. 5. Sub 2.
• i 1.11

  Calvin Epist. 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists, Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi par∣ticipem fuisse Iudam, quam Petrum. In his Institut. lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio. Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant, quo prae∣sentem amplexentur▪ §. 12▪ Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi. §. 13. Non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu. §. 33. Im∣pij & scelerati non edunt Christi corpus, qui sunt ab eo alieni, quia ipsa caro Chri∣sti in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritu∣lis res est, quàm salus aeterna. Vnde colli∣gimus, quod quicun∣que vacui sunt spiritu Christi, carnem Chri∣sti non pos••e edere magis quam vinum bibere, cui non con∣junctus est Sapor—Aliud tamen est of∣ferri aliud recipi—Spiritualem ••ibum omnibus porrigit Christus, etiam in∣dignis; at non abs∣què fide recipitur. §. 34. Saepius, fateor, occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma, Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus, sed seipsum explicat, &c. Haec Calvinus.
• k 1.12

  Sextum eorum pronunciatum est, Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi, licet Symbola suscipiant. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. & Beza. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro.
• l 1.13

  Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse [ 40] vere manducari ore corporali, sed solum ore spirituali per fidem; est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex.
• m 1.14

  Rhemists An∣not. in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 27.
• n 1.15

  Chrysost. Hom 60. & 61. ad Pop. Antioch.
• o 1.16

  Bellar. Ob∣ijcit Cyprian. Sterm. de Lapsis, de ijs qui post negatum Chri∣stum, sine poeniten∣tentia, accedunt; plus cos jam manibus at∣què ore delinquere, quam cum Domi∣num neg••runt. De∣inde Cyprianum re∣censere miracula fa∣cta in vindictam eo∣rum, qui corpus Christi tantum vio∣lant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. [See this answered in the 7. Sectio•• following.]
• p 1.17

  Aug. Tract. 26. in Ioh. sup. illa verba Apostoli, 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis. [Omnes candem spiritualem escam (in Manna.) edebant; & bibebant eundem potum spiritualem, &c.] Corporalem escam diversam, illi Manna, nos aliud, spiritualem sed can∣dem: aliud illi, aliud nos bibimus, sed a∣liud specie visibili, idem autem signifi∣cante virtute. Item. Eandem quam nos escam; sed Patres nostri, (nèmpè fide∣les) non Patres illo∣rum. Aug. Ibid.
• q 1.18

  At eandem inter se; non nobis. cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia.
• r 1.19

  Iudaeos can∣dem escam spiritua∣lem edisse nobiscum; exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus, & qui eum secuti sunt multi; ut Beda, Strabo, & Author Glossae ordinariae—reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus. Ego persuasum habeo, Augustinum, si nostra aetate fuisset, longè aliter sensurum fuisse, omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum, cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari. Maldon. Ies. in Ioh. 6. vers. 50. col. 706.
• s 1.20

  Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum—contra Scholasticorum dogma, quo docent, veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam, & novâ praesentem conferri.
• t 1.21

  Bertram. de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres, fortasse, quam eandem? ni∣mirum ipsam, quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat. Non enim licet—diversa intelligi, [ 30] quoniam unus, idem{que} Christus, qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit, eundem que potum, in Petra, Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 populo praebuisse.—Vide nondum passum Christum esse, etiam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse: non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum, quod discipulis Dominus dicit [Hoc est Corpus meum.]
• u 1.22

  Eandem escam spiritualem id est, Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto: idem, quod nos, sed aliam escam corpo∣ralem, quam nos. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.23

  Aùg in Ioh. Tract. 26. Sacramen∣tum ••umitur a qui∣••••••dam ad vit••••m 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quibu••dam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exi∣tium: Re•• vero ipsa, cujus est Sacrament∣tum, omni homini ad vitam, null•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mortem, quicunquè ejus particips ••uer••••.
• 1 1.24

  Aug de Ne∣cessitate poeni••e••tiae. Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudici••, ut cum alij a••cedunt ad aliare Dei, quô ipse non accedit, con∣••••git quàm sit con∣tremiscenda illa poe∣na, qua percipi••nti∣bus alijs vitam aeter∣nam, alij in mortem praecipitentur aeter∣nam. Item 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ma∣nichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem mandu∣ca•••• contemnit, non habet in se vitam, & ideo non perven••••t ad vitam aete••nam.
• * 1.25

  Luc. 9. 5.
• * 1.26

  Below Sect. 6.
• y 1.27

  Rupertus in Ioh. 6. Si quis existi∣mat illo Sacramēto se non egere, in eo ipso, quod manducare & bib••ere contemnit, quantumvis Catho∣licae professionis ho∣mo sit, a Societate membrorum Christi, quae est Ecclesia, se praecidit &c.
• a 1.28

  Quemadmo∣dum enim accedere frigidè [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]—sic non communi∣care de istis [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪] Chrysost. in 1. C••••. ••0. Hom. 24
• b 1.29

  Conc. Pro∣vincia••e Coloniense fol. 29. Cap. 14. Qui non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hunc pa∣nem vitae, qui de coe∣lo descendit, accipere deside••ant, homines solo nomine Christi∣ani sunt, Capernaitis deterio••es, etiam vo∣luntariè in filium Dei peccantes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Co••pori Dominico & sangui∣ni contumeliam infe∣rentes terribilis quae∣dam expectatio j••∣dicij manet.
• * 1.30

  Objected by Bellarmine above §. 2.
• * 1.31

  Hebr. 6. 6.
• c 1.32

  Aug. lib ••on∣tra Fulgent. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sicut qui mandu∣••••t, & bibit sangui∣nem Domini indignè, judicium sibi mandu∣cat & bibit. Sic qui indignè accipit Bap∣tis••a, judicium sibi accipit, no•• salutem.
• d 1.33

  Contumelia illata imagini, ad personam repraesen∣tatam pertinere cen∣setur. Nota est histo∣ria Theodo si••, de vindicta quam in Antiochenos exer∣cuit, propter dejectam Imperat••cis imagi∣nem Niceph. lib. 13. Hist. c. 43. Teste Sua∣rez Ies Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. Disp. ••4 §. 3.
• e 1.34

  Non enim le∣vem injuriam seculi Principes sibi puta∣bunt illatam in quo∣libet numismate a Subjectis despici no∣verint & calcari. Spe∣culum antiquae devo∣t••onis circa Missam, a Ioh. Cocl••o, ex Wal∣frido. Cap 8.
• f 1.35

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterlum celebrat, quam ab ••o traditum est.
• * 1.36

  1. Cor. 11. vers▪ ••0.
• g 1.37

  Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit Corporis & sangui∣nis Christi, qui tanti mysterij Sacramen∣tum pro vili despe••e∣tit.
• h 1.38

  Primas. in ••und. locum. Quia ac∣ciperent quasi cibum communem.
• 2 1.39

  Hier. Com. in Malach. c. 1. Dum Sacramenta violan∣tur, ipse cujus sunt violatur.
• * 1.40

  See after in Sect. 10.
• k 1.41

  Optatus lib. 2.
• * 1.42

  1. Sam. 5.
• * 1.43

  1. Sam. 6.
• * 1.44

  2 Sam. 6.
• * 1.45

  Levit. 10.
• * 1.46

  Dan. 5.
• * 1.47

  2 King. 2.
• * 1.48

  Numb. 11.
• l 1.49

  Quidam, qui sancti Anthonij I∣maginem abolere cupiebant, non tule∣runt illud scelus im∣pune, sed è vestigio peste illa, quae dicit••o Antonij, correpti in∣terierunt. Bozius de signis. Eccles. lib. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano.
• m 1.50

  Manlius lo∣corum Communium Collect. Minister cu∣jusdam Sartoris Lip∣siae, Anno 1553. Ob temeratam instituti∣onem divinam quâ praecipitur & species utra{que} administretur, unicam tantum reci∣piens, conscientiae crimine oppressus, ex∣clamavit, ô (inquit) Ego sum &c.
• n 1.51

  Sir Booth of S. Iohn's Coll. in Cambridge.
• 3 1.52

  Dr Heskias in his Parlia. of Christ. Book 3. cap. 48. f••l. 367. out of Chryso∣stome. Hom. 30. de proditione Iudae.
• 4 1.53

  B. 2. c. 55. Out of his Hom 51. upon Marc. 14. B. 3. c 46▪ out of the Hom. in Matth. 26.
• 5 1.54

  ••ooke 3. c. 54. out of Hom. 3. in E∣phs.
• 6 1.55

  Book. 3. c. 47. out of Basil.
• 7 1.56

  Book. 3. c. 52. out of Theodoret.
• 8 1.57

  In 1. Cor. 11. Aug. lib. contra ••ul∣gent. Donatist. Dr. Heskins in his par∣liament of Christ. Chap. 48 fol 369.
• 9 1.58

  Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo. Chap. 8. Iudas peccavit, corpus Domini non malum accipiendo, sed mal••. & pag 369 Tract. 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostolus ait, [Qui edit indigne, Reus est corporis Domini.] de ijs di∣ctum, qui corpus Do mini velut quem libet cibum sumebant, &c.
• * 1.59

  See above ••. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5.
• 10 1.60

  Cypri••n de Coena D••m Sacra∣menta quidem quan∣tum in se sunt, sine propria virtute es••e non possunt, nec ullo modo divina maje∣tas absentat se my∣sterijs, sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi & contingi Sacra∣menta permittant, non possunt tamen spiritus esse partici∣pes quorum infideli∣tas tantae sanctitu∣dini contradicit. And a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 after; Sicut corporea natura substantiâ potus & esu••: ita vita spiritus hoc proprio ali∣mento nutritur A little before; Haec m••••er•• alijs odo vi••ae in vitam, alijs mortis in mortem, quia om••no justum ut tanto priventur beneficio gra••••ae contemptores Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. B. 3. c. 49.
• * 1.61

  See above ••. 1. c. 3. §▪ 6. at 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• 11 1.62

