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 THIRD BOOKE, Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence, [ 10] pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposi∣tion of Christ's wordes. [This is my Body.] called TRANSVBSTAN∣TIATION.

• Your Doctrinall Romish Con∣sequences are Five, viz. the Corporall
  • 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ, called Transubstantiation; in this Third Booke.
  • [ 20] 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament, called Corporall Presence; in the Fourth Booke.
  • 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants, called Reall, or Materiall Conjunction; in the Fifth Booke.
  • 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body, by the hands of the Priest, called a Propitiatory Sacrifice; in the Sixth Booke.
  • [ 30] 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship, cal∣led Latria, or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament; in the Seventh Booke.

After follow the Additionals, in a Summary Disco∣verie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse, and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof; in the Eighth Booke.

THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences, which you teach, and professe, and [ 40] which wee shall (by God's assistance) pursue, according to our former Me∣thod of Brevity, and Perspicuity; and that by as good, and undenyable Evi∣dences, and Confessions of your owne Authours, in most points, as either you can expect, or the Cause it selfe require. And because a Thing must have a Begetting, before it have a manner of Being, there∣fore

before wee treate of the Corporall Presence, wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation, which is the man∣ner (as wee may so say) of the Procreation thereof.

CHAP. I.

The State of the Controversie, concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants, which is Sa∣cramentall; [ 10] And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall.

First of the Sacramentall. SECT. I.

THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule, that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament, that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body: [ 20] which Office of Discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not onely in the use, but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith, from the Object of Sense. The First Object of Christian Faith, is the Divine Alteration, and Change of naturall Bread, into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie. This wee call a Divine Change, because none but the same Omnipotent power, that made the Creature and Element of Bread, can Change it into a Sacrament. [ 30]

The Second Object of Faith, is the Body of Christ it selfe, Sa∣cramentally represented, and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants. There are then three Objects, in all, to be di∣stinguished. The First is before Consecration, the Bread meerely Naturall. Secondly, After Consecration, Bread Sacramentall. Thirdly, Christs owne Body, which is the Spirituall, and Super∣substantiall Bread, truly exhibited by this Sacramentall, to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull.

Secondly of the Romish Change, which you call Transubstantiation. [ 40] SECT. II.

BVt your Change in the Councell ofa Trent is thus defi∣ned: Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance

of Bread into the Body of Christ, and of Wine into his Blood. Which by the Bull ofb Pius the Fourth, then Pope, is made an Article of Faith, without which a man cannot bee saved. Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Fig∣ment, andc Heresie. The Case thus standing, it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Founda∣tion. As for the Church of England, shee professeth in her 28. Article, saying of this Transubstantiation, that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plaine words of [ 10] Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS.

CHAP. II.

The Question is to be examined by these grounds; viz.

• I Scripture.
• [ 20] II. Antiquity.
• III. Divine Reason.

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

The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ his words, [ 30] [This is my Body,] for proofe of Tran∣substantiation. SECT. I.

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

[ 40] CHALLENGE.

WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to bee undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you

your selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you b grant that (besides Cardinall Caejetane, and some other An∣cient Schoolemen) Scotus and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation. So they. Which your Cardinall, and our greatest Adversary, faithc Is not al∣together improbable; and whereunto your Bishopd Roffensis giveth his consent.

Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of [ 10] your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proofe of your Transubstantiation, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as toe Change the Verbe Sub∣stantive [Est] into a Verbe Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Tran∣sit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sense, which your Iesuite Suarez can∣not allow, because (as hee truly saith) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word, Transubstantiation, importeth no more than the Fieri, seu Transire, of Making, or Passing of one Substance into another. So that still you see Transubstantiation [ 20] cannot bee extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.

{fleur-de-lys}The like violence is used by your IesuitI Gordon, who, to make Christs Speech to be Practicall, for working a Transub∣stātiation, doth inforce the words [This is my Body] and, [Eat yee this] and, [Drinke yee this] being all spoken in the Pre∣sent tense, to signifie the future. Which, although it were true, all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage. From these Premisses it is most apparent, that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this Dilēma, thus: [ 30] Either have these words of Christ [This is my Body] a Sense Practicall, to signifie that which they worke, and then is the Sense Tropicall, (as you have now heard them, against your Romish Literall Sense, to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ:) or else they are not Practicall; and then they cannot implie your Tran∣substantiation at all.

Wee might, in the third place, adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fathers, and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene al∣ready [ 40] plentifully proved, as an insallible Truth. So ground∣lesse

is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following. But yet, by the way, wee take leave to prevent your Objection. You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative, and worke that which they signifie; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christs Body; which wee shall beleeve, assoone as you shall bee able to prove, that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood,] Luke [ 10] 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood, or else into his Blood it selfe.

The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof. SECT. II. [ 20] The Title, and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date.

YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians; albeit the word, Transub∣stantiation (as you grant)f was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome, or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Cardinallg Alan witnesseth) before the Councell of Laterane, which was 1•• 15. yeares after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine, for a Thousand yeares, attributing [ 30] any word equivalent, in strict Sense, unto the same word Tran∣substantiation, untill the yeare 900 (which is beyond the Com∣passe of due Antiquitie.) At what time you finde, note, and urge Theophylact, who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sense hee used it, you might best have learned from himselfe, who in the ve∣ry same place saith that Christ in a manner ish Trans-elemen∣tated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradox it were, being taken in strict and proper Sense, we permit to your owne judgements to determine.

[ 40] Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word, object the like use of this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began: because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious; for that

the use of it had beene Ancient before their times, as your Car∣dinall i Bellarmine arrow_forward himselfe witnesseth.

You furthermore, to prevent our Objection (demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had beene of your Romish Faith, concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) have shaped us this Answer, namely, thatk Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Transformation, Trans-elementation, and the like. [ 10] So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you; who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle, viz, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are transformed] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstanti∣ated into Christ: or, from the word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He is trans∣figured] say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is changed] (used by l Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] inm Nazianzene, conclude that Every per∣son [ 20] Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ. {fleur-de-lys}And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers, and comming to the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word, Transubstan∣tiatio) hee confesseth that2 They used it not. And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof, at this day, you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople; the One not admit∣ting, the Other rejecting it; as will bee showne in the second Chapter.

Will you have the World imagine that so many, so excel∣lent, [ 30] and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not, in a Thousand yeares space, finde out either the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Latine Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Change, if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome from your Cardinall?n Liberty of devi∣sing new wordes (saith he) is a thing most dangerous; because new words, by little and little, beget new things. So he. Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [ 40] which Saint Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid; else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel, and brutish opinion, such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be; As followeth.

The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane (namely) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ. SECT. III.

THis Article hath beene decreed (as you have heard) by [ 10] your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and there∣fore presumed to be Ancient.

CHALLENGE.

THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Car∣dinall o arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh. viz. 1073. yeares after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. yeares after this Pope, and [ 20] esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole) when he had labou∣red to give Resolution to all doubts, especially in this very Que∣stion (whether the Conversion were substantiall, or not) confesseth plainely, saying;p Definire non sufficio: I am not able to De∣termine. So he. Anno. 1140.

Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely, which caused your learned and Subtile School-man Scotus to de∣scend lower, to finde out the Birth thereof,q Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councel of Laterane, under Pope Innocent the Third, viz. An∣no [ 30] 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading. But either were your Iesuite Coster, and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning, as Scotus, or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward under Gre∣gory the Seventh. For your Iesuite saith, in direct tearmes, that r The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane, for a clearer explication, that Christians might under∣stand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so understood before? But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth, thats If it [ 40] had not beene for the Councel of Laterane, it might be now lawfull to impugne it. So he. A plaine acknowledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel, even as Scotus affir∣med before. But we pursue this Chase yet further, to shew,

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane, under Pope inno∣centius the Third. SECT. IV.

YOur owne learned Romisht Priest, a long time Prisoner, did (under the name of Widdrington) produce many Hi∣storians, [ 10] viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Mat∣thew Paris, and others, to testifie as followeth: That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Perusium. Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say, that This Generall Councel, which see∣med to promise bigge and mighty matters, did end in scorne and mockery, performing nothing at all. Wee might adde, that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after. No marvell then if some u Schoole-men, among whom were Scotus and Biel, held [ 20] Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient. And another, thatx It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, Ma∣ster Brerely (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) stick∣eth not to say thaty Transubstantiation compleat (that is, both for forme, and matter) was not determined untill the last Coun∣cel of Trent; that is to say, not untill the yeare of our Lord, 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had, before it came to be formed? and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to be proved, by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood [ 30] thereof. [ 40]

CHAP. III.

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

[ 10] THe Councel of Trent (saith youra Cardinall) hath de∣fined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread, that is, aswell forme, as matter, into the Sub∣stance of Christ's Body.

Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Tran∣substantiation, by the Contradictions of the Defen∣ders thereof; whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe [ 20] of the Article.

THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church, concer∣ning the nature of this Conversion, are by you reduced in∣to these two maners, (namely) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread: or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread.

CHALLENGE.

[ 30] VVHatsoever it is, which you will seeme to professe, ne∣ver shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation. First, not by Production, because (as the sameb Cardinall truly argu∣eth) Conversion by Production is, when the thing that is produced is not yet extant: as when Christ converted water into wine, wine was not Extant, before it was Produced out of the substance of wa∣ter. But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be [ 40] believed by your Iesuites,c Vasquez, andd Suarez, by

both whom it hath beene confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, then it must follow that it is not by Transubstan∣tiation; which is demonstrable in it selfe, because the next maner, which they insist upon, cannot possibly serve your turne.

This Sècond maner they name to bee by Adduction, which youre Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstan∣ding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar: and therefore called Substastiall, because the Substance of Bread ceaseth [ 10] to have any Being, ••••en the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept in∣to the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Councel of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ. So that Councel, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread, ea∣ten, is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh, the matter of Bread, is made the matter of flesh. But this your Adduction, is so farre from bringing in the Substance of Bread, Into the Sub∣stance [ 20] of Christ's Body, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ, not so much as unto the Bread, but to be under onely the Outward Accidents, and formes of Bread. Yet had this Fig∣ment some Favourers in yourf Schooles.

No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church, who did impugne this delusion, calling it (as your g Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them) a Translocation one∣ly, and not a Transubstantiation; and that truly, if they should not have called it a Trans-accession, or Trans-succession rather. For who will say, if he put on his hand a Glove, made of a [ 30] Lamb-skin, which Lambe was long since dead (and consequent∣ly ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe? yet is there in this example a more substantiall Change, by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Acci∣dents of the matter of Bread; because (to speake from your selves) there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Sub∣stance [ 40]

of the hand, and the Lamb-skin: but in this other there is onely a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kinde of meere Succession of a Substance, your Iesuite Suarez will allow to bee no more than a h Translocation.

{fleur-de-lys}And that justly, as Any may easily perceive, because in every true Transubstantiation there is a Change of a Sub∣stance into a Substance, as into that, which is the Terming of the Change: but in this your Adduction, there is said to be [ 10] onely Terminus praesentiae, of the Praesence of Christ's Body, instead of the Presence of Bread. Therefore it is flatly Trans∣location onely. A word more; Transubstantiation (saith your Councel of Trent) is collected out of these words of Christ, [This is my Body:] But by sole Adduction (saith your 3 Iesuite Coninx) cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ.

Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Produ∣ction, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to [ 20] believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne know∣ledge. {fleur-de-lys}This last figment being discarded, ponder (wee pray you) the Weight of this Argument.

Every true and proper Transubstantiation is a Change into a substance that was not extant before.

But the Body of Christ was, and is alwaies extant before the words of Consecration be used.

Therefore is there no true and proper Change by Transub∣stantiation into the Body of Christ.

Observe by the way that they, who gain-say the Productive, [ 30] and teach the Adductive, yet do all deny Locall mutation à Ter∣mino ad Terminum. A Paradoxe which wee leave to your wise∣domes to contemplate upon.

{fleur-de-lys}The next Contradiction is to be seene between your Ro∣mish Popes & their Councels, one against another: for your Pope Innocent 3. (whom your Doctors have so earnestly objected, as an high Patron of Transubstantiation) in the Councel of La∣terane, Anno 1560. defined4 Transubstantiation in the Eu∣charist to be in matter, and not in the substantiall forme. And your Pope Iulius the Second, in the Councel of Trent (as you [ 40] have heard even now) defined Transubstantiation in the Eu∣charist to be both in Matter and Forme. This Contradiction is somewhat to the matter in hand (Wee thinke) to prove a spirit of Contradiction to be in your Romane Church.

CHALLENGE. II.

{fleur-de-lys}In confutation of both the pretended Romish manners of Transubstantiation joyntly.

VVHether you defend Transubstantiation by Producti∣on, or by Adduction, you are equally confutable in both, even by your owne Principles; who hold, that if the Bread, which is to bee Transubstantiated and changed into [ 10] Christ's Body, bee annihilated, and brought to meere nothing, it cannot bee said to bee Transubstantiated at all. Now whe∣ther you thinke the Bread, after consecration, to be Annihila∣ted, we desire to know from your selves. Say then (but speak out, without lisping or stammering, we pray you, that we may heare and understand you.)5 Although Bread after Conse∣cration bee nothing (saith arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward ) yet it is not annihilated, that is, brought to nothing.6 And the substance of Bread and Wine (saith your Iesuit Lessius) doe utterly perish, and are as it were Annihilated. So they; calling this a being Nothing, and [ 20] yet not Annihilated; this not annihilated, and yet utterly pe∣rishing: naming also this maner to bee Miraculous, which we hold worthy rather to be esteemed Monstrous; the speech is altogether so contradictory in it selfe.

Wherefore wee desire the foresaid Iesuite to play the Oe∣dipus in unfolding this Riddle: Our saying (saith hee) that Bread and Wine are not annihilated, belongeth to the formalitie of speech; for as concerning the thing it selfe, there is nothing of the Bread remaining either in forme or matter. So he. But that, say we, which is nothing, either in forme or matter, is sure∣ly [ 30] annihilated: and therfore Bread becomming to be nothing, before Christ's Body be present, cannot possibly bee said to bee Changed into Christ's Body absent. And that the rather, because (as one of your7 Doctors more ingenuously con∣fesseth) Bread not remaining, either in matter or forme, is truly Annihilated.

To this Argument (in our Apprehension Insoluble) wee can receive from your great Dictator no better Answer than that,8 Because the substance of Bread ceaseth to bee, and the substance of Christ's Body succeedeth: Therefore the substance [ 40] of Bread is said to be changed into Christ's Body. So he. Which his crotchet of Change, by Succeeding, hath been already ex∣ploded, as being but a Translocation, by his owne Societie.

And yet againe, if it may bee, more plainly your Iesuit Vas∣quez; 9 Neither Production, nor Adduction are formally this Conversion.

[ 10] Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstan∣tiation, is from the Article of our Christian Creed, [BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY.] SECT. II.

TRansubstantiation (as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the [ 20] Substance of Christ's Body. Now, in every such Substantiall Change, there are Two Termes, one is the Substance from which; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made: as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine. But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water, as the matter, from which the Conversion was made. Therefore must it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body, out of the Substance of Bread. Your Cardinall hath no Evasion, but by denying the Conversion to be by Production, which notwithstanding was formerly the [ 30] Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole, ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched; and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction. wherein first he i confoundeth himselfe, and secondly, his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors, as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation, as you have heard. There∣fore may you make much of your Breaden Christ. As for us, Wee, according to our Apostollicall Creec, believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl: Virgin Mary, for feare ofk Heresie.

[ 40] This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note, received from him this Answer: viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones, can of Bread transub∣stantiate the same into that Body of Christ, which was of the Vir∣gin. And hee againe received this Reply; That the Children, which should bee so raised out of stones, howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children, according to Faith, yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. There∣fore

is there as great a Difference betweene that Body: from Bread, and the other from the Blessed Virgin, as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones, and Children out of Flesh.

And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land, in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King, as it is set out in anl Homily of that time, which standeth thus. Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in, and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell. The Body truly, that Christ suffe∣red in, was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary, with blood, and with bone, with skin, and with sinewes, in humane limbes: and his Ghostly body, which we call his Howsell, is gathered of many Cornes, [ 10] without blood, and bone, without l••mbe, and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily, but all is Ghostly to bee understood. This was our then Saxons Faith; wherein is plainly distingui∣shed the Body of Christ, borne of the blessed Virgin, from the Sa∣cramentall (which is called Ghostly) as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread. A Doctrine directly con∣firmed by Saint Augustine. Wherefore wee may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantia∣tion from Bread, then it is not the Body, which was borne of the Blessed Virgin; as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the [ 20] Predication: If Bread bee Christ's Body, then Something was Christs Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary.

CHALLENGE I

{fleur-de-lys}In vindication of the same Truth, against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite.

THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite, [ 30] against a judicious and religious Knight, falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities; pretending especially that the English Translation, used by the Knight, is differing from the Latine. Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance, if hee knew not that the Translation, used by the Knight, was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language, and not out of the Latine; or, if he knew so much, from downe-right boldnesse, in charging him with a false Translation. I omit his frivolous Cavilla∣tions [ 40] upon words.

The maine question, for the sense, is whether in this sen∣tence, of the Saxons Faith, the Body, wherein Christ suf∣fered, and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament, betoken not two kinde of Bodies, essentially differing one from the other; or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body. Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Bo∣dy,

and he calleth the contrary opinion false. His Reason. For whereas it is said, (saith he) that the spirituall flesh (which is as much as to say, our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament) ac∣cording to the outward shew, consisting of Granes of Corne, hath no Bones, nor Sinewes, nor distinction of Parts, Life or Motion. Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood, but why? Be∣cause the Knight (forsooth) hath pretermitted (saith he) these words [According to the outward shew, consisting of granes.] Whereby he would have us believe the new ••••mish Faith [ 10] of a Subsistence of meere Accidents. Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously, he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Sa∣xon Copie. But to take him as wee finde him. If his words [According to the outward shew] imply (as it needs must, if he will speake to any purpose) that the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, although in outward shew it be without Bones, Sinewes, Life and Motion, yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe, as it is in this Sacrament; then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant, he contradicteth all his fellow Ie∣suites [ 20] of the same Society, who deny all possibility of Mo∣tion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act, without a miracle. But to speake to the point; This Body, and That Body (say wee) do diversifie two Bodies, the one Sacramentall (of Bread) called Spirituall (because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification) this Bread consisting of Granes: And the other the Naturall Body of Christ, consisting of Bones, Sinewes, &c. In a word, This, and That, in this Saxon narration, accordeth with the Doctrine of Bertram, taken out of Saint Augustine, [ 30] (namely) That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar, as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary, from the o∣ther which was not so borne.

But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite, hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick, if it be possible, where we reade thus; As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread, and Crea∣ture of Wine into his owne Body that suffered, and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed: So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna, and Water out of the Rock into his [ 40] Blood. So he, citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation; in sense, as it seemeth to be absolutely for it in sound: it being just the same Doctrine, which Augustine, Anselme, and Bede taught, when they said, that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate, [Christs Flesh] in eating Manna, and dranke the same spirituall drink, that is, the blood of Christ, in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke, which Christians now doe. And there∣fore

meant not a Corporall eating of Christ, but a Sacra∣mentall. So say wee, Christ could aswell then turne Manna, and Water of the Rocke, into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood, for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times; as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood, for the comfort of us Christians.

This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection:10 The Time (saith he) when the people received Manna in the De∣sert, Christ was not in his humane nature; therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body, nor Water into his Blood. So [ 10] he, very truly indeed. And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally, as hath beene said: which be∣cause the Iesuite refuseth to do, therefore is he at difference with AElfrick, denying that Christ was able to convert Man∣na into his Body; which AElfrick said, in expresse termes, hee was able to do (namely) thorow his divine power, by a Sacra∣mentall Conversion; because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament, as it was for the creating of the World.

But was it not then kindly done (thinke you) of your Iesuit [ 20] to lend his Spectacles to another, when he had the most need of them himselfe? by the which he might have discerned, that as Christ Sacramentally (and therefore figuratively) cal∣led Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood; so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ. This Lesson hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples, in a full Section; which be∣ing once got by heart, would expedite all the like Difficul∣ties.

To conclude, the former Saxon doctrine is againe confir∣med by Saint Augustine. Wherefore wee may as truly say, [ 30] concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstan∣tiation, from Bread, then it is not the Body, which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin, as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication; If Bread be Christ's Body, then some∣thing was Christ's Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Ma∣ry. And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third, against your Councel of Trent. He (See the Margent of the former Section) taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance, then is the Change Into that which is now made, and was not before, as [ 40] when the Rod was turned into a Serpent. So he, shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers (you know) have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme, as in Matter; whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow, that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread; and if made of Bread,

then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin: Be∣cause there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance, except that the Substance of that, whereinto the Conversion is wrought, have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that, which was converted and chan∣ged. Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor, from any Example out of any conversion ei∣ther naturall, or miraculous, which hath beene road of from [ 10] the beginning of Times.

Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread, in this Sacrament, after Consecration; but First of the State of this Question. SECT. III.

VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt [ 20] ofm Anathema, and Curse upon every man that should affirme; Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration: which they did, to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants, who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist. For right well did these Tridentines know, that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine, then is all Faith, yea, and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera, and meere Fancie; as your Cardinall doth confesse, in granting, thatn It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation, that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee: as it was in [ 30] the Conversion of Water into Wine; Water ceased to bee Water. And so must Bread cease to bee Bread. This being the State of the Question, wee undertake to give

Good Proofes of the Existence, and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist, the same in Substance, after Consecration. Our first Proofe is from Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. [ 40] Saint Paul calling it [Bread.] SECT. IV.

IN the Apostle his Comment (that I may so call his two Chapters to the Corinthians) upon the Institution of Christ, we reade of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup, thrice: all which, by the consent of all sides, are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration; and yet hath hee called the our∣ward

Element Bread. You will say (with Some) It was so called onely because it was made of Bread; as Aärons Rod, tur∣ned into a Serpent, was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude. For first, of the Bread, the Apostle saith demonstratively, This bread; and of the other, This Cup: But of Aärons Rod, turned into a Serpent, none could say, This Rod. And secondly, it is contrary to Christian Faith, which will abhorre to say, in a proper sense, that Christs Body was ever Bread. Or else you will answer, with Others, It is yet called Bread, because it hath the Similitude of Bread, as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent. [ 10]

But neither this, nor any other of your Imaginations can sa∣tisfie; for we shall proove, that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration, but because it was Substanti∣ally, still, Bread. Our Reason is; He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament, in reproving such as used it as Common Bread, Not discerning therein (Sacramentally ex∣hibited) the Lords Body. It had therefore concerned him to have honored the Sacrament with Divine Titles, agreeable to the Bo∣dy of Christ, hypostatically united to his Godhead, and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread, considering that by [ 20] the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased, and Eclipsed; if in Truth, and Verity he had not be∣leeved it to have beene (then) properly Bread.

This Reason, we guesse, you are bound to approve off, who, in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body, and Absence of Bread, would never suffer any of your Professors to call it, after Consecration, by the name of Bread. Whereupon it was that the Greekeo Archbishop of Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors, for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies: why? Because (saith he) after the words of Christ, [This is my Bo∣dy] [ 30] wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread, and Wine. So he. Which bewrayeth, that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread, and Wine, is, in the judgement of the Church of Rome, prejudiciall to their Transubstantiation; and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliver the same words he did, at this day, hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile. What need many words? except in the words of Christ the word [Body] be properly predicated, and affir∣med of Bread, farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs [ 40] Body. But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should bee properly predicated upon Bread, hath beene the Generall Con∣fession of your owne Doctors, and the Conclusion of our se∣cond Booke.

{fleur-de-lys}Wee returne againe to the Text, where the Apostle having named it Bread, after Consecration, expoundeth himselfe what Bread he meant, saying, Bread which we breake.

But never durst any of your Romanists say, that the Body of Christ is truly Broken in this Sacrament: and never any Father of Primitive times (we are sure) taught the Breaking of the Accidents of Bread. And therefore it must follow, that it was still substantially Bread.

The Apostle hath not yet done, but 1 Cor. 17. sayth, Be∣cause it is one Bread, wee being many are one Body for wee all communicate of one Bread. Which Chrysostome, is well as other Fathers, doth analogize thus: That as o•••• loafe consisteth of [ 10] many granes united together, so are the faithfull Communicants joyned together. So hee, hereby teaching you the substantiall Materialls of the same Bread, Many granes of Corne. And, as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofes, hee (1 Cor 10. 17.) hath these words, Wee participate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, De pane hoc, Of this Bread; thus called after Consecration. And againe, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eate [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of this Bread, which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loafe of Bread; and not of the Body of Christ, which, even by [ 20] the Romish faith, is not, nor cannot bee divided into parts. Thus hath Saint Paul, the Scholler of Christ, concluded of Substantiall Bread, agreeable to that which our Master Christ himselfe taught of the other sacred Substantiall part of Drinke, after the Co••secration of this Sacrament, as is pro∣ved in the next Section.

Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread, is from the speech of Christ, touching the Continuance [ 30] of Wine, after Consecration, Matth. ••. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity. SECT. V.

THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe, in the second Element of Wine, calling it This fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, after Consecration: where the Pronoune This hath relation to the matter in the Cup of the Eucharist. For the proofe of this our Exposition of the words of [ 40] Christ, wee have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fa∣thers; Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, E∣piphanius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Bede, as witnesseth your Iesuitep Maldonate (no one Father produced by him to the

contrary,) Then answering; But I (saith hee) cannot be thus per∣swaded. So hee. Marke this (you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity!) and yet this maner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite. But hee proceedeth, telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine, as thin∣king it to bee Wine, but even as Christ did, when he called his flesh Bread, Iohn 6. Then hee addeth; They that will follow the Ex∣position of These Fathers, are thus to interpret them. And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement; Lest the other Exposition (saith hee) may seeme to agree with the erroneous opinion of the [ 10] Calvinists. So hee.

For which his Answer Calvinists are as much beholding to him, as are the Ancient Fathers, with whom he hath made bold not only to reject their Authority, but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies; who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine (as theq Mar∣ginals doe manifest) so plainly, as to affirme that It was Wine, which then Christ dranke: and that hereby the Practices of the Heretikes Aquarij are confuted, who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist. That which commeth out of the fruit of the [ 20] Vine; which certainly produceth wine, and not water. So Chrysost. It was the Wine (saithr Augustine) which was used in the myste∣ries of our Redemption. Even that Wine, which was blessed (saiths Clemens Alexandrinus.) And your owne Bishop t Iansenius doth confesse, that these words of Christ had re∣ference to the Cup in the Eucharist; and not (as Some say) to the Cup of the Passeover. {fleur-de-lys} Yea to the Eucharist, as your Pope Innocentius did12 teach you: (I say Innocentius the Pope) That Christ consecrated Wine in the Cup, is evident (saith he) by that which Christ added, saying, [I will not henceforth drinke [ 30] of it untill, &c.]

Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij, and the Confutation thereof. They used onely Water in the Eucharist, in prete••ce of Sobriety; which Cypriaen confuted onely upon this ground, viz. that this practice was not warranted by the Institution of Christ, wherein Christ ordained Wine, and not Onely Water. And now tell us, if that your Doctrine of [ 40]

Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith, in those daies, whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly up∣on it, for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij, to let them know, that if they would needs use only Water, then (ac∣cording to your Doctrine) their Consecration should be void; and consequently their Adoration (if it had beene then in use) should have beene likewise Idolatrous. But wee heare no more of these your Exceptions.

[ 10] The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body; both Naturall, and Mysticall. SECT. VI.

IN 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. [The Bread which wee breake (saith the Apostle) is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? for we being many are one Bread and one Body, in as much as wee all par∣take of one Bread.] In this Sentence the word [Bread] hath a double Relation, the First to Christ his Body Naturall. Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of [ 20] the Body of Christ. The Analogie, in this respect, is excellently expressed byu Isidore: Bread (saith he) because it strengthe∣neth the Body, is therefore called Christ's Body; and Wine, be∣cause it turneth into Blood, is therefore called Christ's Blood. These are two Visibles, but being sanctified by the holy spirit, are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. So he. This is indeed a true Analogie, not to be performed by Accidents.

Could any of them, whom you call Calvinists, have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of [ 30] Christ's words? (for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body;) or in declaring the true proper Sense of the Sacramentall Con∣version? (for he saith, Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Body;) or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body, and Blood, by which wee are spiritually fed? (for he sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects, Bread substantially, and therefore not Accidentally, strengthneth Man's Body: Wine turneth into Blood.) Which overthroweth your third Figment of onelyx Accidents; as if the Substance of Bread and Wine [ 40] were not necessary in this Sacrament. Say then, doth the Acci∣dent of Roundnesse, and Figure of Bread strengthen man's Body? or doth the Accident, Colour of Wine, turne into Blood? As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and clense the Body, by the colour, and cold∣nesse, without the substantiall matter thereof.

The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysti∣call Body of Christ, which is the Congregation of the Faithfull

Communicants; [ Wee are all one Body, in as much as wee are partakers of one Bread.] It standeth thus; As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread, and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the C••p: So, many Christians, partaking faithfully of this Sacrament, become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith, and Love. This Exposi∣tion, as it is yielded unto by yo•• C••••inally Cajetant, and authorized by your Romane and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dentinez Catechsme•••• so is it also confessed to be used 〈◊〉〈◊〉a ••••most all holy Doctours. He was held a most expert and artificiall Pa••nter, in Plinie, that [ 10] could paint Grapes so to life, as to deceive Birds; which came to feed on them: But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours, that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents, as painted Colours in stead of naturall; because where there is not a Sacramentall Analogie, there is no Sacrament. You may not say, that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration; because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament, and the Thing Signified: but it is no Sacrament, before it be Conse∣crated. [ 20]

CHALLENGE.