  Irenae•• ad∣versus Haeres▪ lib. 5. confesseth, Caro san∣guine Christi nutrita membrum ejus est.
• 12 1.63

  Cyrill. Alex. in Ioh lib. 11. c 26. Vnio haec, per quam nos inter nos, & omnes cum Deo conjungimur. Et l. 4. c. 10. Qui edunt pa∣nem vi••ae immorta∣litatem consequun∣tur Et lib. 10. c. 13. Christum in nobis habitatu••um.
• 13 1.64

  Origen. in Matth 15 Verbum ca••o factum est, quem ••••bum qui co∣medit vivet i•• aeter∣num, quem nullus malus potest come∣dere, alioqui scriptum non esset, qui edit, vivet in aeternum.
• 14 1.65

  Ambrosius de ijs qui myster. initiant. c. 8. Est panis iste vi∣vus—quem qui com∣edit vivet in aeternum.
• 15 1.66

  Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad. Pop. Antioch. Tradit un••onem ra∣tione cujus dicuntur membra Christi.
• 16 1.67

  Origen. vide paul•• sup.
• 17 1.68

  Hi••ronym. in Malac. Sordidi mundum sanguinem bibunt. [namely Sacramentally, for the signe of his Body, who himselfe, in lib. 1. contra ••ovianum cal∣leth it, Typus sanguinis; And againe in Isai•••••• 66. speaking conclusively, saith, Omnes qui non sunt sancti spi∣••itu & corpore, non comedunt carnem nec bibunt sanguinem eius.
• * 1.69

  See above in this Sect. n. 11. &c.
• * 1.70

  See Booke 2. thorowout.
• 8 1.71

  Aug. lib. 21. de Civitate Dei. cap. 25. Respondemus ijs, qui salutem promittunt ijs, qui Baptismate abluti & corporis & sanguinis Christi par∣ticipes facti, quomo∣dolibet vixerint, in quacun que haeresi & impietate ••uerint. Respondendum est etiam ijs, qui hanc liberationem polli centur, solis Catho∣licis, quamvis malè viventibus; qui non solo inquiunt Sacra∣mento, sed reipsa manducaverunt cor∣pus Christi, in ipso scilicer eius corpore constituti, de quo di∣cunt Apostoli, unus panis, unum corpus, multi sumus. [At the end of the Chapter hee concludeth against these from the nature of Truly Eating this Sacrament] Nec er∣go dicendi sunt man∣ducare corpus Chri∣sti, quoniam nec in membris computan∣di sunt, quia non pos∣sunt esse membra Christi, & membra meretricis: Christus dicit, Qui manducat meam ••arnem, & bi∣bit meum sanguinē, in me mane••, & ego in eo, Ostendit, quid sit, non Sacramento tenus, sed revera manducare Corpus Christi, manducare, hoc est, in Christo manere—non au∣tem in eo manet, qui non est membrum Christi.
• 9 1.72

  Aug. Tract. 26. in Ioh. [Qui mandu∣cat carnem meam, in me manet.] Qui non manet in Christo, proculdubio non mā∣ducat Spritualiter carnem Christi, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 carnaliter & visibiliter prem at dentsbus Sacramentum corporis—Tantae rei Sa∣cramentum ad judicium sibi manducat.
• * 1.73

  See below Ch. 5. Sect. 1.
• 10 1.74

  Aug. Tract 59. in Ioh. Illi mandu∣carunt panem, Do∣minum; Iudas au∣tem panem Domini.
• i 1.75

  Resp. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucharist••. cap. 13. Iudas inuti∣liter edebat, sicut qui comedit et rejicit ••••••∣sus, dicitur non com∣edere.
• 11 1.76

  Aug. To. 9. Tract. 26. in Ioh. Illi mandu∣caverunt Manna, & mor•••• non sunt: Quare? quia visibi∣lem cibum spirituali∣ter intellexerunt, nam & hodiè visibi∣lem cibum accipimus; Sed aliud est Sacra∣mentum, Aliud virtus Sacramenti. Quàm multi de Altari acci∣piunt & moriuntur? unde dicit Apostolus judicium sibi man∣ducant.
• 12 1.77

  Dr Heskins in his parliament of Christ. Booke 3. c. 48. fol. 368. & 369. The place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so strictly, that they have no refuge, Say∣ing, Manducaverunt multi qui Domino placuerunt, & mortui non sunt; Quare? quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellex∣erunt—Nam & hodie nos accipi∣mus visibilem cibum; [Scd aliud est Sacra∣mentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti, quam multi de Altari acci∣piunt & mòriuntur. Note here (saith he) the Distinction that Saint Augustine ma∣keth betwixt the Sa∣crament, and the vir∣tue of the Sacra∣ment, Saying: that the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament another. Then of the virtue of the Sacrament, he saith, that many doe receive it at the Altar and do die. Meaning according to the Saying of the Apostle, that receiving, it unwor∣thily [ 40] they Die in the Soule, eating and drinking their owne Damnation. Now would it be learned of the Adversary, how hee will understand Saint Augustine in this word [Virtue.] First certaine it is, that it is not taken for the Sacramentall Bread: For, that is the other member of the Distinction. Then must it either be taken for the virtue of the Passion of Christ, or for the Body of Christ it selfe. For in the Sa∣crament be no more but these three to be received, The Sacrament, The Body of Christ, and the virtue of his Passion. It cannot be taken for the virtue of Christ's Passion, for that is not, nor cannot be Death and Damnation to the Receiver in the receiving, but Life and Salvation. This virtue that Saint Augustine speaketh of is such, that many do die in the receiving of it. It remaineth then, that by this virtue of the Sacrament, is understood the Body of Christ, which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse, and so receiving kill their soules, and Die the Death that Iudas did.
• 13 1.78

  Aug. Tom. 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ioh. Tract. 26. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit, ut si quis manducaverit ex ip∣so, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad vir∣tutem Sacramenti; non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramen∣tum; Qui manducat intus, non foris, qui manducat in corde, non qui premat den∣te.
• a 1.79

  Mr. Brerely. Lituig. Tract. 2. §. 3.
• b 1.80

  Ionsen. Con∣cord. in Ioh. 6. per to∣tum.
• * 1.81

  There are rec∣••oned by some these Authors, Biel, Cusa∣nus, Cajcian, Tap per, Hesselius, to whom way be added peter Lombard. l. 4. Dist. 8. lit. D,
• c 1.82

  Maldonat. in Ioh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catho∣licos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eu∣charistra non agi contendunt.
• c 1.83

  Maldonat. in Ioh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catho∣licos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eu∣charistra non agi contendunt.
• * 1.84

  Above at (a)
• * 1.85

  Matth. 7. 7.
• * 1.86

  Matth. 13. 36.
• d 1.87

  Aug. in Ioh. 7. Tract. 27. [Sunt qui∣dam in vobis, qui non credunt.] Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt sed causam dixit quare non intelli∣gunt, nempè quia non credunt—ut Propheta, nisi credi∣deritis, non intellige∣tis. Aliquanto supe∣rius. Illi putarunt il∣lum erogatu••um cor∣pus suum—Ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum—Certe tunc intelligetis, quia eo modo, quo putatis, non erogat corpus—[Caro non prodest quicquam.] Sicut illi intellexerunt car∣nem, spiritualiter in∣tellectum vivificat. And Master Brerely out of Augustine in Psal. 98. [Nisi quis manducavetit.] Dix∣erunt, durus hic ser∣mo; accep••unt illud stultè carnaliter illud cogitaverunt.
• 1 1.88

  Iansenius Con∣cord. cap 59. upon the very words of Saint Augustine. [Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non in∣telligunt, sed causam dicit quare non intelligunt.] Advertenda differentia inter credentes & non credentes: non credentes ob verba non intellecta offendebantur, credentes verò verba non intellecta humiliter susceperunt, & admirabantur.
• f 1.89

  Sed verus & literalis sensus eorum verborum est, carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt Chrysost. Theophyl. Euthem. nec non Origines. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14.
• 2 1.90

  Tert. de Resurr. Quia durum & intoler abilem sermonem ejus exis••imarunt, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, subjunxit: [Caro nihil prodest] sed ad vivisicandum exequitur quod velit intelligi, spiritum [verba quae locutus sum, sunt spiritus & vita.]
• h 1.91

  Mr. Brerely Liturg Booke 4. §. ••. at Fourthly.
• * 1.92

  See after∣wards, Chap 6. § 3. in the Challenge.
• * 1.93

  See afterward c. 5. Sect. 2.
• 3 1.94

  Aug Tract. 27 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ioh. [Si ergo videri∣tis filium hominis as∣cendentem ubi erat prius] quid est ••oc•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sol vit quod illos moverat? hinc aperuit unde fuerant Scandalizati? Hinc planè, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in••lliger••nt Illi enim pu••abant cum erogaturum corpus suum, Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum, utiquè integ•••••• Cum 〈…〉〈…〉 hominis ascendentem ubi erat p••ius, cer••è vel tunc videbitis, qui non eo modo, quo pu••atatis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corp••s suum: certò vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.95

  See above Booke 3. c. 3. §. 11.
• 4 1.96

  Aug. Tract. 26. in Iob. 6. Nonne Buccella Dominica venenum fuit Iudae? & tamen accepit; sed non quia male, sed quia male malus.
• 1 1.97

  Cyril. Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. cap. 14. Vnde ut hoc corpus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cibo sibi cognato gustu, tactu, ad immortalitatem reducetur? Objected by Bell. lib. 2. de Eu∣char. c. 25.
• 2 1.98

  Chrysostome, Multi desiderant Vi∣dere formam Chri∣sti: Ipsum vides, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. booke 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostomes Hom. 3 in Eph••••. tous; Imput••s manibus au∣sus es ipsius Corpus attinge. ••.
• 3 1.99

  Chrysost. in Mart. 14 (To people that were to be bapti∣zed.) Tenete pedes Salvato••s
• 4 1.100