SAy now, what Better Authour is there than Christ? What better Disciple and Scholler, than the Apostle of Christ? or [ 30] what better Commentary upon the words of Christ, and his Apostle, than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? calling the one part Wine, the other Bread, after Consecration, as you have heard.

Our Third Proofe, that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament, is taken from the Iudge∣ment of Sense, necessarily. First, by the Authority of Scripture. [ 40] SECT. VII.

ALthough man's Sense may be deceived, through the incon∣venient Disposition of the Medium, thorow which hee seeth, as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked, which standeth in the Water; and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe, which is seene thorow a Greene glasse;

or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place, as by concel∣ving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ, or Instrument of seeing (which is the Eye) whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two, or mistake a Shadow for a Substance. Yet notwith∣standing when our Eyes, that see, are of good Constitution, and Temper; the Medium, whereby wee see, is perfectly disposed; the Distance of the Object, which wee see, is indifferent; then (say we) the judgement of Sense, being free, is True, and the [ 10] Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses, in one arbitre∣ment, is infallible.

This Reason, taken from Sense, you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall, as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning. We defend the Contrary, being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples, Luke 24. 39. [Handle mee, and see.] Your Cardinall, although hee grant that this Reason of Christ was available, to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit, or Fancy, but a true Body, even by the onely Argument [ 20] from the sense of Touching;b Yet (saith hee) was it not suffi∣cient in it selfe, without other Arguments, to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body, and the very same which it was. So he.

Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false, and not also greatly irreligious: for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee had a Body (as your Cardinall spea∣keth) but also that it was his owne same Humane Body, now ri∣sen, which before had beene Crucified, and wounded to Death, and buried, according to that of Luke [That it is even I] Luke 24, 39. Now because It is not a Resurrection of a Body, except [ 30] it bee the Same Body: Therefore would Christ have Thomas to thrust his hands into his sides, and feele the print of his wounds, to manifest the Same Body; as Two of your Iesuites do also observe, the One with an [c Optimè,] the Other with a [d Pro∣batum est.] Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argu∣ment, taken from Sense, as the Foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith, even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead; for how often doth hee repeate, and inculcate this? Hee was seene, &c. And againe thrice more, Hee was seene, &c. And Saint Iohn argueth, to the same purpose, from [ 40] the Concurrence of three Senses: That which wee have heard, which wee have seene, and our hands have handled, declare wee unto you. The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect, as

Christ averreth; Thomas because thou hast seene (that is, percei∣ved both by Eye, and hand) thou hast beleeved.

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

PErerius a Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch; [ 10] c I feare not (saith hee) to say, that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument, to prove without all doubt an humane Bo∣dy, that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man, that is of understanding and consideration. As for the unbelee∣ving Disciples, [Christ his Handle me, &c.] saith your Iesuite f Vasquez, was as much as if he had sayd to them, Perceive you my true flesh? as being a most efficacious Argument to proove the truth of an humane Body. So hee, yea, andg Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity, when hee said, [Except I put my finger in∣to [ 20] the print of the nayles, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not beleeve.] Which prooveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sense, in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve.

Wherein your Authors are authorized by S. Augustine,h say∣ing that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene deceived, yet his touch was not frustrate. And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome, who sticketh not to say, that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian Beliefe, than did the faith of the other Apostles: Because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by [ 30] the Sense of Touching, wee are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith. And if this were not sufficient to confute your Car∣dinall, he may be shackled with his owne Answer, who, to dis∣able the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling, said;i That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the judgement of Sense: and among these Other hee reckoneth Christ his speaking, eating, and working Miracles. All which, what are they else (wee pray you) but equally Objects of Sense? What Vertigo [ 40]

then may this be called in him, to seeke to invalidate the ve∣rity of Sense, by an Argument which justifieth the Certaintie of Sense?

A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses, as sufficient in Di∣vine Causes, for discerning Objects of Sense: and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament; by the Iudgement [ 10] of Ancient Fathers. SECT. IX.

HOw many Heretikes of old were there (such as the Va∣lentinians, Montanists, Marcionites) who denyed that Christ had a True, and Essentiall Body? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers, by the Evidence of mens Senses that heard, saw, and felt the Body of Christ? Which sheweth plainly, that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong, even in Christian Philosophie. And to come to the [ 20] point in Question, (to conclude againe from the Premises in the former Section,) who can deny this Consequence, viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread, after Consecration, whereby Christ proved his Body to be a Body of flesh, after his Resurrection? But this he did from the Infallibility of Sense. Therefore this may be equally con∣cluded by the same Argument of Sense.

And that there is the same Reason of both these, the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument, wherewith he con∣futed [ 30] an Heretike by Sense, thus;k As after Consecration (saith he) Bread remaineth the same in substance: So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remained in substance the same. Thus much of the Analogie. (As for the word [Substance] more is to be spoken thereof hereafter.) Yea, and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe, whose Testimony (digested byl Rede) is this: That which you have seene is Bread, as your eyes do manifest unto you. And he spea∣keth of Bread, as this Sacrament was a Symbol, and Signe of the mysticall Body of Christ, which is his Church, consisting of a multi∣tude [ 40] of Faithfull Communicants, as one Loafe doth of many granes of wheat.

{fleur-de-lys}Give Chrysostome leave to put in his suffrage, especially in that Sentence,13 which is objected against us by your

owne Doctor, wherein that holy Father bringeth in Christ, as speaking to his Disciples, concerning the verity of the Sense of Feeling, and delivereth two points, especially re∣markable. One is, that Although the Sight, by reason of some defect, might be easily deceived: yet the Tryall by Touch, in discerning a Body of flesh, is beyond all peradven∣ture. The Second is, that if Christ should have propounded any Object, as being a Body, wherein their Touch should be deceived, he might then be said to have mocked and deluded his Disciples. Whereunto accordeth the like Testimony of [ 10] Pope Gregory, above cited, in the former Section. And is not the Touch, in discerning the bodily Creature of Bread, and Flesh, of equall efficacie? yea, and againe Augustine in another place, objected by your owne selves;14 Our Lord Iesus (saith he) commended his Body and Blood in those things, which of many are brought into one certaine thing: for the one is made into one of many Granes, and so Consisteth; the other Cometh into one, of many Grapes.

Consonantly S. Cyprian, and as plainly,15 When Christ called his Body Bread, (saith he) which Bread was made one, by [ 20] the Gathering together of many Cornes; he thereby signifieth our people, whom he bore, shewing them united together: and when he called Wine his Blood, which Wine is pressed out of many Clu∣sters of Grapes, and so gathered into one; he signifieth one stocke coupled together, by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers (even as Chrysostome already, Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done) teach, as it were with one breath, that the Outward Sacramentalls, wherein Christ commen∣deth his Body and Blood, being Substances compounded, the one of divers Cornes in one loafe, the other of divers [ 30] Grapes in one liquor, doe so continue the same still at the re∣ceiving thereof, (as the Analogie irrefutably proveth,) be∣cause these Both signifie the mysticall Body of Christ, which is the Church of his faithfull, by the union of multitudes of peo∣ple in one. But in your meere Accidents of Bread and Wine, you can have no union either of Granes, or of Grapes; nei∣ther can you say, that he spake not of the things Consecrated, because the things were first Consecrated, before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and dranke.

Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the o∣ther [ 40] other now cited Primitive Fathers; who, in confutation of the Hereticall Manichees, who fancied onely a Phantasticall Body of Christ, observeth that (16 Christ both did eate meate, and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples, that

thereby they might have not onely their eyes, but also their hands Witnesses of the Truth of his Body, and remove all exception of the apparition of a Ghost, yea, and that By the continued sight hereof with their bodily eyes, Christ insinuated Faith into their soules. Gladly would wee know whether even any doctrine could more patronize that Hereticall doctrine of a Rhantasti∣call Body, than this yours, of your maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the E••charist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body, but onely (as you [ 10] ••each) Accidents of Bread. {fleur-de-lys}

Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academicks, who de∣nied the judgement of Sense; wherein hee maintaineth the Truth of the Senses, and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfe∣ction of Christ his Senses in Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling; and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question, saying, thatm If wee yield not to the suffrages of Senses, some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of oyntment, which hee received (meaning another that the naturall Sunt thereof) before his Buriall. And immedia••ly hee addeth, [ 20] (marke we pray you) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine, than was that, which he consecra∣ted for the memoriall of his Blood. That then, which Christ Ta∣sted, was first Consecrated. Next, he invadeth the Heretike Marcion, for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth, and con∣futeth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles. Faith∣full (saith he) was their sight of Christ in the Mount, Faithfull was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè, Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas, &c. (then concluding:) VVhich Testifications (saith he) had not beene True, if their Senses had beene Liars. So he in [ 30] his confutation not onely of the naturall Academicks, but also of the Hereticall Marcionites, who (contrary to the demon∣stration of the Apostles Senses) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ.

CHALLENGE.

[ 40] THis Apologie of Tertullian, in behalfe of the verity of the Senses, doth minister to all Christians foure Conclusions, First, not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects: but to dis∣cerne of Subjects, and Substances, by their Accidents. Second∣ly, that our Outward Senses rightly constituted (more especially the Sense of Feeling) are Demonstrations of Truth, in Sensi∣ble Objects. Thirdly, that this verification of Subjects, by their

Accidents, is common with Christ, his Apostles, all Christians, and with every reasonably man. And lastly, that VVine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally VVine, after Consecration, by the judgement of the Senses, because he instanceth in this very point: teaching that Christ had the same taste of Substan∣tiall VVine afterwards, which hee had before in that which hee consecrated; even as he had also the same Sent of Substantiall Oyntment after, which hee had before his Buriall. And all this even now, when he convinced Marcion of Heresie, an Ene∣mie to the Catholike Faith, in denying the Truth of Christs [ 10] humane naturall Body, notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses.

Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretike to say, what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses, concerning the Truth of Christ's Body, seeing you your∣selves gain-say the judgement of foure Senses at once, in de∣nying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament? This, we say, they must needs have replyed, if that the Catholikes then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe, to thinke that all the Sen∣ses are deceived, in judging the matter of this Sacrament to [ 20] continue Bread or wine; and so might they have blowne away all this Catholike Confutation of Heretikes and Infidels with one and the same breath, together with the like Instances a∣gainst the same Heresie, already specified, as you have heard.

Come now hither all yee that say wee must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case; and tell us whether any Prote∣stant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian, in his Defence of this Truth? whereby hee also defendeth the Catholike Doctrine of the Resurrection of [ 30] Christ, and was never hereof questioned by any Catholike, in, or since his dayes.

Let none of you object that of the Disciples, in their way to Emmaus with Christ, of whom it is sayd, that [ They could not know him:] for the same Text giveth this Cause, that their eyes were holden, lest they should see him: and after, Their eyes were opened, and they saw him. So the Evangelist, which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene sayd, for the Infallibilitie of Sense, rightly constituted and disposed, that this thereby is notably confirmed. Wee call upon Hierome to [ 40] witnesse, saying; The Error of not discerning Christ, when hee was in the midst betweene them, was not in Christ's Body, but in their eyes, because they were closed that they could not see. Apply wee this unto the Eucharist. Dare any Papist say, that the Cause, why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament, is not in his Body (which you beleeve to bee in it selfe invisible) but in your Eyes, as being shut up; when notwithstanding you

will bee knowne, that these are open enough for discerning Co∣lours, and formes of Bread and Wine.

{fleur-de-lys}It can bee but a matter of merriment, to acquaint you with that which Master Malloune a Iesuite reporteth in good sadnes, as thus:17 A devout Mayde of the Vulgar sort, by name Ioane Martlesse, (a thing most admirable, saith hee) was able to finde out one only consecrated Host, among a thousand un∣consecrated, not onely by Divine revelation, but also by her na∣turall Senses. So your Iesuite (as hee saith) out of Waldensis. [ 10] Although wee will not trifle the time, by asking how shee could smell out that one Host among a thousand, or whether the Priest infused some smellable virtue into it, to give it a Sent, yet must wee tell you, that when afterwards (in the se∣venth Booke) it shall bee discovered unto you, that there are incident to the Action of your Priest, in Conscrating, a∣bove five hundred possible Defects, which may nullifie his whole Act, so that the thing remaine still Bread (notwith∣standing whatsoever his maner of Consecrating, by him performed;) You will then know how happy it were for [ 20] your Church, that every Priest at Masse had the use of the Nose of Ioane Martlesse, to trie whether there bee any Hosb truly consecrated, as being (according to your Doctrine) sub∣stantially Christ's Body, lest that otherwise you fall into Ido∣latry, by worshipping Bread instead of Christ himselfe. (See the seventh Booke.){fleur-de-lys}.

Our Fourth Proofe, that the Substance of Bread remaineth, after Consecration, is taken from the Con∣fessed Sensible Effects. [ 30] SECT. X.

THe Effects, which youn your selves have discerned to be [ 40] sometimes in this Sacrament, are these. First, That the Cup

doth inebriate, or make drunke. Secondly, The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish. Thirdly, That, it being poysoned, it paysoneth. Fourthly, That having beene long reserved, it engendereth wormes, which are bred out of it; and are also fed of the same. Fiftly, That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall; and that the Contrary Opinion is false, and Incre∣dible. Sixtly; That this matter, whereof wormes are bred and fed, is the same Bread, which was taken before Consecration. So your owne prime Schoole-men, Historians, and Iesuites respectively. [ 10]

If then the Bread, now ingendring wormes, be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated; how say you that, being Consecra∣ted, it is not still the same, our Senses giving Testimony there∣unto?

THE FIRST CHALLENGE.

HEre you have nothing to answer, but that the Bread, wher∣of new wormes are bred, whether it bee the Same that was, or not, yet being Bread, it is wrought either by ao Miraculous [ 20] Conversion, or by a New Creation. What? you, who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament, without necessary Cause, can you possibly be perswa∣ded that there is, or can be any necessary Cause, why God should worke a Miracle, either of Conversion into, or of New Creation of Bread, for Breeding, or Feeding of wormes? or of Wine, for making such men Drunke, as should taste too largely of the Cup? yea, or else to poyson your Enemy, were heep Empe∣rour, orq Pope? Nay, can it bee lesse than Blasphemy, to say that God worketh Miracles, for the accomplishment of vaine, [ 30] wicked, and mischievous effects? Farre be it from us to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ, who by his Touch cu∣red so many diseases, in the time of his mortality, should now, being glorified, miraculously poyson his Guests whosoever they bee.

Beleeve (if you can) that if God wrought (as you say) a Mi∣racle to convert Accidents into Bread, to engender, or nourish vile wormes, that he would not much rather worke a miracle, (if any such miracle were herein to bee expected) to hinder the poy∣soning of his faithfull Communicants. In all this we appeale a∣gaine [ 40] to true Antiquitie, and require of you to shew, we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers, but so much as any intimation or insinuation, were it but by way of a Dreame, of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host (when it be∣ginneth to putrifie) by being changed againe into Bread; or of Mice eating the Body of Christ; or that being putrified it should bread wormes; (seeing it were a miracle they should not

bee so bred) or any such kind of Romish Fancies, and delusi∣ons; or otherwise to confesse your Objectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile, and desperate Cause. Yet lest any of you may thinke, that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine, and made Drunke with the smell thereof, therefore meere Acci∣dents doe Inebriate: your Iesuite will deny this, and tell you that it is the Ayre infected with the odour which maketh men Drunke. {fleur-de-lys}And that no Incorporall thing can bee nourishment to a corporall Bodily Substance, Gregory Nyssen doth make [ 10] good: and your18

A SECOND CHALLENGE, [ 20] with a Caution.