  Aquinas part 3. quaest 76. Art. 7. Corpus Christi, à nullo in hoc Sacra∣mento videri potest, corporali oculo, quia ibi est per modum substantiae—ne{que} accidentia Corporis Christi habent im∣mediatam habitudi∣nem ad hoc Sacra∣mentum, neque cor∣pora quae circumstant eum ad modum sub∣stantiae, quae non subjacet alicui sen sui, sed nec etiam imagin itioni, sed soli intellectus—Imo nec Daemones pos∣sunt videre Christum per intellectum, ut est in hoc Sacra∣mento.
• 5 1.101

  Vasquez Ies. in 3. Tho quaest. 76. Ant. 7 Disp. 191. c. 3. Christus, ut est in hoc Sacramento, neque alium tangere, neque ab allo tangi protest, non incerta ratione dicimus.
• 6 1.102

  Idem Ibid. quaest. 75. Art. 2. Disp. 180. cap. 9. Tangi dicitur sub pa nis speciebus remote, sicut Christus Luc. 8. [Quis me tetigit] cum tamen nullus ipsum proxime, sed tetigit vestem ejus.
• * 1.103

  See the Testimonie of Aquinas, here above cited, at (4).
• a 1.104

  Baron. An. 1059. num. 11. Eodem An∣no Concilium cele∣bratum est sub Ni∣colao secundo Ge∣nerale Romae in La∣terano, ad quod reus dicturus causam Be∣rengarius Archidia∣conus Andegavens. praesente Nicolao, & coram centum trede∣cim. Episcopis Con∣fessionem jurejuran∣do firmavit.—Quibus verbis con∣ceptum fuit ejusmo∣di Berengarij jusju∣randum, cum in ple∣no Cōcillo detestatus est errorem▪ fidemque Catholicam profes∣sus—Ego Beren∣garius—ore & corde profiteor me eam fidem tenere, quam venerabilis Pa∣pa Nicolaus, & haec sancta Synodus te∣nendam tradidit. Pa∣nem & vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solùm Sacramento, sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri—Hoc jusjurandum, ab Humbreto Episcopo ••a••d. scriptum, ab ipso Papa, universoque Concilio recognitum atque approbatum antea fuerat. Haec ex Lanfranco—Nicolaus Papa scriptum Ius••i∣randum inisit per omnes urbes Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, & ad quaecunque loca, quo fama Berengari•• per∣venire potuit. Hactenus Baronius.
• b 1.105

  Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, &c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius.
• c 1.106

  Waldensis, Ruardus, Scotus sine ulla distincti∣one has locutiones protulerunt, nempe, ita contrectari, manibus frangi, dentibus teri, propriè dici de Corpo∣it Christi, dicere visi sunt. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae.
• d 1.107

  Quod si corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur, certe frangi∣tur, dentibus{que} fide∣lium teritur; utrum∣que enim cibo, quem edimus, & conjun∣ctum & proprium. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 5. ca. ult. sub finem.
• e 1.108

  Tam miro mo∣do corpus Christi connectitur specie∣bus, ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacra∣mentum—Ex hoc sequitur, sicut antea per eadem panis, ita nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari, manducari, carni no∣strae immisceri, den∣tibusque teri; & hoc vel illo loco & vase collocari. Quae om∣nia sive per se, sive pe•• Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramen∣to competāt, nihil re∣fert, modo certa fide credamus haec tam vere & propriae fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi, quam si in propria specie esset, & non minus quam si in ipso panc fi••∣rent, non minus quā Crucifixio, &c. at∣tribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura, propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadē Hypostasi. Alan. Car∣din. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435.
• 1 1.109

  Innocent. lib. 3. de offic. Missae. cap. 21. Dicamus ergo quod forma panis frangitur & ••atteritur, sed corpus Christi sumitur & comeditur. Ea quae notant corrupti∣onem, referentes ad formam panis: ea vero quae notant acceptionem, ad Corpus Christi.
• g 1.110

  Hoc Con∣cilium Generale fuit.—Et haec Abjuratio apertissime significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathe∣mate: nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesia. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primum,
• h 1.111

  In his Rejoynd. pag. 270.
• i 1.112

  Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi, in materia fidei, quam eae quibus utuntur ij, qui Haeresin abiurant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. Sanct. cap. 21. §. Secundo nulla.
• k 1.113

  Calvin. lib. 2. [ 40] Defens. Sacram. Nonne centum potius mortes prae optandae sunt, quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se im∣plicet? pag. 25.
• l 1.114

  Caro Christi, dum in hoc Sacra∣mento manducatur, non dentibus atteri∣tur, quia tangi ne∣quit, est{que} immorta∣lis & impartibilis. Manducatio autem realis requirit conta∣ctum rei edendae, ut possit dividi & trans∣mutari. Quod hic de Corpore Christi fie∣ri nequit. Salme••on. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 20. pag. 136▪
• m 1.115

  Si de ratione manduc••tionis esset attritio dentibus fa∣cta, Dico, Christi corpus vere & proprie manducati, etiam corpore in Euchari∣stia, non quod attri∣tio est necessaria ad manducationem, sa∣tis est enim transmis∣sio in stomachum deglut••endo Sin verò attritio dentibus fa∣cta sit de ratione manducationis: Dico Christi Corpus pro∣prie manducari, non tropice: non enim dicimus corpus Chri∣sti, absolute mandu∣cari, sed manducator sub specie panis: quae sententia significat species manducari vi∣sibiliter & sensibili∣ter, ac promde der∣tibus atteri. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 11. §. Respon. Corpus.
• n 1.116

  Frangi, me∣taphorica, & non propria locutio est, colligitur ex Thoma, qu. 77. Art. 7. & patet, quia fractio proprie & in rigore significat di∣visionem & discontinuationem partium: quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi, Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp. 47. Art. 1. §. 4.
• * 1.117

  Canus, see in the former Section.
• o 1.118

  Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis, Corpus Christi devoratur, Corpus Christi frangi∣tur, quia ipsi modi, qui his verbis significantur, non conveniunt Copori Christi, quod est in hoc Sacramento: sed hae sunt verae, Recipitur à nobis, sumitur à nobis. Maldon. Ies. Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur, sed non atteritur. Ibid. pag. 143.
• p 1.119

  Nisi sanè in∣telligas verba Beren∣garij, in majorem Haeresin incides quā Ipse fuerit. Igitur omnia referas ad spe∣cies ipsas, &c. Gloss. apud Gratian. de Con∣secrat. Dist. 2. c. Ego Berengarius.
• q 1.120

  Ob. Scoto-Britannus: Apud Pontificios—corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri. Resp. Dansqueius Theolog. Canon. in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis. An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo, mente nequissimâ potes comprobare? non magis id facias quàm Caiphas, cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit.
• * 1.121

  Suarez. See above, Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4.
• * 1.122

  See above, cap. 2. Sect. 9.
• * 1.123

  See above in the former Section.
• r 1.124

  Hostiam sa∣livâ reverenter lique∣factam in corpus di∣mittat: non est enim dentibus terenda, vel palato admovenda, sed ante ablutionis sumptionem degluti∣enda. Coster. Ies. In∣stitut. lib 1 cap. 5.
• s 1.125

  Nimis carnaliter intelligebant (Discipuli Capernaitae) credentes ejus carnem comedi oportere, sicut ede∣bantur animalium carnes, quae dentibus conteruntur. Madridius. Ies. de frequenti usu Eucharistiae, cap. 4.
• a 1.126

  Origen. Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. [Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam] Si se∣cundum literam se∣quaris hoc: ipsum quod dictum est, oc∣cidit haec litera: vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit, [Qui non habet, inquit, gladium, vendat tunicam, & emat gladium] Si vero spiritualiter, non occidit, sed est in eo spiritus vivificans.
• b 1.127

  Athanas. Tract. in illa verba. [Quicun∣que dixerit verbum in filium hominis, &c] Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum, ut universis mundi alimonia fie∣ret. Sed propterea ascensionis suae me∣minit, ut eos a cor∣porali intellectu ab∣straheret,—Quae locutus sum (inquit) spiritus sunt & vita, id est, corpus in ci∣bum dabitur, ut spiri∣tualiter unicuique tri∣buatur, & fiat sin∣gulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem.
• c 1.128

  Tertul. de Ca∣pernaitis. Quia du∣rum & intolerabile existimarunt sermo∣nem, quasi vere car∣nem suam illis eden∣dam determinasset, praemisit, [Spiritus est qui vivificat] lib. de Resurrect. carnis.
• d 1.129

  Aug. in Iob 6. [Non moritur] Non qui panem premit dente, sed qui man ducat in Corde. Tract. 26.—Idem in Psal. 98. Spirituali∣ter intelligite, non Hoc corpus, quod vi∣detis, manducaturi estit, & bibituri san∣guinem illum, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: Sacra∣mentum commen∣davi vobis, spiritua∣liter intellectum vi∣vificabit vos.
• e 1.130

  Aug. apud Gratian. de Conse∣crat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. Vt quid. Quid pa•••• dentem & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Ex Aug. de remed. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 §. ut quid.
• * 1.131

  See above, Booke 5. cap. ••. §. 2.
• f 1.132

  Idem rursus apud Gra∣tiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit; quia resurre••t it occi••us: nec, quando mandu••••us, partes de illo faci∣mus, & qu••dem Sacramento id ••it: no••ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi, per parte•• man∣ducatur in Sacramentis m••net integer c••••lo & in corde. Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeli••.
• 1 1.133

  Bellarm. lib. 2, de Eucharist cap. 24. ••uxtà Lanfrancum. Resp. non Idem cor∣pus, id est, non èo∣dem modo, non in specie visibili aut mortali; Idem quo∣ad substantiam, non Idem quoad modum.
• 2 1.134

  Gabriel Bi••l, Lect. 80. lit. n. Non, cum manducamus, partes de illo faci∣mus, & quidem in Sacramento id fit: intelligit nos non partē corporis Chri∣sti sumer••e, sed Sacra∣menti.
• * 1.135