YOur Common and most plausible Objection, to demen∣tate vulgar people, is to perswade them that you cannot at∣tribute Credit to your Senses in this case, without much dero∣gation from Faith. Therefore, for Caution-sake, be it knowne unto you, that wee have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses, as holding nothing credible, but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses.

This wee utterly abhorre, as the Gulfe of Infidelity, proper [ 30] to the Athean Sect: for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father, Fides non habet meritum, ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet ex∣perimentum; and also to that other of Iustine. In which re∣spect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas, in that he would not beleeve, except hee should See: yet notwithstanding wee, with our Saviour, approve in Thomas, that by Seeing he did be∣leeve. For this is a true Tenet in Divinity, Faith may be (Supra) above right Reason, or Sense; but never (Contra) against either. It was never read that God required of any man a beliefe of any Sensible thing, which was Contrary to the exact judgement of [ 40] his Senses. And therefore your opposition, in this Case, as it is Sensles, so it is indeed Faithlesse, as wee have already learned from Scripture and Fathers; by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to bee, in Sensible Objects, a notable Ground of Faith. All this while wee have said nothing of your professed maner of Existence of Accidents, which you may reade in the Challenge following.

{fleur-de-lys}A THIRD CHALLENGE, Touching the Accidents of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament.

COncerning the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sa∣crament, after Consecration, some are such as were before Consecration inherent in them, as to bee Visible, Sa∣vory, Solid, &c. And some are Accessory Impressions and Alterations, which accrew afterwards, as if it shall happen [ 10] to bee after Consecration, Hot, Cold, Sweet, or Sower, or the like. Wee demand, what thing you do judge that to be, which so hapneth to bee hot or sweet after Consecration? None can deny but this must be either Quality or Quantity, or some materiall Substance. Wee, consulting with two of your owne Iesuites, heare the one maintaining that these two Accidents have19 Quantity for their Subject; and the o∣ther 20 Confuting this; Because Hotnesse, Sweetnesse, and such like Qualities have no affection to Quantity: meaning, that we cannot call any Quantity Cold, Hot, or Sweet; Where∣unto [ 20] we willingly subscribe.

As for the sayd Qualities, which the latter Iusuite answe∣reth to be21 mingled with the other Accidents, which were inherent in the Host, before Consecration, the former Iesuit gaine sayeth it, because Accidents are not predicated of them∣selves in the Concrete; to wit, wee say not of Coldnesse it is cold; or of Sweetnesse, it is sweet. but these are spoken of their Subjects, which wee call either Sweet or Gold. And this wee likewise approve. Seeing then, that no Accident can bee predicated, but of some Subject, and this Subject of [ 30] Coldnesse, Hotnesse, Sweetnesse, Sowernesse, and of other the like Accidents hapning to the same Sacrament, after Con∣secration, cannot bee so called either in respect of Quantity or Quality, it remaineth that the Subject of them must bee a materiall substance, which, as you your selves (we know) will sweare cannot bee the Body of Christ; for you dare not say of it, that it in your touch or tast is either Cold, Sweet, or Sower, You must therefore give us leave to beleeve it to bee [ 40] still the Substance of Bread. And this our Argument taketh away your Fancy of Accidents without a Subject; else must

you affirme that he, or shee, whosoever shall make the Host, after it bee Consecrated, either Hote, Sweet, or Sowre, doth in so doing make so many Miracles of Accidents, which are void of their Subjects; which unnecessary multiplication of Miracles both your old, and new Schooles have ever controlled. {fleur-de-lys}

Our First Proofe, that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance, after Consecration, in this Sacrament, is by the Iudge∣ment [ 10] of Ancient Fathers. First from due Inferences. SECT. XI.

TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Con∣sequence, for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, as might bee proved partly by the repe∣tition of many Arguments premised, and partly by intimati∣on [ 20] of other Arguments afterwards expressed. But wee shall be content with, those few, which do more properly appertaine to this present Dispute, concerning the nature of a Body. First Irenaeus, speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration, as being not now common Bread, sayd thatr It consisteth of an earthly part, and an heavenly: how? even as the Bodies of the Communi∣cants (saith hee) are no more corruptible, having an hope of the Re∣surrection to come. Scan these words, by the Law of Similitude; and it must infallibly follow, that as our Bodies, albeit substan∣tially Earthly, are notwithstanding called Incorruptible, in re∣spect [ 30] of the Glory and Immortality, in which (through ••ope) it hath an Interest; Even so the Earthly substance of this Sacra∣ment, being Bread, is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body. Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat, saith that thes Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught, or seege: which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body, whereof the Fathers often pronounce, that It goeth not into the Draught.

But what is meant by, Materiall in this place, thinke you M. [ 40] Brerely? namely Magnitude, and other Sensible Accidents, which in regard of their Significations, are materialls. So hee. Very learnedly answered forsooth! If Magnitudo, that is Greatnesse, bee a Materiall thing; bee you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof? for whatsoever is Materiall, hath that appel∣lation from it's Subject matter. Is is the Body of Christ? then must you grant (which wee, with the holy Fathers, abhorre to thinke) that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught: or is it

Bread? Then farewell Transubstantiation. Nay, will you say, but they are meere Accidents. And we Answer, that it was ne∣ver heard, no not in your owne Schooles, that meere Accidents were called (which are Origen's words in this place) either Meats, or Materialls. Yea, and Origen (that he might be knowne to understaud Materiall Bread) furthermore calleth it now, af∣ter Consecration, Matter of Bread: not of Accidents of Bread, or yet Accidents signifying Bread: for what Papist will say that the Formes of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, after Conse∣cration, are Symbols, or Signes, signifying Bread and Wine; and not Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ? [ 10]

S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence;t As one Baptized had beene an old Creature, and was made a new one, even so (speaking of the Bread and VVine after Consecration) they being changed into another thing, remaine that which they were before. But hee (you know) that was baptized, remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man, although, in respect of Spirituall Graces, he suffereth a Change. Of which Testimony more hereafter.

Cyprian is a Father much alleaged and urged by you, in de∣fence of Transubstantiation; but is now at hand to controll [ 20] you.u Our Lord gave in this Banquet (saith he) Bread and VVine with his owne hands, when hee partaked thereof with his Apostles: but on the Crosse hee delivered up his Body to the Soul∣diers to be pierced with wounds, to the end, that sincere verity, and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles, hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles, how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood, and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes, and Effects; and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence; that things signifying, and things signified might be called by the same names. So hee. A [ 30] Catholike Father, as all know; whom if you aske, what Con∣secrated thing it was, which Christ had in his hands, and gave to his Disciples, hee answereth it was Bread, and Wine; and not absolutely that, which he gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers, (namely) his Body, and Blood. If againe you demand of Cyprian, why Christ called the Bread, which he had in his hand, his Body, he readily answereth saying: The things signi∣fying (or Signes) are called by the same names, whereby the things signified are termed. [ 40]

{fleur-de-lys} The Marcian Heretike held Bread and Wine to bee un∣cleane Creatures: Tertullian confuteth them, But how? even by the Bread and Wine used of Christ in the Eucharist; Be∣cause Christ (saith he) did not reject his Creature, wherewith hee represented his owne Body. In which Testimonie the word, [Representeth,] being spoken of the Eucharist, it must needs note it as a thing Consecrated, else could it not be said to

Represent the Body of Christ. And by calling this a Creature representing Christ's Body, he distinguisheth it from Christ's Body. And lastly, the Heretike teaching the Substance; and not the Accidents of the same Creature, Bread, to be uncleane, and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramentall Bread, must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread, as all the Lawes of Arguing do proclame; which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speake ad Idem. {fleur-de-lys}

Ax Protestant of admirable learning, unfolded unto you [ 10] the Iudgement of Antiquitie, from the Testimonies of divers Fathers, in saying of this Sacrament, after Consecration, that The Bread, by being divided, is diminished: that, It is delivered by fragments: that these are so little, that they are to be called rather Bitts, than Parts. Thus they spake expressely of Bread Consecrated; but to say that you eate Bitts and Fragments of whitenesse, of Roundnesse, and other Accidents, who is so ab∣surd among your selves? and to affirme the same of Christ's Body, who is so impious?

{fleur-de-lys} Onely it will be our duety to Answer the Objection of [ 20] Doctor Heskins, for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ his Body; who produceth the Cautions, which Pope Cle∣ment, in his second Epistle, gave to the Priests and Deacons, concerning the Fragments, and pieces of that which he cal∣leth Fragments of the Lords Body; Charging them,22 That no Mice-dung may be seene among the Fragments of the Lords Portion: Nor that they be Suffered to remaine rotten through their negligence. We Answer; First, by the words, Fragments of Christ's Portion, are to be understood either meere Acci∣dents, and then are your Disputers unconscionable, to argue [ 30] from Fragments of meere Accidents, for a Substantiall Exi∣stence of the Body of Christ: Or else thereby you must be∣lieve they meant properly Christ's Body, and then should you be altogether blasphemous, to teach a Body of Christ rent in∣to Fragments, and Portions; and the same pieces of the same Body to be in themselves subject unto the pollution of Mice∣dung, Putrification, and Rottennesse. Here, indeed, were there some use of the admirable Nose of Ioane Martlesse, above mentioned by your Iesuite, to smell out the Abo∣mination of this your Romish Doctrine. Somewhat [ 40] more of this Point when wee shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councel of Nice. In the Interim wee may well thinke, that that Primitive Church, which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured, or passe into the Draught, would never have consented (as* Shee did) to the Burying of the Sacrament, which remained after the Commu∣nion; if they had conceived it to bee Really the Body of Christ.

Another Inference wee may take from Antiquity, in her calling this Sacrament [Pignus] a Pledge (soy Hierome, and z Gaudentius) of the Presence of Christ now departed from us. A perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ, by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge; And so doth also Primasius. The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following. [ 10]

A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers, acknow∣ledging in expresse termes, Bread to remaine, after Con∣secration, in Substance the same. The First Father is THEODORET. SECT. XII. [ 20]

THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference betweene two Parties, being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ; the one is named Eranistes, upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike, for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians, who (falsly) held, That the Body of Christ, af∣ter his Ascension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deitie, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as be∣fore his Resurrection it had beene. The other Party and Dis∣puter is named Orthodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himselfe [ 30] did sustaine, in behalfe of the Catholike Church. In this Dis∣pute the Heretike is brought in, for Defence of his Heresie, ar∣guing thus; Even as Signes in the Eucharist, after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed in∣to the Body of Christ: even so, after his Ascension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes.

This was that Heretike his Objection. The Orthodoxe, or Catholike (which was Theodoret himselfe) cometh to answer, [ 40] promising to catch the heretike, as he saith, in his owne Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: a Nay, But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist, after San∣ctification,

depart not from their former nature, but continue in their former Figure, Forme and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Forme, Circumscription, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or Substance which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set downe in the name of a Grand Heretike, is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day, (to wit) Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body; and that also the Assertion of Theodoret, in the person of the [ 10] Catholike Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants, defending that Bread after Conse∣cration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to Free your Romish Article from Heresie: which divers have undertaken to do by their Answeres, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at their Answer; and so falsly, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest.

The Principall Answer is that, which yourb Cardinall giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remaineth the same [ 20] in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; By [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] meant not Substance, pro∣perly understood, but the Essence of Accidents. So he. {fleur-de-lys}Or as your23 Iesuite saith, Thesubstance of the Signes, which are Accidents. An answer (by your leave) No oriously, Ri∣diculously, and Heretically False.

First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodo∣ret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude con∣sisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the o∣ther Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logike; (as you know) that the words and termes, betokening the same Simili∣tude, [ 30] be used in the same signification in both Propositions. But in the Apodosis of Theodoret, which is this: So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretike, viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had beene in time before his Resurrection; (the Heretike denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same onely in Quantities, and Accidents; for those the A∣postle [ 40] teacheth to be alterable, Corruption putting on Incorrup∣tion, Mortality Imortality, and shame Glory. Therefore in the Protasis, and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret, (which was this, As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken.

Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Forme, which are knowne to bee Accidents, and ad∣ding

[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Accidents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so unlearned, who did adde the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to Formes, and Fi∣gures, but hee therby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents.

Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresie of the Eutychians? tell us; They (sayc you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but onely Di∣vine. Which word, Humane Nature, doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man; and therefore in his compari∣son, [ 10] made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Figure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had the same signification of Substance, as your Master Brerely afterwards is compelled to confesse: who, to the end he may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justifie the Heretikes speech to be Catholike, for proofe of Transubstantiation.

Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answer, Retorting (as hee him∣selfe saith) the Heretikes Comparison, against him, did, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; [ 20] but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholike Cause unto that pernitious Heretike. Much like as if one should use this Comparison following. As the Moone-shine in the water (in the opinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equal∣ly as loving as is a Faithfull. And another retorting the same, should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moon-shine in the water, is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Fir∣mament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyall Affe∣ction [ 30] by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signifie Lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in A. Gellius, where such an Objectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive. {fleur-de-lys}Observe also that Arius the Heretike, be∣ing required to tell What is Substance (Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) an∣swered, That is Substance, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whereby a thing doth sub∣sist. And23 Athanasius himselfe approved hereof, saying, Thou hast answered rightly: This could they not have said, [ 40] if that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had not beene universally taken in the Greeke Church, aswell among Orthodoxe, as among Heretikes: for that which giveth a Subsisting to other things (as you your selves will not deny) is to be properly a Substance. {fleur-de-lys}

Here had wee fixed a Period, but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) coming against us with a full careere, who after that he had beene confuted, for urging the

former Objection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answer, he blusheth not to regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to him∣selfe of the futility therof, he leaveth it presently, falling foule upon Theodoret, as though that Father had beene in some di∣stemper, when he so, writ:d saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his heate of Dispute. Then hee taketh part with the Heretike, saying, It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstan∣tiation, as for a point of Faith well knowne, if the same Doctrine [ 10] had beene then either unknowne, or else condemned, as False. So hee, who might aswell have reasoned, in the behalfe of the Sad∣duces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there a••e any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had beene then either un∣knowne or condemned as False, by the Church of God, among the Iewes. And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church.

Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father [ 20] Theodoret? Hearken, Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop (saith hee) could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument, as groun∣ded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same beene then unknowne, and reputed False. So he, who if hee had not lost his Logike, would certainly have argued con∣trarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop, would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstan∣tiation, in the name of a ranke Heretike, and after himselfe impug∣ned and confuted the same, except he had knowne it to be flatly re∣pugnant to the Catholike Church in his time. Wherefore if you [ 30] be men of Faith, and not rather of Faction, let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers, discovered both here, and throughout this whole Treatise, move you to renounce them, as men of prostituted Consciences; and their Cause, as forlorne of all Truth.