  See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• i 1.136

  Chrysost. in Io∣han. 6. (Gracè) Ho∣mi. 47. (Latinè) Ho∣mil. 46. [Verba, quae ego locutus sum, Spi∣ritus & Vita.] Su••ri∣tus, hoc est, Spiritus alia, hoc enim nihil carnale, nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈◊〉〈◊〉 to non prodest quicquam.] Quid hoc? nunc de ipsa carne dixit? absit, sed pro carnaliter•• audite de ijs, qui carnaliter accipiunt quae dicuntur—Quomodo non prodest quicquam caro, sine qua nemo potest ri∣vere? vide quod non de carne, sed de carnali auditione dictum est.
• * 1.137

  See Chapt. 6. Sect. ••. following.
• k 1.138

  Origen. Hom. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 divers. Script. Lo∣ca. Sub tectum tuam ingreditur, imitare Centurionem, & dic non sum dignus, Do∣mine, &c. Objic. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversari∣orum Responsum ad hoc. [Yea Resp. Orig. ibid.] Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more; quā∣•••• enim sancti Ec∣clesiarum A••••istites sub tectum tuum 〈◊〉〈◊〉, tunc ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur, & tu sic existimes, tanquam Dominum suscipiendum. [The•• followeth the other figure.] Cum hic sanctus cibus, & incorruptibile epulum, &c.
• l 1.139

  Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch. Mul••i dicunt se velle videro ejus formam, ipse concedit, non tantum videre, sed & tangere, & monducare, & dentibus terere. So Chrys••t. ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi. Et lib. 3. de Sacerd••••io, & ••om. 47. in Ioh. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Spiritualia sunt.
• * 1.140

  See his testi∣monie in the former Section at (i)
• 3 1.141

  Dentibus te∣ri, quemadmodum Chrysost. locu••us est, haec non postunt nis•• Sacramento tenus in∣telligt, non propri••. Maldon. Ies. in Matt. 26. 26.
• * 1.142

  See above, Ch. 4. Sect. 2.
• 4 1.143

  Aug. in Ioh. Tract. 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus, nisi Chri∣sti sangu••e conse∣cratus?
• o 1.144

  Gaudent Pro∣misit corpus suum; por••igit tibi corpus suum, corpu•• accipis, De pane fecit corpus proprium, &c. Obj. Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 21. [Albeit a lit∣tle after upon these words. Nist mandu∣caveritis:] Volu••t Christus animas no∣stras precioso suo sanguine sancti••icari•• per imaginem preti∣osae passionis, qu•• omnes fideles populi exempla passio••s ante oculos h••bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus, & ore su∣mentes ac pectore, redemptionis nostrae opas indelebili me∣mo••â teneamus. Gandent. Tract. 2. de Ratione Sacramento∣rum.
• p 1.145

  Aug lib. •• Con. adver. Legist Proph. cap. 9. Christum sanguinem dantem, fideli corde ac ore suscipmus. Ob. Bella••. quo supra cap. 24 §. In Sexto.
• q 1.146

  Notandum, non corde tantum, sed etiam ore dici—Bellar. Ibid. [yet it followeth immediatly in S. Au∣gustine, giving this generall Rule for such Say••ngs••] Agi in omnibus Scripturis secundùm sanae fidei regulam, ••igu∣rativè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibus••ibet rebus & verbis, quae in sacris paginis continentur, ex∣positio illa du••atur, &c. [Teaching in all other Scriptures (as in this) a figurative sense, wherein any matter of Horror, or Turpitude may seeme to be contained]
• r 1.147

  Leo Ser•• 14. de passione Christi. Ipsum per omnia & spiritu & catne gustemus. Ob Bellar. quo supra, cap. 28. [Gustemu••••, pro Gestamus; for hee speakes of Baptisme lawfully administred, where by we are said to put on Christ, Gal. 3. By which, saith hee, Corpus regenerati fiat [ 40] caro Crucisixi. Other places objected out of Leo wee grant, as Serm. 6. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. Hoc ore sumitur, quod cord••. creditur: And so say we; Ore, Sacramentally]
• s 1.148

  Greg Papa Hom. 22. in Evang. Qui sanguis super ••••••∣que postem ponitur, quando non solum ore corpous, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Ob. Rollar. lib 2 de Euch. cap. 23. [But Gregorie a little after of Baptisme,] Et in superlim nare domus agni sanguinem po••imus, quia crucem illius passionis in fronte portamus.
• t 1.149

  Isych. l. 6. in Levit. c. ••2 Per ignorantiam percipit, qui nescit quia corpus hoc & sanguis est secundùm veritatem, &c. Ob. Bellar quo supra [Yet the same Isych. lib. ••. in Levit. cap. ••. Carnem aptam cibo feclt post passione••: si enim non fui••••et crucifi••us, sacrificium ejus corporis mini∣me concederemus, comedimus autem nunc cibum su••ences memoriam passionis.
• u 1.150

  Optat. Mile∣vit. lib. 6. contr. Par∣men. In Altaribus Christi membra sunt portata—Altare sedes est corporis & sanguinis Christi—Immane facinus quando fregistis cali∣ces sanguinis Christi. Obijcit Bellarm. quo supra. Albeit the same Optatus paulò post; Iudaeos estis imitati, illi injecerunt manus Christo, à vobis pas∣sus est in Altari. Idem. Ibidem. Altaria, in quibus membra Christi portata sunt.—Paulò post; Dum impiè persequimini manus nostras illic, ubi corpus Christi habitabat, fecistis & vestras. Hoc modo Iudaeos imitati estis, illi injecerunt manus Christo in cruce, à vobis passus est in Altari.
• * 1.151

  Gabriel. Al∣bispin. Episc. Aureli∣ens. Not. in illud Ca∣put [Membra Chri∣sti.] Praeter corpus Christi, quod in Al∣tari offertur, fideles etiam qui cum eo corpore uniti & adu∣nati sunt, offeruntur. [〈◊〉〈◊〉 nostras.] Id est, Sacrificia nostra. [Fecistis & vestras.] Id est Sacrificia vestra.
• x 1.152

  Aug. Vos estis in Calice, vos estis in mensa. Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10.
• y 1.153

  De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Cùm frangitur.—Dum sanguis de ca∣lice in or•• fidelium funditur. Aug.
• z 1.154

  Hier. in Psal. 147. Quando audimus sermonem Dei, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christi & sanguis ejus in auribus fidelium sunditur.
• a 1.155

  Master Brerely. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. Christus pincer∣na porrexit hoc p••culum, & docuit, ut non solùm exterius hoc sanguine frueremur, sed & inte••ius asp••isione omnipotenti animâ muniremur. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 4.
• b 1.156

  Cyprian, paulò post. Cruci haeremus, sanguinem sugimus, & intra ipsa Redemp∣ptoris vulnera figi∣mus linguam, &c.
• c 1.157

  Gaudent. Tract. 2. Jubemur Caput Divinitatis e∣jus cum pedibus In∣carnationis mandu∣care.
• d 1.158

  Hier. in Psal. 147. Ego corpus Iesu Evangelium puto—Et cum dicit [Qui bibit sanguinem me∣um] licet in mysterio possit intelligi, ta∣men verius sanguis ejus, sermo scriptura∣rum est.
• e 1.159

  Origen. in Numb. 23. Hom. 16. Bibere dicimur san∣guinem Christi, non solum Sacramento∣rum ritu, sed cum Doctrinae ejus verba recipimus, in quibus vita consistit: sicut ipse dicit, Ioh. 6. Ver∣ba mea Spiritus sunt & vita.
• f 1.160

  Saepe monui∣mus non esse Conci∣onatorum verba sem∣per in rigore accipi∣enda: multa enim Declamatores per Hyperbolen enunc••t & inculcant vel oc∣casione persona••um inducti, vel affectuum impetu, vel orationis cursu rapti, Hoc interdum Chrysosto∣mo contigit Sixtu•• Senenfis. Biblioth. lib 6. Annot. 152.
• * 1.161

  See these in the margin following Lu••bard. lib 4. Dist Dist 12. lit. (c) Ve••a fractio non fit in cor∣pore Christi, sed in specie & forma pa∣nis. Maldonat. de Euch. To. 1. Sect. Se∣cundum genus Argu∣mentor. Rat. 2. p. 243. Corpus Christi non vere atteritur, nec vere frangitur. Mal∣don. de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 11. Si a••••ritio actu sit de essentia manducantis, dici Christi Corpus non proprié mandueari, sed Impropr••e & Tropice. Salm••ron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 20. Dici Christum non de••••tibus atteri, est enim impartibilis, manducat••o autem realis requirit, ut posset Dividi. Su••rez Ies. in 3. Tho. qu. 75. Disp. 47. Art. 1. §. 4. Frangi metaphorica, non propria locutio est, ut colligitur ex Tho. qu. 77. Art. 7. quià fractio propriè significat divisionem et discontinuationem partium, quam con∣stat non fieri in cor∣pore Christi. Maldon. Ies. Si proprie loqui velimus, falsae sunt istae propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis, teritur, frangitur, quia non convenire corpori Christi, sed Sacramento teri—intelligi, quia non proprie Christus frangitur, sed Sacramentum. So he. Lib de Sacramento in genere To. ••. §. Qua propter. Vasquez Ies. in 3. Tho 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 76. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. Disp 193. Cap. 2. Hae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ratione Specierum Christo per figuram tribuuntur, quae referuntur ad aliquem sensum, vel etiam ad manducationem, quae etiam in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gu••us consistit—Rursus, Ratione specierum manducari dicitur, nequè enim manducare solum denotat actionem secundum motum quoad locum, sed etiam peculiarem actionem sensut gustus—mand••catio est quaed••m actio praevia quae idem videtu••, arq••cibum dentibus premere. See lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 4. Bellor. Costet. Ies. Alphonsus. Mr. Brereley. See above Booke 2. Cap. 2. §. 4. Dansqueius. See above, Booke 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri, oris Blasphemi est, & mentis nequissimae. Dansquelu••. pag. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.162

  Satis est ut transmissio fiat in sto∣machum, deglutien∣do. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11.
• b 1.163

  Missale Ro∣man. authoritate Con∣cilij Tridentini, & Papa Pij Quarti. Ordinarium Missae. Corpus tuum Domi∣ne, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis.
• c 1.164

  Missale par 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibu•• in Anglia Iussu Pauls Quint•• Papae editum. Deus, qui humani generis utram{que} sub∣stantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas, & renovas Sacramento, tribue quaesu••us ut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & corporibus nostris subsidium non desit, & mentibus.
• 1 1.165

  Aquin•• in 3. qu. 7••. Art, 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus pa••is, quamdi•• sp••cie•• illa manet.
• 2 1.166

  Iosephus Angles Quest. de Sus••••ption. Euch. Art. ••. Dist. Contraria. Opinio est Communis. Conclu∣sio. Brutum come∣dens Sacramentum, verum Corpus Christi divotat, fuit expressè definita per Gregorium undecimum, Testo nostro Riv••to Picta∣vio, in Academ. Battaviae Prosessore in lib. Orthodox. Cathol. Tract. 3. qu. 18.
• * 1.167

  See above, cha. 4. §. 2.
• * 1.168

  Ibid. §. 1.
• f 1.169

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ies. Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in Ioh. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mea ve∣••os est cibus &c.] vo∣tare, est ••ine masti∣catione glutire.
• g 1.170

  Theoph. in Ioh. 6. p. 304. Caper∣naitae putabant, quod Christus cogeret eos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vo∣ratores carnis suae esse: nos hic spiritu∣aliter intelligimus, ne{que} carnium vora∣tores sumus.
• h 1.171

  Origen in Matth. ca. 15 [Quod si quicquid in os in∣greditur, in ventrem abit, & in secessum eijcitur.] Et ille cibus sanctificatus verbo Dei, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ••ijcitur. Cae∣terum juxta precatio∣nem pro proportione fidei factus sit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax sit animus. Nec ma∣teria panis, sed super eo dictus sermo pro∣dest non indigne co∣medenti. Et hae•• qui∣dem de Symbolico corpore: multa porro & de verbo dici pos∣sunt, quod factum est caro, verus{que} cibus, quem qui comederit vivet in aeternum.
• i 1.172

  Bellar. Ista omnia recte intellig•• possunt de Euchari∣stia—at mate∣riale, quod in seces∣sum abit, sunt acci∣dentia, non respectu formae naturalis, sed sanctificationis & magnitudinis: nam magnitudo ad mate∣riam potius pertinet quam ad formam—Et per hoc quod Symbolicum corpus vocat, intelligit cor∣pus Christi, ut est hic Symbolum & signum sui••psius, ut ••rat in cruce. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. ••.
• 3 1.173

  Sequ••tur apud Orig. in Matth c. 15. Haec quidem de Sym∣bolico corpore, multa porro de ipso verbo di••i possunt, quod factum est caro, ve ••usque cibus, quem qui comederit, om∣mino vivet in aeter∣num, quem nullus malus potest 〈◊〉〈◊〉; nam si malus ederet verbum carnem fa∣ctum, cum sit panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Quisquis ederi•• hunc panem viv••t in ae••er∣num.
• * 1.174

  See Booke••. Chap. 2. Sect 6.
• * 1.175

  Booke 6. c. 5. Sect. 7.
• l 1.176

  Cyr••l. Hiero∣sol. Catech Mystag •• Panis hic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• m 1.177

  Chrysost. de Euch. in Encaen. Non sicut reliqu•• cibi in seces••um vadunt: absit•• ne sic cogites.
• n 1.178

  Ambros. l. 5. de Sacram. ca. 4. Non iste panis est, qui va∣dit in corpus, sed pa∣nis vitae 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qui animae nostrae sub∣stantiam fulcit. Ibid. supersubsta•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• o 1.179

  August•• 〈…〉〈…〉. ib. 20. cap 1••. Ex fabula vest••â de Sp. Sancto cerra concipiens gig∣n••t patib••••em Iesum, qui est salus omnium hominum suspensus ex ligno, &c Cap. 12. Cui non totum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unus Christus, si propter unam sub∣stantiam, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in a••bo∣r••bus Christus, & in persecutione Iudae o∣rum Christus, & in sole, & in luna Chri∣stus, &c. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum, in cup•• no∣lunt, quasi aliquid eos caleatus & inclu∣sus offenderit: noster autem panis & calix, non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & sarmentis ligatum, sicut Illi de∣sipiunt, sed cer••â con∣secratione mysticu•••• fit nobis, non nasci∣tur: proinde quin ita fit, quamvis sit panis & cali••, alimentum refectionis est, non Sacramentum religi∣onis, nisi quod be••••∣dicimu••, gratias{que} a∣gimus Domine in omni mun••re ejus, non solum spirituali▪ yerum etiam corpo∣tali Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in e••••is omnibus Christus ligatus opponitur, adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus, solvendusquè ructatibus: nam & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 manducatis, Dei v••stri defectione vos reficitis, & cum digeritis, illius refectione defici••∣tis—Quomodo ergo comparas panem & calicem nostum, & parem religionem dicis, ••rrorem lo••ge 〈◊〉〈◊〉 veritate discretum pejus enim decipimus quam nonnulli, qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant.—Sicut enim a Cerere & Libero Paganorum Dijs longe absumus, quamvis panis & ca∣licis Sacramentum, quod ita laud 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ut in eo nobis pares esse volueritis, ••itu nostro amplectamur, &c. [Edit Pa••i••ijs. Anno. 1555.]
• * 1.180

  See Chap. 7. Sect. 1.
• p 1.181

  Editio Paris Anno 1614 Noster panis—mysticus fit nobis [Corpus Christi] non nascitui [Whereas the direct sense is that Bread Consecrated, is not naturally bread (as it were the spicae, that is Eare•• of Corne, spo∣ken of by the Mani chees) but made My sticall; and Sacramen∣tall by Cōsecration.]
• q 1.182

  Aug. de Doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiva locut••o flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere figu∣rata est, ut [Nisi mand•••• averitis ca••∣nem meam] facinus videtur jubere; Ergo figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter & utiliter re∣condendum in me∣mora, quia pro no∣bis caro ejus cruci∣fixa, & vulneata sit.
• r 1.183

  Bellar. lib. 1 de Euch. cap. 7. Non vult Augustinus di∣cere, carnem Christi Tropice manducari, si essentiam manducationis spectemus, quae solum requirit, ut verus cibus ab ore traijcia∣tur in stomachum, per instrumenta vitalia; sed vult dicere Tropice manducari quoad modum, nam Ordinanus & proprius modus manducandi est, ut caro visibiliter secetur in partes, & particulatim sumatur: & cocta, non creda: Caro autem Christi sumitur integra, & invisibiliter, et sine ulla laesione sui, qua man∣ducatione figurate significamus & representamus passionem Christi. 1. probatur, quia non est scelus car∣nem Christi spirituali modo sine fuilaesione sumere. 2. quia per scelus intellig•••• modum edendi Capernaiticum, nempe tatnem lan••ando.
• * 1.184

  See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2.
• * 1.185

  See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4.
• 4 1.186

  Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde, non qui premit dente, &c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur, non qui premit dente, nimi∣rùm, solo.
• * 1.187

  See above, Cap 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.188

  See above, Cap. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.189

  See above, Cap. 5. Sect. 2.
• * 1.190

  See above; Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5.
• * 1.191

  See before, in this Chap. 6.
• * 1.192

  See 〈…〉〈…〉
• a 1.193

  Multi Ca∣tholici his tempori∣bus, in odium Haere∣sis, veram praesenti∣am corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento—Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi & suscipientem, quam real••m, naturalem, & substant••dem, atquè e••am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus, Turrecremata, Rossensis, Hosius, Turrianus, Bellarminus, Alanus. Suarez. Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3.
• b 1.194

  Denique Recentiores omnes, qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt, hoc fere modo loquuntur. Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. pag. 822.
• c 1.195

  Card. Alan. Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam, corpo∣re Christi vere vesci∣mur, ex qua mandu∣catione per naturae instrumenta real•••••• recipitur intra nos, atque substantiae no∣strae permiscetur, si∣cut caeteri cibi, nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur. De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28.
• d 1.196

  Fe••tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit, docuisse Christum Sacramen∣taliter mandu••atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco, quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare, sed quod immodo du••••undi per totum corpus hominis, ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur; se{que} illis im∣misceat: sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis, sed etiam absurda, & plusquam temeraria est. Suarez quo supr. pag. 822.
• * 1.197

  See above, Chap. 6. §. 2.
• 1 1.198

  In libro qui inscribitur. Speculum exemplar:—V••onem Archiepiscopum Magdoburgensem Capite multatum fuisse, ex cujus visceribus & one, antequam plecte∣tetur capite, Virgo Maria hostias desumpsisse dicitur, & in calicem misisse. Referente Christiano Franken, quondam Iesuit••, Tract. de Bestialissima Adoratione panis & vini in Eucharistia.
• f 1.199

  Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia impro∣babilis, & aliena dig∣nitate & majestate hujus Sacramenti, quod non propter corporalem conjun∣ctionem, sed propter spiritualem institu∣tum est, dicente Christo [Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita. Ioh. 6.] p. 822.
• * 1.200