For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answer of your Ie∣suite Valentia, to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvell (saith he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought lesse considerately and truly, before that Tran∣substantiation was handled publikely in the Church, especially they [ 40] not handling the same Question of purpose. So hee; and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church, he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church, which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith. And affirming that the same Fathers Hand∣led not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodo∣ret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike

〈◊〉〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally, but deliberately and pun∣••••lly by writing, and therefore of Purpose.

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

THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius, and ur∣ged [ 10] his Testimony. Your Disputers civill; First at the name of the Author, calling Protestantse Impudent, for sti∣ling him Pope Gelasus. But if hee were not that Pope Gela∣siue, what Gelasius might hee bee then? Gelasius Bishop of Cae∣s••rea, saith your Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward . Contrarily yourf Car∣dinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 47. (namely) Gelasius Cyzicenus; yet so, as confounding himselfe, insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesseth) of Ge∣lasius ••ope of a Rome. But what shall we answer for the Impudent [ 20] Protestants, as yo•• Cardinall hath called them? Surely, no∣thing, but wee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meane, to follow than theseg Historians, viz. Genadius, yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs, Alphonsus de Castro, Onu∣phrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have inti∣tuled this Gelasius, Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that hee was an Orthodox Father, and very Ancient.

Now then. Gelasius sayd thath The Sacraments of the Body, [ 30] and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine. In Answer whereunto, both your foresaidi Cardinalls here (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Ge∣lasius somewhere else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will [ 40]

compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude, and Comparison, viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration: So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection. Wherein if the word, Substance, bee not in both places taken properly, [ 10] Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason, as any reaso∣nable man will confesse. For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet, yet if they halt upon the right foot, (which is the matter in Question) they are to be accounted per∣fit Dissimilitudes.

Masterk Brerely would have you to know, that this Gela∣sius (whosoever he were) writeth against the same Eutychian He∣resie, that Theodoret did; and thereupon useth accordingly, to his like advantage, the words Substance, and Nature, in the same sense, as did Theodoret. So he. And he saith true; and therefore must [ 20] wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us, un∣till you shall be able to free your selves from our former Inter∣pretation of Theodoret. But Master Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius, from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation: so that Gelasius must rather contradict himselfe, than that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet. Whereas, indeed, he saith no more than, in a mysticall sense, any Protestant must, and will allow, viz. that The Sacra∣ment is a Divine thing, and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ, are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Di∣vine [ 30] Nature, which dwelleth in Christ bodily, saith the Apostle, So Gelasius. Whereof copiously throughout the fift Booke.

To which Saying of Gelasius, touching the Eucharist, is an∣swerable a like Saying of Gregory Nyssen, concerning Baptisme, calling it al Divine Laver, working miraculous effects. Yea, and Dionysius them Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporall Change, what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow? where∣as [ 40] by naming it Divine Bread, as hee did terme Priest, Di∣vine; People, Divine; it proveth that hee meant no Substan∣tiall Change. Fie upon blind boldnesse! This mans falsity, in alleging Chemnitius, I let passe.

It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Dispu∣ters how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians. May we not therefore suspect that the Testi∣mony

in an extemporall speech personally, but deliberatly and pun∣ally by writing, and therefore of Purpose.

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

THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius, and ur∣ged [ 10] his Testimony. Your Disputers cavill; First at the name of the Author, calling Protestantse Impudent, for sti∣ling him Pope Gelasius. But if hee were not that Pope Gela∣siue, what Gelasius might hee bee then? Gelasiue Bishop of Cae∣sarea, saith your Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward . Con••rarily yourf Car∣dinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 47. (namely) Gelasius Cyzicenus; yet so, as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesieth) of Ge∣lasius Pope of Rome. But what shall we answer for the Impudent [ 20] Protestants, as your Cardinall hath called them? Surely, no∣thing, but wee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meaner, to follow than theseg Heslorians, viz. Genadius, yea your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the carie Anastasius, Alphonsus de Castro, Onu∣phrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have inti∣tuled this Gelasius, Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that hee was an Orthodox Father, and very Ancient.

Now then Gelasius sayd thath The Sacraments of the Body, [ 30] and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine. In Answer whereunto, ••oth your foresaidi Cardinalls here (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Ge∣lasius somewhere else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will [ 40]

compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the Substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him 〈…〉〈…〉 That as the Substance of 〈…〉〈…〉 Christ his Bodily Subst•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••herein if the word, Su〈…〉〈…〉perly, [ 10] Gelasius should 〈…〉〈…〉 reaso∣nable man wi〈…〉〈…〉amble alwayes on 〈…〉〈…〉t foot, (which is the 〈…〉〈…〉d per∣fit Dissimili〈…〉〈…〉

Master (〈…〉〈…〉s Gela∣siusk (whosoe•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••••••••••ian He∣resie, that 〈…〉〈…〉ly, to his like advant•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉me sense, as did Theod〈…〉〈…〉ore must [ 20] wee assure 〈…〉〈…〉 us, un∣till you shal〈…〉〈…〉er Inter∣pretation o•• 〈…〉〈…〉against us another ser〈…〉〈…〉deth that Gelasius he〈…〉〈…〉st rather contradict〈…〉〈…〉 Romish Tenet. W〈…〉〈…〉 mysticall sense, any 〈…〉〈…〉e Sacra∣ment is a T〈…〉〈…〉ally the Body of Ch•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉his [ 30] Di∣vine Nat•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Apostle, So Gelas〈…〉〈…〉ooke.

To wh〈…〉〈…〉st, is an∣swerable a〈…〉〈…〉 Baptisme, calling it al Yea, and Dionysius them Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporall Change, what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow? where∣as [ 40] by naming it Divine Bread, as hee did terme Priest, Di∣vine; it proveth that hee meant no Substan∣tiall Change. Fie upon blind boldnesse! This mans falsity, in alleging Chemnitius, I let passe.

It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Dispu∣ters how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians. May we not therefore suspect that the Testi∣mony

objected was distastfull unto them, when they so greatly feared, lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreme Pastor of your Church?

Two other Testimonies from Antiquity, for the expresse acknow∣ledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration, in the Sacrament; Chrysostome, and Bertram: to whom is added Ephraimius. SECT. XIIII. [ 10]

CHrysostome his words are these, thatn Bread after Conse∣cration is freed from the name of Bread, being accounted wor∣thy of the name of the Body of Christ, albeit the nature of it re∣maineth therein still. Your Exception is, that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome. This your An∣swer might satisfie us, were it not that it was extant some∣time in the Libraries ofo Florence, andp Canterbury. To whom may bee adjoyned the Author of that Vnperfect worke, [ 20] still standing under the name of Chrysostome, and by you upon any occasion objected against us; wherein it is expresly sayd, thatq The True Body of Christ is not contained within these san∣ctified Vessels, but the mysterie of his Body. It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others, who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions, which were published in the former; as you have beene admo∣nished by oner most worthy and able to advertise in this kind.

Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity, being about 800. yeeres agoe, and never noted of Errour anciently, untill [ 30] these later times of Booke-butchery (that we may so call your Index Expurgatorius)s denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke. But why? what saith he? He maintaineth (saith yourt Senensis) that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine. And indeed so hee doth in hisu Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus, which also hee affirmeth to bee writtenx According to the truth of Scriptures, and judge∣ment of Ancient Fathers before him. This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway, which, confes∣sing [ 40] him to have beene a Catholike Priest, framed divers An∣swers,

whereby they meant to prevent all Objections, which Protestants might peradventure urge, under the Authority of this Author Bertram. But how? Marke this Romi••h Profession of answering Protestan••s, as often as they shall i••i••t in the se∣stmonies of ancient Writers:y Let us (say they) in D••sputa∣tion with our Adversaries, objecting ancient Authors, tolerate many of their Errours, extenuate and excuse them; yea and often∣times, by some devised Comment or shift, deny them, as also by feig∣ning to apply some apt sense unto them. So that Vniversi••ie. [ 10] This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles, to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation, what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answe∣ring? Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Com∣mendation of Abbotz Trithemius, for his Excellent Learning in Scripture, his godly life, his worthy Books, (and by name this now-mentioned, written expresly) of the Body and Blood of Christ.

{fleur-de-lys} Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch, of primitive Antiquity, whose Sentence is recorded by Photius, standeth thus,24 The [ 20] Body of Christ, which is received by the faithfull, loseth no∣thing of it's sensible substance, nor is it separable from grace; as Baptisme, which is spirituall, being intirely one in it selfe, preserveth the property of it's sensible substance, (I meane wa∣ter) and loseth not that which it was. So hee. Expresly re∣veiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Bo∣die of Christ; namely (as other Fathers, in good number, have already unfolded) because it is a Sacrament represent∣ing Christs Body. For hee clearly speaketh of that, which loseth nothing of it's sensible substance, no more than water [ 30] in Baptisme doth lose ought of it's sensible substance. Which Analogie of the Eucharist with Baptisme will in the last * Booke (in a full Synopsis) give an upshot to the whole Cause, concerning the generall Iudgement of the Fathers from point to point. See the like Argument of Cyrill of Ie∣rusalem [ 40] afterwards, Chap. 4. Sect. 4.

CHAP. IV.

Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctours, taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, for Transubstantiation.

Or, an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pre∣tences in that behalfe. SECT. I. [ 10]

THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients, used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers, in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences. First, upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie. Secondly, their denying of the Eucha∣rist to bee Naked and Bare Bread. Thirdly, in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the Iudgement of their Senses. [ 20] Fourthly, in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, and calling it Transmutation, Transition, and the like. Fiftly and lastly, in forcing of the speeches of Fathers, which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation, as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the same Fa∣thers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme, and also to other sacred Rites, wherein you beleeve there is not any Sub∣stantiall Change at all.

The First Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers, in ob∣jecting the Fathers speeches of an Omnipotent Worke [ 30] in this Sacrament, for proofe of Transubstantiation. SECT. II.

A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change, which is made in this Sacrament, which we likewise confesse.a Ambrose compareth the Change by Be∣nediction, made in this Sacrament, unto many miraculous Works [ 40] of God; yea, even to the worke of Creation.b Cyprian spea∣keth

of a Change in nature, by Divine Omnipotencie,c Augu∣stine reckoning it among God's miracles, saith that This Sacra∣ment is wrought by the Spirit of God. Accordingly we heare d Chrysostome proclaiming, that These are not workes of humane power: Hee that changeth, and transmuteth now, is the same that hee was in his last Supper. Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers, as the strongest fortres∣ses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation, and being taken altogether, they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregna∣ble; [ 10] but why?e Because (saith your Cardinall) Omnipoten∣cie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant. So he. Wee answer first from your owne Confessions, and then from the Fathers themselves.

There are two workes observable in every Sacrament; one is to be a Signe of an Invisible grace, promised by God: the other to be a Seale and Pledge therof, as all Protestants hold; and (as your most opposedf Calvin teacheth) an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments. In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Di∣vine [ 20] work, without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament, either to signifie, or yet to seale, much lesse to convey any grace of God unto man. And (that wee may take you along with us) It is the Doctrine of your Church, with common consent (saith your Romaneg Cardinall) that God onely can by his Autho∣rity institute a Sacrament, because hee onely can give them power of conferring grace, and of Infallible signification thereof. So hee Well then, aswell infallible Signification of Grace, as the effica∣cious conveyance of Grace, is the worke of the same Omnipo∣cencie. To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall [ 30] Alan, speaking (as hee saith) from the judgement of Di∣vines, h telleth you that Although there be an aptnesse in every Creature to beare a signification of some spirituall effect, yet cannot the aptnesse be determinatly applyed unto any peculiar effect, no not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannesse of mans Body (Sacramentally) without a Divine Institution; much lesse to represent mans sanctification: but being so determinated and or∣dained of God, the Creature (saith hee) is elevated above the Cu∣stome of nature, not only in respect of the worke of sanctification, [ 40] but even of signification also. So hee; and that as well as wee

could wish: for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament, and this Iustrumentall Cause of conferring Sancti∣fying Grace, to the Faithfull Communicant, is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants. But what Change shall we thinke? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christs Body, as you teach? No; but as before Isidore sayd, The Change of visible things, by the spirit of God, into a Sacrament of Christs Body. So hee. This being a Change from a Property naturall into a Property Supernaturall, which Change is Divine, al∣beit but Accidentall: whereunto accordeth that objected place of Augustine, that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to bee a [ 10] Sacrament.

Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is requi∣red in every Sacrament, to make it either infallibly significant, or else efficaciously profitable to man; and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed, by being Elevated from a common, unto a spirituall and divine property of a Sa∣cramentall Signification, as one of your Cardinalls hath sayd: What an unconscionablenesse is it then in your Disputers; from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working, which is neces∣sarily in all Sacraments, to conclude a Change of the Element [ 20] of Bread, by Transubstantiation, as you have heard.

But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse bee, if we consult with the Objected Fathers themselves. For first Ambrose, who observeth an Omnipotencie in the Change of this Sacrament, explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy hee meant, viz. such, thati The things changed into a divine Sacra∣ment are still the same, which they were before (namely) according to their natural property. Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation, that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new [ 30] k Editions: notwithstanding, by Gods providence; so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved, even in the same place, as will convince your Objectors of wilfull Falshood; telling you by a Similitude, that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change, whereby a Christian Regeneratel of an old Creature is made a new Creature: which is (as every Chri∣stian knoweth) not a change in the substantiall nature of man, but in the Accidentall properties. So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall. And the same Father who [ 40] said of a man, that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature, saith also of this Sacrament, thatm By Benediction Bread is made ano∣ther nature, (namely) of an Elementall become Sacramentall, as you have heard; and as his owne words import, After Consecra∣tion the Body of Christ is Signified: and that, which was Wine, Is called Blood.

In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud your selves, for to

your Lindann The words of Cyprian appeare Golden•• and hee must needs provoke, forsooth, all Gospellers to hearken unto them: which also seemeth to youro Cardinall To admit no solution. Our Answer, first unto the Author, is to deny it to bee the Testimony of Cyprian: may we no••? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us (saith your Masterp Brerely) attri∣buted to Cyprian. Whom of your Side he mean by Vs] you may bee pleased to aske him; sure wee are your Cardinall doth tell us thatq The Author of this Booke is not Cyprian, but some [ 10] other after him. But, not to disclaime your Author; all that he saith is thatr Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure, but in Nature. This is ill; And all this hath beene, but even now, quitted by your ow••e Confessions, granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change, where the na∣turall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the na∣ture of a Spirituall Instrument and use, both signifying and ex∣hibiting Divine Grace; and so the word Nature doth import. The Schooles, distingui••hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects, shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as [ 20] well as a Substantiall. Theology teaching that By nature wee are the children of wrath; wherein Nature signifieth onely a vi∣tious Quality. This saying, viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature, when they are commanded, Master Brerely allow∣eth of, as for example: a Surplesse being commanded by law∣full Authority, the use thereof becometh necessary, so that the nature therof is Changed, yet not in the Substance of the thing, but in the legall necessity of the use.