  See above in the first § at the let∣ter (D)
• * 1.201

  See above at (B)
• * 1.202

  See above his Testimonie cited at the letter (A)
• a 1.203

  Suarez Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. recenset. I. viz. Irenaeum. Quandò mixtus calix, & fra∣ctus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eu∣charistia, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae sub∣stantia. Lib. 5 contra Heres. cap. 2. II. Chrysostom. Nos secum in unam massam reduxit, nequè id fide solum, sed reipsa nos suum corpus effecit. Hom. 88 in Matth. Vt non solum per dilectionem, sed re ipsa in illam carnem convertamur. Hom 5. in Ioh. III. Cyril. Alex [Qui mandu••at meam carnem in me manet, & ego in illo.] Sicut si quis iquefactae cerae aliam ceram insuderit, alteram cum altera commisceat, necesse est—ita qui carnem ecipit, cum ipso conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Lib. 4. in Ioh. Cap. 17. Rursus. Christus vitis, nos palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus. Audi Paulum, Omnes unum Christi corpus, qui de uno pane participamus—quae cum ita fiat, nonne corporaliter facit, communicatione carmis ejus, Christum in nobis habitare? Lib. 10. cap. 13. IV. Greg. Nyssen. Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione, ita Corpus Christi, cum fuerit intra nostrum, ad se transmutat & transfert. Orat. Catech. Cap. 37. V. Leo Papa. Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, [ 40] transeamus. Epist. 23. VI. Hilarius. Not vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quo modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiseuit. Lib. 8. de Trinit. [Hee might have added Iustin Martyr, and others.] Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scribens: Quotquot Baptizati estis in Christo, Christum induistis—Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium, conditionum, Sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis, an ex Sacramenti unitate? quia his & Baptisma sit unum, ita{que} qui per candem rem sunt unum natura unum sunt•• Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 8. Suscipiens Christum non idem sit post Iavacrum, qui ante Baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi. Leo. Serm. 14. de Passione Demini.
• b 1.204

  Tolet. Com. in Iob. •• A••not. 26. D••cet Augustimus lib. 1. de Pec•• merit. Parvulos per B. p••••s∣mum participes fieri hujus Sacramenti (Eucharistie) quod nac 〈…〉〈…〉 nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae, ad unita∣tem Christi perti∣nent; hoc Sacramen∣tum hujus unitatis corporis signum est, & ideo hoc Sacra∣mento aliquo modo participant, nempe quantum rem signifi∣catam, & dici possunt carnem Christi man∣ducare & bibere san∣guinem.
• c 1.205

  Isidor. Pelus. Verbum Dei [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] l. 2. Epist. 281. Item Greg. Nyssen de son∣cto Stephano; Gra∣tiâ spiritus sancti per∣mixtus est & contemperatus.
• d 1.206

  August. apud Gratian. de Conse∣crat. Dist. 4. Ad hoc. Ad hoc Baptismus valet, ut Baptiza••i Christo incorporen∣tur.
• e 1.207

  Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. 20 (de Baptismo.) Facti su∣mus os ex ossibus, & caro ex carne ejus in lavaero.
• f 1.208

  Domase. E∣pist. ad Zachar. E∣pisc. D••arorum. Quod accipitur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Teste Casaub. in Baron. Exercit. 16. cap. 39.
• g 1.209

  Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut salvator dixit [Qui manduc••at carnem meam, in me manet]—Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatio est. Et ut multi de uno pane participantes, unum corpus sumus: Sic si de eodem pane manducamus, unius Idololatriae, unum cum illis corpus efficimur.
• h 1.210

  August. Confess. lib. 7. cap. 10▪ Munducabis me, Tu me in te mutabis, & Tu mutaberis in me. Theophyl. in Ioh. 6. Qui manducat me, vivet propter me, & quodammodò miscetur mihi, Cyril. in Ioh. 11. cap. 26. Suo corpore Christus credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens nos se∣cum & inter nos unum corpus fecit. Suarez in 3. Tho. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. §. 3. Vnionem hanc Pati•••• dicunt non esse solum inter Christum & nos, sed etiam inter no••metipsos, quarenùs sumus membra Christi. [Primisius his Testimonie is at the letter (g) immediately before]
• i 1.211

  Cyrillus. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in Ioh. Filius per benedictionem mysticam, ut homo unitur; spiritualiter autem ut Deus; sui spiritus gratia nos ad novam vitam & di∣vinae naturae partici∣pationem redinte∣grans. Et lib. 11. cap. 26. Fortasse etiam corporali unione cō∣jungimur; licet Dis∣parati sums.—Nam si Petrus & Paulus unum unitate in Christo sunt, Pe∣trus tamen Paulus non est: age igitur, cum Trinitas unum natura sit, considere∣mus etiam quod nos inter nos corporali∣ter, & cum Deo spi∣ritualiter unum si∣mus. Et lib. 9. cap. 47. Christus etiam nos in seipso habet, quo∣niam naturam no∣stram assumpsit, & corpus nostrum cor∣pus unum sactum est, propterea divinae na∣turae participes facti sumus, & filij etiam naturales—Ita ego in Patre sum, quia ex ipso natus, & sic vos participes facti divinae naturae, cum spiritum meum in vobis habitate sci∣verim. Christus enim per spiritum in nobis est, corruptibilita∣tem nostram, ad in∣corruptibilitatem per∣mutans. Et cap. 39. opus est nos partici∣pes naturae suae fieri, & in novam vitam transformari, quod a liter quam per par∣ticipationem spiritus fieri ne quit. Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit, cum ad coelos asconderit, quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit, um praesentia tamen car∣nis abfuerit. Et l. 11. cap. 3. Cum post passionem in coelum ascenderit, spiritum misit, non enim cum Apostolis conversari poterat, cum ad Patrem ascenderat. Dialog. 2. in Trin. Si verè secti∣onem, & partitionem divina natura receiperet, intelligeretur ut corpus; si autem hoc & in loco, omnino & in magnitudine, & in quantitate, non essugiat circumscriptionem. Lib. 11. cap. 26. in illa verba [ut & ipse in vo∣bis sit, sicut ego in Patre] considerandum est, si ad unionem consensus et voluntatis, naturalem etiam invenire [ 20] possimus, per quam nos inter nos et omnes cum Deo conjungimar. Lib. 12. cap. 58. in Ioh. Christus omnibus apparet visibiliter et invisibiliter, Invisibiliter ut Deus, visibiliter ut humo, praebet etiam nobis carnem suam tangendam. Lib. 4. cap. 14 Quommodò non vivemus, cum carnem illam vivificatricem gustamus & mandu∣camus. Et lib. 11. cap. 22. Caro non prodest quicquam, spiritus est qui vivificat, ad sanctificandum et vivifi∣candum nihil prodesse carnem ostendit, in quantum scil. humanae naturae caro est, cum igitur Deitati salvatio tribuitur, non debetis carnis praesentiam propter hoc desiderare. Idem Cyril. de Trin. Qui mysticae benedictio∣nis participes, unum cum Christo corpus sunt, unionem cum illo por fidem sortiti. Et lib, 4. cap. 17. in Ioh. Sicut, si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum altera per totum permisceat; ita qui carnem & sanguinem Domini recipiat, cum eo ita conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Hilarius in Psal 137. Tollit etiam stultissi nam eorum temeritatem, qui frustrato falso{que} corpore Domini in carne visum esse contendunt, non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus; palpate & videre dicitur, si corpus Christi incircumscriptum, simul in multis locis emitteretur. Lib. 8. de Trin. Panis qui de coelo descendit, non nisi ab eo accipitur, qui Christi membrum est. Idem lib. 8. de Trin. Quomodo [ 30] in his non naturalem intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt, omnes enim renati sunt ad in∣nocentiam & immortalitatem—cessat in his ascensus unitas, qui unum sint in ejusdem regeneratione na∣turae—Docet enim Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium Dei unitatem. Quotquot (inquit) Baptizati estis, Christum induistis—quod unum sunt in tanta gentium & sexuum diversitate numquid ex assensu voluntatis est, aut ex Sacramenti unitate, quia his Baptisma unum est, unum Christum in∣dati sunt—Itaquè qui per rem eandem unum sunt, natura etiam unum sunt, non tantum voluntate—Cum dicit Christus ut sin•• illi unum, sicut ego & tu Pater unum sumus—quaero ut rumne per naturae verita∣tem hodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis: si enim vere verbum caro factum est, & nos vere verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui naturam carnis nostrae inseparabilem sibi assumpsit—nos qui vere sub mysterio carnem sumimus, per hoc unum erimus—De veritate carnis non est ambigendi locus, nunc enim ex Domini nostri professione, & fide no∣stra, vere earo est, & vere sanguis: et haec accepta, et haec exhausta, nobis Id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo, & Chri∣stus in nobis sit.—Est ergo in nobis per carnem, & sumus in eo, dum secum hoc quod nos sumus in Deo est; quod autem in eo per Sacramentum communicatae carnis & sanguinis sumus, ipse testatur dicens, ego in patre [ 40] meo, & vos in me, & ego in vobis; non tantum voluntatis unitatem intelligit, sed ut ille in Patre per natu∣ram Divinitatis esset, nos autem in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, & ille contra in nobis per Sacramen∣torum in esse mysterium crederetur—ut nos in eo naturaliter in essemus ipso in nobis permanente.
• 2 1.212

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. A∣liud esse, apud Hila∣rium, aliqua esse u∣num naturaliter, a∣liud autem, unum esse in alio naturali∣ter. Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturali∣ter, satis est, si verè participent naturam ipsius rei, in qua sunt unum: & hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fide∣les esse unum natu∣raliter per fidem—sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter—necesse est, ut natura unius, merè sit in a∣lio: & hoc modo—Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter; quia na∣tura carnis ejus no∣bis vere unitur per Eucharistiam.
• 3 1.213

  Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Con∣tra Arianos, pag 487. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4 1.214

  Ibidem. pag. 486. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 5 1.215

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §. Se∣cundo Respondeo. (Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin.) Non est novum apud Ite∣naeum, Hilarium, Nyssenum, Cyril∣lum, & alios, ut Eu charistia dicatur ale∣re corpora nostra, sed non intelligunt Pa∣tres, cum hoc dicunt, Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri; sic enim fa∣cerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris, non mentis, qu•• nihil absurdius fingi possit.
• 6 1.216

  Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar & Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem cor∣poralem & natura∣lem cum corpore Christ, Doctores ••i non sunt ita intelli∣gendi, ut velin•• ex Christo sumpto & su∣men••e fieri unū Ens naturale, indigna est illis Doctrina) sed hoc dicere voluerunt, praeter unionem, quae ratione charitatis & fidei sit, adesse intra nos ipsos verè & rea∣liter Christum ipsū, qui causa est fidei e∣jusdem.
• 7 1.217