{fleur-de-lys} And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie? say∣ing of all persons Regenerate, that1 By the nature of faith [ 30] they are changed into Immortality, and into one nature of Eter∣nity. In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof. In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose, when hee affirmeth the2 Na∣ture of Bread to bee changed in this Sacrament. Certainly, e∣ven as it is in all other Mysteries, wherin (as Saint Augustine speaketh)3 Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacra∣mentum. As much as to say, the Element (as Bread) is Changed into a Sacrament; (as Isidore spake) which is cal∣led the Body of Christ, because of the Sacramentall property [ 40] of speech, calling the Signe by the name of the thing signi∣fied; as the same * Father, with divers Others hath amply declared. {fleur-de-lys}

But to come neerer, Answer us but this one Question. Wher∣as all learning alloweth this saying, that in Baptisme the nature of the Element, and the nature of the Sacrament are different, whereupon it is sayd; The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament: when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme

that the Nature of it, as of a Sacrament, is more excellent than, is the nature of it, as it is a meere Element; whether doth not the word, Nature, attributed to the Sacrament, justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian, in the case of the Eucharist? and so much the rather, because that Cyprian, in the words immedi∣atly following the Testimony objected, doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude; comparing the Humanity, and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament, to wit;s As in Christ himselfe true humani∣tie appeared in his flesh, and his Deity was hid: (This was the [ 10] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and first part of this Similitude; the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and next part followeth) Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe. So hee, which, by the law of a Simi∣litude, must stand thus: Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene, and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible. Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull; The words are audible, and sensible, but because of the inward working of Gods Spi∣rit, for the Conversion of Mans soule, it is called The power of God unto salvation: as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacr•• [ 20] of Regeneration; whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth thatt It worketh marvellously by benediction, and produceth marvellous Effects. As for Augustine, and Chrysostome (not to bee super∣fluous) every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe (name∣ly) a Divine Operation of God, both by changing the Element into a Sacrament, and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Ef∣fects, to the good of Mans soule. [ 30]

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian, by Romish Torturers forced, for proofe of Transubstantiation.

BVt you have not done with Cyprian, he is found saying, concerning this Sacrament, that4 Christ daily Crea∣teth his most true, and most holy Body, sanctifieth and blesseth it. This, in the Opinion of your Objector, must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist, because Christ createth not an imaginary Body, but that which is called a most true Body. Which words, notwithstanding, in true sense, [ 40] make nothing against our Defence, but against your Ro∣mish Tenets, as much as any Protestant can require. This is soone tryed. The words of Cyprian are, that Christ doth Create his most true Body: the onely Question is of the word [Create,] whereunto it is to be referred properly? This must be either to Bread, or to Christ's Body: and your Car∣dinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in

this Sacrament,5 Answereth that the words Create, San∣ctifie, and Blesse, are to be referred to Bread, which is first Crea∣ted, (saith he) before it is converted into Christ's Body. If then Cyprian by the words, Christ's Body, meant Bread, which is the Signe of his Body, is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers, to conclude from a Signe the reall presence of a Body? especially from this Father S. Cyprian, who teacheth every Christian how to interpret the sense of Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood, viz.6 Things [ 10] signifying, (as Signes) and things signified, are called by the same termes, or names. What is, if this be not our Protestant Doctrine?

And were it that Cyprian could possibly have meant a Crea∣ting of Christ's Body, in this Sacrament, properly; yet could not such our Opposers have bewrayed more stupiditie, or else obstinacie, than by urging this Sentence, whereby two Arti∣cles of your Councel of Trent are absolutely strangled. The first is Transubstantiation, which (as you confesse) is of Some∣thing Pre-existent: Whereas Creation, (as all know) is from a [ 20] meere Nothing. The second Tridentine Article is, that the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is whole in the whole Host, and in every part thereof. But Cyprian saith of that Body, which hee calleth Created, that It is divided.

Wee have light upon another sentence of Cyprian, obje∣cted out of the same place, and as vehemently pressed, as any other out of Cyprian,7 The Divine essence (saith Cypri∣an) infuseth it selfe into this Sacrament, that wee should have a religious devotion towards it, that a more sincere addresse may be had to be the Truth, whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments. [ 30] So he. Now that you may know our willingnesse to go a∣long with you in the exposition of this Sentence, so farre as either the sense of the words will beare, or Cyprian his owne direction will permit.

Wee grant, first, that the Divine Essence, which is the di∣vine power of Christ, is exercised in every Sacrament, by making it effectuall to the salvation of the Communicants. Secondly, that by the word, Verity, or Truth, is meant the Reality of his Body and Blood. And Thirdly, that every one that approacheth to this Sacrament, ought to come with a [ 40] Religious Devotion, and sincere affection. The onely diffe∣rence is, how Christ's Body and Blood are said to bee Sa∣craments of the Reality of his Body and Blood, here mentio∣ned? and your onely Answer is, that Christ is a figure and signe of himselfe, as hee is in this Sacrament; which figment is easily confuted by a Catholike and universall doctrine of all Christian Churches, which is, that every Sacrament is a visible Signe of an invisible Grace. But in this Sacrament the

Body and Blood of Christ, properly taken, are nothing lesse than Visible, by your owne Confessions, who teach them to bee so Invisible herein, that they cannot bee discerned either by Angel, or the Bodily eyes of Christ himselfe. You perceive by this, that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian, is but a vaine blast.

Wherefore wee expound the words thus; Christ's Body and Blood (that is) the outward Symbols, carrying the names of his Body and Blood, are Sacraments, and Seales of that Ve∣rity of the same Body, which was crucifyed, and of the same Blood, which was shed upon the Crosse for man's Redemp∣tion; [ 10] and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the soules of the Faithfull.

But you will aske, who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian? and wee Answer, that wee shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himselfe, already alleged, saying, that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signifyed. So he there; and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ, being in themselves onely Sacraments and Signes: whereof you [ 20] have had example in his Saying, that Christ herein created his Body; by Body meaning Bread, as your Cardinall hath con∣fessed. Which may give you a true Patterne of the genuine Idiome of the Fathers, as often as they call the Bread Christ's Body, or Wine his Blood: and that all such Speeches are not more yours in sound, than they are ours in true and Ortho∣dox Sense.

The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers, for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, is seene in objecting their de∣niall [ 30] of Common and Bare Bread, in this Sacra∣ment; for an Argument of Tran∣substantiation. SECT. III.

TO this purpose Irenaeus, saying thata It is not Common Bread: Ergo (say you) not to be properly judged by Sense. Vnconscionably; knowing thatb Chrysostome (and also other Fathers, whom you moreover object) saith likewise of the Sa∣crament [ 40] of Baptisme, Wee are to behold it not as common water. The second is Iustine Martyr, saying,d Wee receive these, not as Common Bread, or Common Drinke. Therefore (say you) we may not judge them by Sense. Vnconscionably; knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason, why it is

not to be called Common, even because (saith he) it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Sanctified meat. And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctifi∣ed, as you know. The third is Cyrill of Ierusalem, saying,e Con∣sider these, not as Common Bread and Wine: Ergo (say you) not to bee judged by Sense. V••conscionably; knowing that the same Cyrill, in the same place, saith the same of the water of Baptisme: It is not simple Water. Yea, but hee further saith (sayf you) Thinke not of it, as of bare Bread, (adding) but the Bo∣dy of Christ. Ergo (say you) not to bee judged otherwise by [ 10] Sense. Vnconscionably; knowing that the same Father in the same place, for explanation sake, saith likewise ofg Sacred Oyle, viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle (Ad∣ding) but the gift of Grace.

And that your Authours Vnconscionablenesse may bee the more notorious, in their Wresting of the Catholike meaning of the Fathers, in this kind, wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme, as they ought, all Sacramentall Signes Sacred; and therefore no more Common, or bare Elements. Inso much that Gregory Nyssen, [ 20] speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament, which is the Altar, or Table of the Lord, hee saith thath Although by nature it bee but as other stone, wherewith the Pavements are garnished, and adorned; yet being Consecrated to Gods Service, by Benediction, it is an holy Table and Altar. Adding also of Baptisme, and saying; The Divine Water is not to bee contemned, nor to bee held as Com∣mon. Yea, and what lesse doth your Church say of your hal∣lowed Balsome, Beads, and Bells, and the like, all which you di∣stinguish from Common and bare Oyles, and Metals, because of their different use, and service, without Opinion of any Change [ 30] of Substance at all?

The third Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging, for proofe of Transubstantiation, the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, forbidding men to [Discerne of this Sacra∣ment by their Senses.] And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril, by two egregious Falsifications. [ 40] SECT. IV.

VVEe may not easily passe over your Objection taken out of Cyrill, being in the opinion of your Cardinall so im∣pregnable; Let us first here your Objector:i This Testimony of Cyrill alone ought to suffice, being the Sentence of an holy man,

and most ancient, out of a worke which (unquestionably) was his, yea and most cleare, and plaine, as that it cannot be perverted. Be∣sides it is in his Catechisme, wherein the use of all things is delive∣red simply, properly, and plainly: Nor was this Father Cyrill ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist. Thus farre your Cardinall, you see, with as accurate an Oratory of Amplifi∣cation, as could bee invented. What Protestant would not now, if ever, expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholike Cause? but attend to the Issue.

First,k Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste, but although Taste saith it is Bread, yet undoubtedly to beleeve it to [ 10] be the Body of Christ, whereinto the bread is changed. And he is brought in by yourl Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread. And so the Sentence seemeth to bee most manifest, saith he. But for what wee pray you? That first (forsooth) the Change is the same with Transubstantiation: and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread, but Accidents under the forme of Bread. So he, and Master Brerely from him, as followeth; Cyril saith, under the forme of Bread his Body is given, &c. and then dan∣cing in the same triumph, addeth; Can any Catholike of this Age [ 20] write more plainely? So he. And we answer, could any Iugglers deale more falsely? For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion, by a false Translation of Cyrils words. The Body of Christ is given (as your Cardinall doth render it) [sub specie Panis] in, or under the forme of Bread; whereas it is in the Greeke,m Vnder the Type of Bread: even as he saith after∣wards; Thinke not that you taste bread, but the Antitype of Christ's Body. In both, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] not, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Type, and Antitype; not Forme, or Figure of Bread.

Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene [ 30] Forme, and Type. For Accidentall Formes are things Reall, and the determinate Objects of Sense; but Types, or Antitypes are onely Relatives, and (as such) no Objects of Sense, but of Rea∣son, and understanding onely. As for example, when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench, the Eye seeth nothing but the colour, and the fashion of the Gowne, and outward fi∣gurature of his Face, and so may every Child see him; for these are Outward and Visible Accidents. But to see that man, as he hath upon him the person of a Iudge, ordained to trie Cau∣ses [ 40] betweene Parties, is a sight of the minde, which looketh upon his Office, to discerne him by his Habit from common Subjects. Even so is it in this Sacrament; As the Bread and Wine are Round, and White, and Sweet in Taste, our Bodily Senses perceive them; but as they are Types, and Antitypes, that is, Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ, so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding onely.

As therefore it followeth not, that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge, because it is an Ensigne of his Office, should be onely Colour and Fashion, without the matter and Substance of the Cloth; no more can any conclude from Cyril, that because the Sacrament is a Type, therefore this Type was onely Forme, and outward Accidents, without all Substance of Bread. And thus your Cardinall his first [Apertissimum Argumentum] for proofe of Accidents, without the Substance of Bread in this Sa∣crament, is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum, void of all [ 10] substance, or almost shadow of Truth.

His next Observation is the Change by Transubstantiation, and the errour of Sense, in judging it to be Bread. Wee call upon Cyril to decide this Controversie, who is best able to interpret himselfe. Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist, after Con∣secration, It is not Bare Bread, but the Body of Christ, affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle, saying, It is not Bare Oyle. But we are answered, thatn Cyril, in denying the Eucharist to be Com∣mon Bread, called it after Consecration Christ's Body: but in denying Oyle to be Bare Oyle, hee called it yet still but Chrisme, [ 20] (that is) Sanctified Oyle, after Consecration. So your Cardinall. And so are wee posed for ever. But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud! For Cyril as hee called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body, after Consecration, so doth hee call the Consecrated Oyle [Charisma] that is, the Gift of the Grace of Christ; and not [Chrisma] that is, Chrisme, or Oyntment, as your Cardinall ren∣dreth it.

Wee say againe hee calleth that Charisma, which notwith∣standing hee saith was, after Consecration, still Oyle, where∣with their Foreheads were anointed. This must we Iudge to have [ 30] beene a notable Falsification of arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward , except you would rather we should thinke, that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are deceived, in judging of Bread to bee Bread, hee meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe, in thus mistaking the word Chrisma, foro and so utter∣ly perverting the Iudgement of Cyril; by whom we are contra∣rily taught, that the Sight is no more deceived in judging Bread to be Bread, than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle. For neither was the other Bare Oyle, being a Type of a spirituall Gift; nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe, because it [ 40] is so called; but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof. Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconsci∣onable pertinacie and Perversnesse of your Disputers, in ur∣ging the Testimony of Cyril.

{fleur-de-lys}All this, which I have avouched out of Cyril, I have since found exactly confirmed by our Iudicious8 Isaac Ca∣saubon, the Myrrour of learning; concluding with this Epipho∣nema: If I (saith he) have any judgment, Cyril judged Bread to

remaine in this Sacrament of the Eucharist, as verily as in Oyle consecrated, there remaineth Oyle. As for the terme of Trans∣mutation of Bread into Christ's Body, you may have a further plentifull satisfaction in the Seaventh Section following. And wee concurre in Iudgment with the same Cyril, exacting that wee regard not our Senses herein; namely, to looke upon it with our naturall eyes, as beholding bare Bread: but with Spirituall, to behold it to be Sacramentall Bread, and in it, as in a Signe, to discerne the Lords Body, as Cyril hath already expounded himselfe saying, that it is changed into an Anti∣type of Christ's Body.{fleur-de-lys} [ 10]

The like Romish Objection out of Chrysostome, and as Vnconscionable. SECT. V.

SAint Chrysostome his Testimonie may in no wise be omitted, which seemeth to your Disputers to bee so Convincent, that yourp Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers, [ 20] whom hee produceth, as able to breake through an Army of Adversaries alone; and Masterq Brerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies, which he alleged, as that which might serve for an Vpshot. I will conclude (saith hee) admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying (you long to heare it, wee thinke:) Although Christ his speech (saithr Chr••∣sostome) may seeme absurd unto Sense and Reason, I exhort you notwithstanding that, especially in Mysteries, we looke not unto that which is before us, but observe Christ's words: for we cannot bee disappointed of that which hee saith, but Senses may be deceived. [ 30] Wherefore, because he said [This is my Body] we are altogether to beleeve it, for hee delivereth no sensible things unto us; but all which hee delivereth in things sensible are insensible: e∣ven as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intel∣ligible. For if thou wert without a Body, then things onely unbo∣dily should be given unto thee, but now because thy Soule is joy∣ned with a Body, therefore in things sensible hath Christ delive∣red unto thee things intelligible. So Chrysostome.