  Suarez. in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia impro∣babilis, & aliena dig∣nitate & majestate hujus Sacramēti, quod non propter corpora∣lem conjunctionem, sed propter spiritua∣lem institutum est, dicente Christo, Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita. Ioh. 6. [See a∣bove, Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f.] Sua∣rez. Damascen. lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacra∣mento—nos Christi concorporei existimus—& animo & voluntate copulamur. Cyril. Hierosol. Catechis. 4. Mystag. Sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis & sanguinis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,—cum ejus sanguinem & corpus in nostra membra receperimus, arquè ita (ut B. Pe••ius dicit) Divinae naturae consortes efficimur. [Hinc Suarez:] Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem, non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam, &c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp. 64. quo supra.
• 8 1.218

  Vas∣quez in 3. Thom. quaest. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei, insolita, & pa••um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur, ita tamen eorum verba & sententias accipere debemus, ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur, nihil tamen contra ipsos; nisi maturo consilio & examine, aliorumque patrum, aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus. Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia, quae allegavimus, per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur; ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur: non quôd revera fieret ita. Ex Haereticis hoc mo∣do testimonia Hilarij & Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus.—Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui, qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent—Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt, si sine Hyperbole explica∣rentur, sequi, ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur, ut cera cerae lique facta—at non sic dissunditur—Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram & realem mixtionem corpo∣ris nostri cum corpore Christi, non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat—Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi, sicut ex duabus ceris, neque fieri unam carn••m per conversionem unius in alteram, sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali, neque id ullus sanae mentis, ullo modo assereret.
• 9 1.219

  Suarez. in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Ex∣istimo omnino cer∣tum, praeter conta∣ctum corporis nostri & Christi, medijs speciebus Sacramen∣talibus, non interve∣nire materialem ali∣quam unionem phy∣sicam & veram.
• * 1.220

  Vide Bellar. quo supra de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 13. supra ci∣tat.
• 10 1.221

  Vasquez. in 3. Tho. qu 7••. Art. 2. cap 4 Disp. 204 Chri∣stus tamdiu est in no∣bis, quamdiu speci••s in nobis incorruptae perseverant, at{que} ex∣tra eas non est, ante∣quam corrumpantur.
• 11 1.222

  Suarez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Quo∣ad hoc, unio haec cō∣munis est peccatori∣bus indignè man∣ducan••ibus Corpus Christi.
• 12 1.223

  Suarez. quo supra. Sancti (Patres) non loquuntur de u∣nione Transeunte, ut sic dicam, cum speci∣ebus Sacramētalibus, sed permanente & Durabili.
• 13 1.224

  Vasquez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap 3. Vnio quam Patres consti∣tuunt inter nostram carnem & carnem Christi, tamdiu ma∣net, quamdiu a Cha∣ritate Christi non se∣paramur.
• 14 1.225

  Suarez quo supra. Non est haec unio corporalis aut Physica, sed spiritua∣lis & Mystica. Et Vasquez. quo supra. Neque aliam quam moralem & mysti∣cam, Paties, inter carnem nostram & carnem Christi, in∣telligi voluerunt.
• 1 1.226

  Hier Epist. 15. ad Hebdidiam, objected by Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 23. and Doctor Heskins cap. 53. and others. Do∣minus Iesus, ipse est conviva, & convivi∣um: ipse comedens & qui comeditur:—illius bibimus san∣guinem, & sine illo potare non possimus—& quotidie in Sacrificijs ejus ex ge∣nimine verae vitis, & vineae Sore••, quae in∣terpretatur electa, ru∣bentia musta calca∣mus, & novum ex ijs bibimus vinum—in ecclesia, quod reg∣num patris est.
• 2 1.227

  And Chryso∣stome also by Doctor Heskins (See in the Section following.)
• 3 1.228

  In Liturgijs, ut patet ex Casaubon. Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And
• * 1.229

  Conc. Ni∣cen. can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore, ultimo & necessario viatico non privetur, &c.
• 4 1.230

  Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 73. Art. 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, quae erit in patria, ideo dictum via••icum quia hic praebet nobis vi∣am illu•• perveniendi.
• 5 1.231

  Basil. Exhort. ad Baptismum, De Baptisme sic monet Iuvenem; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 6 1.232

  Nazian. Orat. 40. de Baptismo, vult morientem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 7 1.233

  Gahrie••. Albispin. Episc. lib. Observat. 11. Qui hoc viaticum in omnibus Canonibus Eucharistiam interpretantur, non mious labantur—cum tot sint genera viatici, quot sunt modi & viae ad Ecclesiae com∣munionem obtinendam—Consideres nihil aliud dici viaticum, nisi quod in morte sumitur, & in alteram vitam proficiscenti prodesse potest. At Baptismus & Absolutio, quando morientibus impartiuntur, quid ni vi∣atica censeri possint?
• 8 1.234

  Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato. Optatus vo∣cet Eucharist••••. 〈…〉〈…〉 fidei, et spem Resur∣rectionis▪
• 9 1.235

  Basil exhort. ad Baptis. Baptismus nam{que} ad resurrecti∣onem facultas quae∣dam et a••••abo, &c.
• 10 1.236

  Theodoret. in Divinorum Decreto∣rum Epitome de Bap∣tismo. Baptismus est pignus et A••••a futu∣rorū bonorum, et fu∣turae Resurrectionis.
• 11 1.237

  Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. Book. 2. cap 55. objected out of Chry∣sostome in Matth 26. Hom. 83. Ipse quo{que} orbit ex eo, ne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••bis illis dicerent; Quid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sangui∣••••m bibimus et car∣nem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ac ideo per••urbarentur—Ne igitur tunc quo{que} id accideret, primus ipse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fe∣cit, ut Tranqu••lo a∣nimo ad communi∣cationem mysterio∣rum induceret.
• * 1.238

  See above.
• 12 1.239

  Chrysost. in Ioh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelli∣gere? simpliciter ut res dicuntur, neque aliud quippiam exco∣gitate.
• * 1.240

  Costerus. See above, Booke 4. ca. 10. §. 5.
• 13 1.241

  Hieron. See above, Booke 3. Ca. 3. §. 11.
• 14 1.242

  Gaudent. See above, Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1••. at (••).
• 15 1.243

  Primas. in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum de∣dit, ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in mente habeamus, quod Christus pro nobis mortuus est, ideo no∣bis dicitur Corpus Christi, ut cum hoc recordati fuerimus, non simus ingrati gratiae ejus. Quemad∣modum si quis mori∣ens relinquat ei, quem diligit, aliquod pignus, quod ille post mortem ejus quan∣docunque viderit, nunquid potest la∣chrymas continere si perfectè dilexerit?
• 16 1.244

  Ambros. Serm. 58. in illud Christi ad Magdalen. [Noli me tangere.]—Ergò eum non super terram, nec in terra, nec secundum carnem, debemus quaerere Salvatorem.
• 17 1.245

  Aug. Non dentis cibus. Idem. Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. Nolite parare fances, sed cor.
• 18 1.246

  Attalas Martyr. See above.
• 19 1.247

  Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus.
• 20 1.248

  Idem de Coe∣na Dom De unione nostra cum Christo in hoc Sacramento. Ad participationem spiritus, non usque ad Consubstantiali∣tatem—nostra & ipsius conjunction, non miscet personas, neque unit substan∣tias, sed affectus con∣sociat, & confoede∣rat voluntates.
• 21 1.249

  Cyril. Hie∣rosol. See above, Booke 4. cap. 10 § 3.
• * 1.250

  Chrysost. See above.
• 22 1.251

  Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corpo∣ris respondet gloriae animae, sicut beati∣tudo animae respon∣det gratiae & chari∣tati: ut sicut hoc Sa∣cramentum, ne{que} ha∣bet, nequè haberé potest aliam efficaci∣am circa gloriam a∣nimae, praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam & charita∣tem, ita{que} ne{que} aliter p••••est efficere glo∣riam corporis, quam gloriam animae (Cō∣dudit;) Hoc Sacra∣mentum non aliam conferre vitam & immortalitatem cor∣poris, quam nutrien∣do & conservando charitatem & gra∣tiam.
• 23 1.252

  Cyprian de C••na Dom. Potus & Esus ad eandem per∣tinent rationem, qui∣bus sicut corporea nutritur substantia, & vivit, & ••••colum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perse••erat; ita vita spiritus hoc prop••io alimento nutritur: & quod est es••a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, hoc animae est fides; quod cibus corpori•• est verbum spiritui, excellentiori virtute peragens aeternali∣ter, quod agant ali∣menta carnalia tem∣poraliter.
• a 1.253

  Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Mar∣gin hee citeth Vadi∣an, whom hee na∣meth a Zuinglian: [And if so, how far••e hee was from confes∣sing a Corporall Pre∣sence, the Romish Authors, who con∣demne him for the contrary opinion, doe prove.] See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 3.
• b 1.254

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4.
• * 1.255

  In the Mar∣gin of Master Berely. Ibid.
• 1 1.256

  He••kins in his Parliament, B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156.
• 2 1.257

  Aug. Haeres. 26. Cataphryges Sa∣cramenta perhiben∣tur funes••a habere. Nam de infanti an∣niculi sanguine, quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent, quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur, miscentes eum fari••ae, panemquê inde facientes; qui p••er si mortuus fuerit, ha∣bent illum pro Martyre; sin vivus pro Magno Sace••dote.
• 3 1.258

  Irenaeus. lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum, (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis.
• 4 1.259

  Ter∣••ull. ad uxorem. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes. [Agapae verò non nisi Vespere.] Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput, & per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij, &c.
• 5 1.260

  Epiphan. Haeres. 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo ••undunt, & omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto, &c.
• 6 1.261

  Origen. testatur opera Iudaeorum has calum••ias adversus Christian••s di••••igatus. lib. 1. contra Celsum. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• 7 1.262

  Ma••donat. lib. 7. de Sacramentis. Tom. de Eucharislia. §. Sexta Questio—Montanistae, Peputi∣ani (ut Author est August. lib. de Hae∣res. c. 27. & Epiph. in Haeres. 49.) In∣fantem conspersum farinâ solebant com∣pungere, & sangui∣nem ab illa expres∣sum miscere farinâ & ex eo panem con∣ficere ad Eucharisti∣am. Vnde credo na∣tam fuisse illam no∣tam, quam Gentiles inurebant Christia∣nis, quod infantes occiderent.
• 8 1.263

  Baronius An∣no 120. num. 22. us{que} ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto, palam facta cōvertebant in Chri∣stianos: nam Epi∣phanius Haeres. 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt, & omnes contusi pueri partici∣pes facti, esu peracto &c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & aver∣••unt aures a praeconio veritatis. Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divul∣gatas. lib. 1. con. Celsum.—Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium. Baronius locis supra notatis. Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus, fabula tam detestanda, quam nota est &c. Lorinus Ies. in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges & Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem lambunt & carnem devorant. Euchitae & Gnostici [ 30] olim hoc factitârunt, ea etiam ab Ethnicis in Catholicos derivata calumnia est, ut Apologiarum pro Christia∣nis meminerunt Scriptores.
• 10 1.264

  Gabriel Episcop. Albispin. lib. 1. Observat. 18: Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur. Te••t. ad uxor. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes. Agapae non nisi vespere. Item quae de Convivio, quod Gentiles infamabant, habent Patres, cum ea omnia de Agapis, non de Euchati∣stia accipienda sunt, ut in Apologet. Tert••l. cap. 7. 8. 9. & in fine, quod non animadvertentes pleri{que} perpe∣ram de Eucharistia explicarunt. Similiter apud Minutium de inhumanis cibus, de infante farte contecto, quod coeunt solenni die, & quae hisce objectionibus respondet, Minutius, de Agapis intelligere necesse est, eo apud Euseb. Imper. Iustin. Gretzerus. Ies. de cruce, lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethnici aliqui mentiebantur Christianos A sinum pro Deo colete.
• 11 1.265

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Inso∣lubi••e manet hoc Dilemma; Aut po∣terat Iustinus vere dicere, carnem Chri∣sti a Christianis so∣lum in signo mandu∣cari; aut non pote∣rat; si poterat, P••ae∣varicator fuit causae Christianae: Nam odiosissimam reddi∣dit fidem, & auxit criminum supicio∣nem, cum posset unto verbo, & fidem pro∣babilem facere, & cri∣men diluere: Si non poterat, certè id eo non poterat, quia verè, & non in signo tantum datur nobis comedenda Christi caro.
• 12 1.266

  Iustin. A∣polog. 2. Refert prae∣scriptum Antonini Imperatoris, ad po∣pulos A siae. Senten∣tiam corum (Chri∣stianorum) ve••uti im∣piorum & nullorum Deorum sugillatis et alia quaedam obi••∣citis crimina, quae non potestis probate.
• 13 1.267

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 14 1.268

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.269

  See above, Sect. 3.
• * 1.270

  See above, Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.
• 15 1.271

  Iustin. Loco supracitat [Hoc est sanguis meus] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 16 1.272

  Tertul. de Cor••na 〈…〉〈…〉) Ag∣noseamus ingenia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ideuco quae∣dam de divims asse∣ctantis, ut nos de su∣oru•• fide confundat, et ••ud••cet. Idem. de Praes••ription. Ipsus res Sacramentorum. devinorum in Idol ••∣rum myster••••s aemu∣latur. Ti••git & ipse quosdam,—ce∣lebrat et panis obla∣tionem; et imagi∣nem Resurrectionis inducit.
• 17 1.273

  Isaac Ca∣saub in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exer∣citat. 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera nar∣rat, malos Daemo∣nas in Mith••ae my∣sterijs S. Eachar••••liae aemulationem quan∣dam tradidisse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ecce panem et poculum; sed a∣quae, ut dixi, non vin•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 verba so∣lemnia super Symbo∣lis proferri solita: id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. q••d. super dicta: qua voce utuntur Iuris. consulti. Etiam Ar∣rianus, loco paulo ante indicato, sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat, quas magnà cum reveren∣tiâ excipi solitas ostendit: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et d••catur Communio, sicut ante est expositum: in••••dem Mithr•••• mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animanti∣bus inter se, miro Symbolorum genere expri••••ba••ur.
• * 1.274

  See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5.
• 18 1.275

  Iustin. in Apo∣logia secund pag. 64. Deus, Christum post Resurrectionem illa∣turus coelo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. adver∣santes Daemones per∣cutiat, et bonorum numerum expleatur, propter quos non∣dum extremum De∣cretum et consum∣mationem fecit.
• * 1.276

  See above, B. 5. cap. 3. Sect. 2.
• 19 1.277

  Iustin. Quaest. & Resp. ad Orthodo∣x••••. pag. 327. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. adding that after his Resur••ection 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 20 1.278

  Pope Nico∣las the Second, living Ann. 1059. Averroes (ut a••t Possevinus Biblioth lib 13. c. 23.) fuit à Nativitate Christi, anno 1150.
• * 1.279

  See above Sect. 1.
• * 1.280

  Origen. See B. 4. cap. 9. § 3. & B. 3. cap. 3. § ••1. & B. 5. cap. 6. §. 3.
• 21 1.281

  Contarenus Cardinal. Catechests Christiana. Interrog. 14. Remanetne cor∣pus Christi▪ & san∣guis, in Eucharistia, donec species illae re∣manent? Resp. Quis sanus mente posset de hoc ambigere. Vis enim Consecrationis durat semper, donec res consecrata dura∣verit.
• 22 1.282

  Anton Pos∣setia. Apparat. Tit. Antoninus—Anto∣ninus Florentinus, deinceps Archiepi∣scopus Patriae suae, in Sanctorum numerum à Pontifice Clemente Septimo relatus.
• 23 1.283

  Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Petrus de Palude.—Inter Theologos celebris, & postea Patriarcha Constan∣tinopolitanus.
• 24 1.284

  Antonini Summae, parte tertia, Tit. 13. cap. 6. §. 3. de Defectibus Missae Petrus de Pa∣lude. Non potest evomi nisi quod in stomachum est trajectum. Et quod dicit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illa Glossa, quod in se∣cessum non emittitur, sed per sudorem aliter emanat, fatuum est fingere, qui & per secessum taliter emitti pos∣sunt species, sicut emitteretur substantia panis & vin, & non aliter. Illa autem quanquam non corrupta emi∣tuntur, ut in habentibus fluxum▪ergo & species, propter quod non est danda Eucharistia habenti talem flu∣xum, quia se emittit integrum quod sumit, sicut nec habenti vomitum, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 istud magis cederet in irreveren∣tiam Sacramenti, quam illud. Igitur, Corpus & Sanguis Christi, tamdiu manet in ventre, & stomacho vel vo∣mitu, & quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manet, sicut substantia conversa mansistet, & si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur, ut ibi verè Corpus Christ.
• 25 1.285

  Iohannes Bap∣tista de Bertis. Qu. 5. Art. 6. Dub. 5. Quid agendum sit, si post sumptionem sangui∣nis patiatur Sacerdos vomitum, vel ex in∣firmitate emittit per secessum, quod sump∣sit. Et idem Iohann. Baptista. Qu. 5. Ar∣tic. 3. Dub. 5. Quid agendum, si quis post sumptionem sangui∣nis Christi statim patiatur vomitum. Resp. Reverenter col∣ligantur species pa∣nis, si decerni pos∣sunt, & reponantur in sacrario, vel su∣mantur ab aliquo, si saltem adsit aliquis ad sumendum dispo∣situs absque nausea, & ea, in quibus in∣ventae fuerunt spe∣cies, comburantur, & cineres in Sacrario recondantur; & idem dicendum est, si ex infirmitate statim emittat per secessum.
• 26 1.286

  Antoni•••• quo supra. Et siquidem homo esset tanti fervoris quod hujusmodi non horreret, sed sumeret, commendandus esset; si tamen esset jejun••s. Sic Beatus Hugo. Cluniacus commendavit Goderanum sumendo partiunculas Hostiae, quas leprosus cum vi∣lissimo sputu evomuerat, dicens Cratuculam Laurentij esse tollerabiliorem. Nec puto eos sibi contrarios, sed dictum Thomae videtur intelligendum, cum jam videtur species Sacramenti alierata, scilicer, quod debet com∣buri animal. Dictum verò Petri, cum factum est ita recens, quòd adhuc creditur species Sacramenti permanere in stomacho, & tunc debet exenterari.
• * 1.287

  Cyril. Hierosol. See above, Booke 4. cap ••••. §. ••.
• * 1.288

  Chrysost. Ibid.
• * 1.289

  See above ch. 2. § 3.
• * 1.290

  See above ch. 10. §. 5.
• * 1.291

  Ibid.
• 27 1.292

  Casaub. Ex. er••it. 16. cap. 39. Vocant Graeci Pa∣tres hoc Sacramen∣tum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 28 1.293

  Tertull. de Orat. Aug. Epist. 121. Isidor. Hisp. de ••ffic. lib. 1. cap. 5. Am∣bros. lib. 5. de Sa∣cramentis. Non est iste cibus, qui vadit in corpus: sed qui animae substantiam fulcit. Bertram de Corpore Domini. Vbi loquitur Ambrosius de Corpore Domini. Origen. in Genes. cap. 24. Christus est pa∣nis vitae, & pascit ani∣mas es••rientes. Ter∣tull. de Resurrect. de Carne Christi. Panis coelestis auditu devo∣randu••, intellectu ru∣minandus, fide dige∣rendus. Aug. Tract. 26. in Ioh. Panis iste quaerit esurlem inte∣rioris hominis. Ba∣sil. in Psalm. Est & quiddam interni ho∣minis os, quo pasci∣tur, recipiens verbum vitae, qui panis de∣scendit de caelo.
• * 1.294

  See above ch. 6. §. 4.