Now what of all this? Chrysostome (saith yours Cardinall) could not speake more plainely, if hee had had some Calvi∣nist [ 40] before him, whom hee meant to exhort to the Faith. So hee, meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation, Which (as hath been confessed) was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeeres after Christ. But to returne to Chrysostome, whose Sen∣tence

wee may compare to a Nut, consisting of a Shell, and a Kernel: The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases; the Kernel wee may terme his Orthodoxe meaning. Of both in the Section following.

Of the Rhetoricall, and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome. [ 10] SECT. VI.

TO begin with the Shell. First, wee are to know that Hyper∣bole is a Rhetoricall Trope, or Figure, which may be defi∣ned to be an Excessive speech, signifying a Truth in an Vntruth. As to say, Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe; which, being strictly taken, were an Impossibility, and Vntrue: but it doth imply this Truth, (namely) that the thing is wonder∣fully, and extremely darke.

Secondly, that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Fi∣gure Hyperbole, your ownet Senensis doth instruct you; where [ 20] giving a generall Caution, that Fathers in their Sermons do use to declame Hyperbolically, he doth instance most specially, and by name, in Chrysostome. {fleur-de-lys} And albeit that Wee object plaine places of Chrysostome, and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense; (as for Example, where hee reproveth those that are onely Gazers, and not Communi∣cants at the Celebration of the Eucharist, It is better (saith hee) not to be present, than not to participate) yet can wee re∣ceive no better Answer, or other satisfaction from your [ 30] Cardinall than thus;9 Chrysostome here, as else where, spake in an excesse.{fleur-de-lys}

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

Fourthly, that hee is as Hyperbolicall in denying (in the Cele∣bration of this Sacrament) the judgement of Senses, saying, x Do wee see Bread or Wine? which is spoken in as great an [ 40] exuberancie of speech, as are the next words immediately fol∣lowing, saying: Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man, but Fire from a Scraphin, or Angel, with a paire of Tongs. You will thinke (notwithstanding those kinde of Phrases) that Chrysostome thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacra∣ment, as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin, or Spi∣rit; or his owne Fingers from a paire of Tongs.

Fiftly, that the Sentence objected against us, is adorned with

the same figure Hyperbole, when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament, and that our senses herein may be deceived. Words sore pressed by you, yet twice uncon∣scionably; both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to bey A Sensible Signe; and also for that you your selves confesse thatz Our senses cannot be deceived in their pro∣per sensible Objects.

Sixtly, that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbo∣lize herein, who after that hee had sayd, No sensible thing is de∣livered unto us in this Sacrament; notwithstanding, hee addeth [ 10] immediately, saying of this Sacrament, that In things Sensible, things Intelligible are given unto us. Thus farre of the Rheto∣rike of Chrysostome.

Now are wee to shew his Theologie, and Catholike meaning, as it were the Kernel of his Speech. Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule, and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body, as Symbols of spirituall things, which are for the Soule to feed upon. So that a Christian, in receiving this Sacrament, is not wholly to exercise his minde upon the bodily Object, as [ 20] if that were onely, or principally the thing offered unto us; No, for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit. As for Transubstantiation, and Absence of Bread, Chrysostome, in true Sense, maketh wholly against it, by explaining himselfe, and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme: As in Baptisme (saitha he) Regeneration, the thing intelligible, is given by water, the thing sensible, the Substance of water remaining. Which proportion between the Eucharist and Baptisme, is held commonly by ancient Fathers, to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation. And that Chrysostome belie∣ved [ 30] the Existence of Bread after Consecration, hath beene al∣ready expressely showne, and is here now further proved. For he saith of Bread after Consecration, thatb Wee are joyned to∣gether one with another, by this Bread. {fleur-de-lys} And yet further∣more, the same Chrysostome hath already delivered his mind, touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching; decla∣ring in a plaine and literall Sense, as from the mouth of Christ, * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived. {fleur-de-lys}

And now that you see the Nut cracked, you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolicall [ 40] Phrases, and left the kernel of Theologicall Sense for us to con∣tent our selves withall. Furthermore (for this is not to be omit∣ted) the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art, which saith of Consecrating this Sacra∣ment, thatc Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest, but of Christ himselfe, that reacheth it unto him; seeing imme∣diately after (as it were with the same breath) it is added: It is

not the Minister, but God that Baptizeth thee, and holdeth thy head. {fleur-de-lys} Words, you see, as Hyperbolicall as could be utte∣red, and notwithstanding urged by your Doctor Heskins, calling it a9 Plaine place, for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. But will this rellish with you also? All this is to prove unto you, that you are not to exact an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no more than when the Apostle said of the faithfull, in respect of Christ; Thus farre concer∣ning [ 10] the Iudgement of Senses, which hath beene formerly pro∣ved (at large) both by Scriptures, and * Fathers. Wee draw neerer our marke, which is the word Transubstantiation it selfe.

Fourthly, the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers, in urging other Figurative Sayings, and Phrases of the Fathers, of Bread Changed, Transmuted, &c. into the Body of Christ, for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense. [ 20] SECT VII.

SVch words as these, Bread is the Body of Christ; It is made the Body of Christ; It is Changed, Translated, Trans-muted, Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ, are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can finde in the Volumes of Anti∣ty; which if they were literally meant, according to your Ro∣mish Sense, there ought to be no further Dispute. But if it may evidently appeare, by the Idiome of speech of the same Fa∣thers, [ 30] that such their Sayings are Tropicall, and sometimes Hyperbolicall, then shall wee have just Cause to taxe your Dis∣puters of as great Vnconscionablenesse (if not of more) in this, as in any other.

For whensoever they finde in any Father (as inc Eusebius) these words; The Bread is the Body of Christ; they object it for Transubstantiation; but Vnconscionably. First, seeing that the Fathers do but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ, who said of the Bread [This is my Body:] which hath beene proved by Scriptures, and Fathers to be a Figurative and [ 40] unproper speech. Secondly, seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things, as Cyril of Sacred Oyle, saying, this is Charisma, the Gift of Grace; as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d Reconciliation, and Others the like, as you have heard. Thirdly, seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sense of all such speeches, because Things of different na∣tures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another: for no more can it be properly said, Bread is man's Body, than wee can say, An

Egge is a Stone, as you have confessed. Againe, Some Fathers say, Bread is made Flesh, as Saintc Ambrose objected; but Vn∣conscionably; knowing, First, that you your selves are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread. Secondly, knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other Speeches; Chrysostome saying thatf Christ hath made us his owne Body, not onely in Faith, but in Deed also. And Augustine saying thatg Christians themselves with their Head, which ascended into heaven, are one Christ: yea, and Popeh Leo, saying of the party Baptized, that Hee is not the [ 10] same that hee was before Baptisme, by which (saith he) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified. Yea, and our Venerable Bede saith,i Wee are made that Body which we receive. In all which the word [Made,] you know, is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation. Wee draw yet neerer to the Scope.

Wee may not deny, but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher, unto the Preposition Trans; ask Tran∣sit, Transmutatur, signifying a Change, and Trans-mutation in∣to the Body of Christ. Every such Instance is, in the opinion of [ 20] your Doctors, a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe; and all the wits of men cannot (saith one) Assoyle such Objections. Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable, as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Objected Say∣ings ofl Ambrose, In aliud Convertuntur; ofm Cyprian his Panis naturà mutatus; of Cyrils Trans-mutavit; and as now in this Section is to be manifested, in answering your other Objections to the full.

The Fathero Gregory Nyssen, comparing the Body of Christ with Manna, which satisfied every man's Taste that received it, [ 30] saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired. This is objected by your Cardinall, to prove Tran∣substantiation: but, First, Vnconscionably; because it is in it selfe (being literally understood,) even in your owne judge∣ments, incredible. For what Christian will say that the Bo∣dy of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing? much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall de∣sire? No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite: so, Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food, satisfying the Soule in [ 40] the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof. Wee say, the Soule, and not the bodily appetite, as your selves well know, and the Councell of Nice doth teach us to professe. Se∣condly, Vnconscionably objected, because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall maner of Speech likewise, saying thatp Christ's Body doth change our bodies into it selfe, which

in the Literall Sense, according to your arguing, would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ. {fleur-de-lys} Were it (for these are his two Instances) into Milke, or Colewoorts.

But what now?10 The same Gregory Nyssen (saith your Cardinall) in his Catechetica hat•• such plaine places for the changing of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh, as which none of our Adversaries, for ought that I know, did ever answer, or yet object out of this Author, any thing a∣gainst us. So hee. And good reason, for indeed, none need [ 10] to busie himselfe with answering to these places, except you could prove that these were the words of the same Gr. Nys∣sen, and not of some other suborned Author, under his name. Whereof wee may bee perswaded both because that the objected places are onely read in the11 after-Editions of the works of Gregory Nyssen, and also for that (as your own Author, who hath published the same Catecheticall Oration, confesseth of12 The places concerning the Eucharist, which are the same now objected) They are wanting in divers Manuscripts of Gregory Nyssen his workes. And how much [ 20] more suspicious may this seeme to them, who are acquain∣ted with your Booke-mints, and Booke-manglers, as well in foysting in false Sentences, as in falsifying the true?

This might have beene our first Answer; but lest that, if wee should insist upon this, wee might seeme to decline your pretended answerlesse Objection, observe you, with us, in the same Author, that as he sayeth, The Bread is con∣verted into the Body of Christ, so hee saith of the same Bo∣dy of Christ, being received, that It doth convert the bo∣dy of the Receiver into Christ himselfe, as you have heard. [ 30] Whereby he teacheth both you and us, that this word, Convert, is to bee taken for a mysticall and Sacramentall Change, and not for a proper and substantiall; except you would conclude from the same Father, by you objected, that the body of the Communicant is Transubstantiated into Christ himselfe. Nor this onely, but by vertue of the same word [Transit,] must you bee constrained to allow of a farre more strange Transubstantiation, even of the Bread, which was eaten of Christ,13 Into his owne Deitie. Are you not ashamed to urge such a proper Sense of the same [ 40] words of Nyssen in one Sentence, which in another Sen∣tence of his, (if properly taken) you your selves cannot but abhorre as Hereticall.

And with the same forehead doth your Cardinall say, that Protestants finde nothing to object out of this Father, Gregory Nyssen; seeing that it is not Nothing to observe, where Nyssen saith, that14 The Bread, which descended from Heaven, is the true meate signified in the History (of Manna) it is no incorporeall thing, and being without a Body, cannot be nourishment to a Body. Hereupon we make bold to demand of your Answerer, what is that in this Sacrament, which giveth nourishment to all, whether Men, or Mice, that receive it? And the Oracle of your Schooles telleth us, that not Bread and Wine, but the15 Accidents and [ 10] Formes of Bread and Wine do nourish. Contrarily, Gregory Nyssen saith, as you have heard; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] How can an incorporeall thing give nourishment to a thing corporall? (as thinking it im∣possible.) Our Argument then from thence may be this. See∣ing Accidents of Bread cannot nourish, then certainely the substance of Bread, in this Sacrament, which giveth a bodily nourishment, doth remaine therein. And if the Substance of Bread remaine, then (by your owne unanimous Confessions) Bread is not changed, and converted into the Substance of Christ's Body; and consequently must you bidd your Lateran [ 20] Dame Transubstantiation adiue.

Chrysostome is found admiring these Mysteries, and is ob∣jected by Mr.q Brerely, for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacrament. Why? what saith he?r Wee our selves (saith hee) are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ. Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen. Will your Disputers never learne the Hyperbolicall Language of ancient Fathers, especially when they speake of Sacramentall, and mysticall things? (more especially Chrysostome, who, when hee falleth upon this Subject, doth almost altogether Rhetori∣cat:) [ 30] but chiefly when they cannot bee ignorant that such words of the Fathers, in the Literall straine, are utterly absurd. For what greater Absurdity than (as is now objected) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ? Hearken unto Chrysostome a word more, and hee will tell you, that wicked and impenitent Communicants being16 Nourished with this food, are turned into Woolves. Now are we past the limits of due Antiquity, you descend lower. [ 40]

Theophylact will say hard to us, who, speaking of this Sacra∣ment, saith indeed thats The Bread is Trans-elementated into

the Body of Christ: which your Cardinall will have to bee, in the same Fathers sense, Equivalent with your Transubstantiation. Vnconscionably; for doth not the same Father say, likewise that t A Christian is in a maner Trans-elementated into Christ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake ofu Trans elementing, in a sort, of the word of God into the good Iearer. Againe, Theophylact is objected, as saying,x The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed. It is true; Hee saith so: and so doth Hie∣rome say thaty Christ, in breaking Bread, did Transfigure, [ 10] or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions: and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that1 Wee Christians, in com∣municating [Transimus] turne, or are Changed into Christ his Body. So these ancient Fathers.

Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably, and imper••inently? No, for Master Brerely, for a Close, desireth to be heard, and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times, as followeth.a It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Pro∣testant Divines at Wittenberge, Anno Domini 1584. intituled [ 20] [Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium, & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. &c.] that the Greeke Church at this day (although divided from the Latine) professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation. So he of the Patriarch Hierem••as; which Patriarch, if he were alive, would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation, calling him both rash and precipitant; seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said thatb The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries, which are not changed into humane flesh, but wee into them. So that Patriarch.

[ 30] {fleur-de-lys}Neverthelesse another bold Romish17 Priest durst boast of your alliance, in this doctrine of Transubstantiation, not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople, but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church. But behold Cyril, now Patriarch of Constantinople, ready at hand to strangle this false bragge, saying (as he himselfe speaketh)18 In the name of the East and Greeke Churches: Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament: but that which is offered by faith, not that (saith he) which the devised Transub∣stantiation [ 40] teacheth. So he; namely so, as wee Protestants do likewise professe (as will be declared in the next Booke at

large.) And that the Grecians, who were present at the Coun∣cell of Florence, did not yield Assent to that Article of Tran∣substantiation, although your Iesuite19 Gordon would qua∣lifie and mince the businesse, yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell20 confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors.

Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe, if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Grego∣ry: for Doctor Humphrey (saith hee) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation. So Master Brerely, who objected this in his Apologie, many yeares agoe, and had a full Answer in [ 10] an Appeale, made purposely in confutation of his whole Apo∣logie. The Summe of that Answer is this: Doctor Humphrey did not speake that, as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory, but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend (supposing it to be true) which in the ••udgement of Romish Doctors them∣selves (whose Testimonies are there cited) Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact, being in it selfe fond, filthy, and frivo∣lous, the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron, and a heart of Lead; and the Objector, namely Master Brerely (for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History) A Falsisier of his owne promise. This Answer was home, one would thinke, [ 20] and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself, if hee could have found any Errour therein: yet notwithstan∣ding, for want of better service, bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod.

CHALLENGE.

VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Dispu∣ters bewray, than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall, Fi∣gurative, [ 30] and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ? insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained, by the force of some Phrases, contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers, and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church, to admit of three other Transubstantiations; viz. First, of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Commu∣nicant shall desire. Secondly, of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian. And Thirdly, of the Body of every Christi∣an [ 40] into the Body of Christ. As the Testimonies obje∣cted plainly pronounce. {fleur-de-lys}Besides which you may adde a Fourth, of Bread into the Deity of Christ. And againe, a Fift out of Chrysostome, of the Wicked receivers, turned into Wolves, as you have heard. As also (for a Sixt, from others, of the Change of Godly Receivers into God. A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine, of Changing (saith he, of Christ) Mee

into Thee, and Thee into Mee. In all which Objections they do but verifie the Proverbe: Qui nimis emungit, elicit sanguinem.

Fiftly, the like Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers is un∣masked, by laying open the Emphaticall Speeches of the Fa∣thers, concerning Baptisme, answerable to their Sayings objected, for proofe of Transubstantiation [ 10] in the Eucharist. SECT. VIII.

COncerning Baptisme wee have heard already, out of the Writings of Antiquity, as efficacious Termes, as you could object for the Eucharist. First of the Party Baptized, Changed into a new Creature. Secondly, that No sensible thing is delivered in Baptisme. Thirdly, that The Baptized is not the same, but changed into Christ his flesh. Fourthly, to thinke that It is not the Priest, but God that Baptizeth, who holdeth thy [ 20] head. Lastly, Baptisme (saith the Councel of Nice) is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body. Of these already, and hereafter much more in a Generall Synopsis reserved for the Eighth Booke.

A Briefe of the Collections of that judicious Inquisi∣tor into Antiquities, the thrice memorable, Ma∣ster Isaac Casaubon; for the better satisfa∣ction of men of our owne Protestant [ 30] Profession, concerning the Iudg∣ment of Antiquitie. SECT. IX.

THis famous learned Author telleth us of the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, I. Touching the Exposition of Christ's words, [This is my Body.] The Fathers (saith he) used the same forme of speech, which Christ had done before them: which doth no whit helpe the Papists, because it is one thing to use the same phrase of speech, and another thing to de∣fine [ 40] how they are to be expounded. They speake of a Transmu∣tation, and Change, but so expound themselves, that their words make plainly against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. II. Vsing Examples, which destroy Transubstantiation, (as namely) the Change of Water in Baptisme, of Laicks into the Priest. III. They acknowledged the sensible Signe with the thing signified thereby. But they never teach any thing whereby either Transubstantiation, or the being of Accidents

without their substance is established. IV. They attribu∣ted the Participation of this Mysterie unto Faith, yet so, as not excluding the receiving by the Mouth, in respect of the Sym∣bols. Somethinke, when the Fathers say Christ is present, And hee hath left us his Body, and the like, that thereby they meane the Doctrine of the Papists, but they are deceived. V. All the Fathers with one Consent teach, that there is the same Change and Transmutation of Water in Baptisme, which there is of Bread in the Eucharist. VI. That the Hy∣perboles and Excessive speeches of the Fathers are not to be pres∣sed, [ 10] no more than that of Dionysius Areopagita, saying that Man, by this Sacrament, is made a God. Thus farre that Or∣thodoxe and learned Author, justifying (in effect) as much as hitherto by Vs hath beene avouched from Antiquity. [ 20]

Sixtly, the Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Opposites doth betray it selfe, by their alleging of Testimonies of the Fathers, contrary to their owne Romish Principles. [ 30] SECT. X.

YOur Romish Positions and Principles are these; one is this:20 This Proposition, Bread is made the Body of [ 40]

Christi, is False, say your Doctors; And, It cannot agree with the Body of Christ in true Proprietie; and they give reasons hereof (in the Margin.) The other is, That to affirme, that Bread is changed into Christ his Body, is a false Proposition: the reason is, because in your Transubstanciation there is no Change made in Christ's Body. A third may be this, touching the Praeposition, [Dè] That the Body of Christ cannot be pro∣perly said to be made [De Pane] of Bread; for so it should not be of the flesh of the Virgin. Thus can they say, and thus can [ 10] they conclude; and yet notwithstanding, for defence of their Transubstantiation, thus durst they produce such Te∣stimonies of Fathers, wherein the Bread is said to be made Christ's Body; and which speake of Changing Bread into Christ's Body; and also such, which expresse the Body of Christ to be made of Bread. Which one Consideration as it doth discover the Vnconscionablenesse of our Adversaries, so may it instruct us, that all such Sentences of the Fathers are to be Interpreted as spoken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in a Figura∣tive Sense.

[ 20] CHALLENGE.

ONely give us leave to speer you a Question, before wee end this third Booke. Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be, by your owne Doctrine, except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be, there remaine only the Accidents thereof (this Position of the continuance of Onely Accidents, without a Subject, being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation) Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto [ 30] ever able to produce any one Testimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity, for proofe of this one point, excepting onely that of Cyril, which hath bin (as yoe have heard) egregiously abused and falsified? Learne you to Answer this Question, or else shame to object Antiquity any more; but rather con∣fesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe.

Wee might inlarge our selves in this point of your Vncons∣cionablenesse, in your objecting Testimonies of Fathers, for proofe aswell of Transubstantiation, as of the other Articles [ 40] above-mentioned; but that they are to be presented in their proper places, to wit; in the following Treatises, concerning Corporall Presence; Corporall Vnion, Corporall Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and the Divine Adoration thereof; so plainly that any man may be perswaded, our Opposites meane no good Faith, in arguing from the Iudgement of Ancient Fa∣thers.

Hitherto of the First Romish Consequences.

Notes

• See hereafter, Chap. 4. §. 1. & 2.
• a

  Est conversio totius substantiae Pa∣nis in Corpus Chri∣sti, & totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis, & Vini, quam quidem Con∣versionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2.
• b

  Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversio∣nem fieri, quam Ca∣tholica Ecclesia ap∣pellat Transubstan∣tiationem—Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest. Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit pro∣fessionu Fidei.
• c

  Transubstan∣tiationem Protestan∣tes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt. Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11.
• a

  Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [Hoc est Corpus me∣um] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. les. Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tàm per se clara cogere possint hominem non proter•••• Transubstantitionem admittere. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò.
• b

  Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequ∣tur,—Dicunt non extare locū in Scrip∣turis tàm expressum, ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstan∣tiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabi∣le, quià an ità sit du∣bitari potest, cum ho∣mines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis in∣primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Ca∣jetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem definere esse, non tàm ex Evange∣lio, quàm ex Eccle∣siae authoritate con∣stare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419.
• c

  See in the former Allegation at (b)
• d

  Corpus Chri∣sti fieri per consecra∣tionem, non proba∣tur nudis Evangelij verbis, sine pia inter∣pretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99.
• e

  [Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventu∣ra decet. Idem ferè habet Oceam, & Hol cott, insinuat etiam Waldensis—Volunt Propositionem illam non esse, substantivè, sed Transitive inter∣pretandam, sc. ut sit sensus. [Hoc est Cor∣pus] id est, Transit in Corpus.—Sed hoc corrumpit signi∣ficationē verbi [Est] quod, si permittitur, nulla est vis in hu∣jus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam, nec substantiam Panis hic non manere. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Repraesentat Corpus. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art. 1. pag. 754.
• I

  Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis tem∣poris, non futuri, ut certi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de effectuve borum. Haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum] practica sunt, efficiunt quod significant: [Mandu•••••• ex hoc, Bibite ex hoc] ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum, vel sanguinem ejus futorum. Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis, alioqui ista communio esset merè specu∣lativa, non practica.
• See the former Booke throughout.
• See the former Booke throughout.
• f

  Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres u∣sos esse hoc nomi∣ne Transubstantiati∣onis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Ar∣chicpis. Caesar. lib. de reali praesen. cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4.
• g

  Concilium La∣teranense sub Inno∣centio Tertio coa∣ctum, ut Haereticis os obthurarer, Con∣versionem hanc novo & valdè significance verbo dixit Transub∣stantiationem. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium [Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite; non habetur illa E∣pistola inter opera Cyrilli. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num. 24.
• h

  Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]
• i

  Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè cōtutârunt, at{que} ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud jam vocabulum usurpari, quo sui Majores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3.
• k

  Ets: veteres Ec∣clasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis, ta∣men usi sunt vocibus icē significantibus, ut Conversionis, Trās∣mutationis, Transi tionis, Transforma∣tionis, Transelemen∣tationis, & si••••libus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fort••••it. j••d Tract. de Euchari, §. Nota pro solouo∣ne A••gumentorum. sol. 117.
• 2. Cor. 3. 18.
• 2. Cor. 1. 14.
• l

  Quiaquid Spi∣ritus Sanctus tetige∣rit, & Sanctificat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. Hieros. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• m

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Na∣zianz. Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit. Paris.
• 2

  Quanvis Grae∣ci Petres eo nomine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non utun∣tur, sunt tamen Au∣thores aborum no 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quibus eam, quoac hert possit, ap〈◊〉〈◊〉 & exprimunt, ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Petrus Aread de concord O∣rient. & Occident. Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract. de Euch.
• n

  Periculosa est vocum novarum Li∣bertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vo∣cibus novis novae etiam res oriantor, cùm cui{que} licet in tel us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nomina singere. Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere. cap 7. §. Ex quibus.
• 1. Tim. c. 20.
• See above Ch. 1. §. 2.
• o

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.
• p

  Si quaeratur, qua∣lis sit Conversio (viz. Pants in Encharistia) an formalis, an sub∣stantialis, an alteri∣us generis; definite non sufficio. Quibus∣dum videtur esse sub∣stantialis, dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam. Lom∣bard. Sent. lib. 4 Di∣stinct 11 lit. (a.)
• q

  Scotus dicit an∣te Concilium Late∣ranense non fuisse dogma fidei Tran∣substantiationem. Id ille dixit, quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produxi∣mus. Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.
• r

  Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi, ad ifri∣us rei tam admirabi∣lis clariorem expli∣carionem, usurpatem fuit nomen Transub∣stantiationis: ut in∣telligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstanti∣tione.
• s

  Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Pa∣trum assensu decretum esset, sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Cardie. Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. [As witnesseth our P. Presloa, alias Widdington Discuss, Concib. Latcran. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.]
• t

  Venêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquam ta∣men aptè potuit, eò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollen∣dae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Petusij. Platina in vita inno∣centij. Decerni nihil apertè potuit: edita sunt quaedam, &c. Nauclerus An. 1215. [meaning after the Councell.] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae pro∣tractum, nihil dig∣num memoriâ actū, nisi quod Orienta∣lis Ecclesia, &c. God. fridus Monumeter sis, & Math. paris. Hi∣stor minor. Conci∣lium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes lu∣disicatus est: illi e∣nim, cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cerne∣rent, redeundi veni∣am petierunt. Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Booke above cited.
• u

  Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scorus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 30. §. 1.
• x

  In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem: diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane, sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373.
• y

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

  Concil. Tri∣dentinum dicit, fieri Conversionem toti∣us substantiae Panis, id est, tam formae quàm materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi. Bellarmia. lib. 3. de Eucharist. Cap. 18. §. Si objicias. Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. Cap. 4.
• b

  Productio est, quando terminus ad quem non existat, & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò produci∣tur, ut aqua in vi∣num. Adductiva au∣tem, &c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 18. §. Secundò notan∣dum.—Producti∣va non est, quia Cor∣pas Domini praeexistit. Idem. ibid. §. Ex his.
• c

  De ratione Transubstantiationis non est, ut Substan∣tia, in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio, producatur, aut conservetur per illam: imo qui hoc modo defen∣dunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento, ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum, potius quàm ad verum & necessarium, rem reducere videntur. Vasq. Ies. Tom. 2. Disp. 214. cap. 4.
• d

  Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis, qui vel dici, vel singi possunt. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Qu est. 75. Disp. 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter. [Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Re∣production, as of Carcasses converted into men, in which Change any One may see, that as much as is Pro∣duced is not Extant, for Dust is not Flesh. But since hee cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ, his Answe•••••• impertinent, and hee may be produced for an idle Disputer.]
• e

  Si terminus ad quem Corpus Chri∣sti existat, sed non in eo loco ubi Ter∣minus à quo (id est, Panis) tum vi Con versionis adducetur ad eum locum. Inde vocatur Conversio adductiva: nam cor∣pus Christi praeexi∣stit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conversio∣nem; sed non sub spe∣ciebus Panis. Con versio igitur non fe∣cit ut corpus Chri∣sti simpliciter esse in∣cipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus: non quod per motum localem è Coelo Ad∣ducatur, sed solùm quia per hanc con∣versionem fit, ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo, jam sit sub speciabus Panis. Nec haec accidentalis con∣versio, sed substanti∣alis dicta est, quia substantia Panis de∣sinit esse, & substan∣tia corporis Christi succedit Pani. Proin∣dè Substantia in Sub∣stantiam transit. Ta∣lis est Conversio Ci∣bi in hominem, per nutritionem; nam anima non produci∣tur, sed tantùm per nutritionem sit, ut in∣cipiat esse in ea ma∣teria, ubi antea erat forma Cibi. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18.
• f

  Fuerunt hujus sententiae Alens. Bonavent. Marsil.—Dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse, sed accipere esse hîc; nec multum discordat Thomas. Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereticos libenter hanc sententiam amplectuntur, quia facilitatem quandam prae se fert, ut videre licet apud Iob. Hessels. Claud. Gud. Paris. & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez: quo suppra. Disp. 50 §. 44. pag. 635. Cum Panis substantialiter mutetur, ita ut desinat esse, haec Conversio est Substantialis, non Accidentalis. 2. Corpus Christi est substantia, quae succedit Pani, proinde Substantia transit in Substantiam.—& dicunt conver∣sionem Adductivam esse, quando quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis—Bellar. quo supr. §. Re∣spondeo 1.—Cedere Corpori, in ratione existendi, est propriè converti in ipsum: & per Conscquens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio. Alan. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 34.
• g

  Dixi Conversionem Panis in cor∣pas Christi esse Adductivam, quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperàm acceptum, qui inde non Transubstan∣tiarionem, sed Translocationem colligunt. Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo, neque incipere esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut Substantia sub Accidentibus, remotâ tamen inhurentia. Bellarmia. Recog. in lib. 3. de Eucharist. pag. 81.
• h

  Per solum Ad∣ductiram actionem reverà non explicatur vera conversio Sub∣stantialis, & Tran∣substantiatio, sed tantùm Transloca∣tio quaedam: quan∣do una Substantia succedit loco alteri∣us, non potest pro∣priè di•••• unam con∣verti in aliam. Sua∣rez. Ies. loco citato. pag. 639.
• 3

  AEgidius Co∣niax, Ies. de Sacram. Quaest. 75. Art. 4. Dubit. 4. num. 142. Ex quo pater, refutar, sententiam eam, quae docet corpus Christi adesse posse per so∣lam Adductionem, quia hoc non potest colligi conversio Pa∣nis in corpus, ex ver∣bis Christi.
• 4

  Innocent. 3. Papa, lib. 3. de Offic. Missae, cap. 29. Sub∣stantia convertitur in id quod fit, & non erat, ut virga in colu∣brum; & tunc for∣ma convertitur cum substantia: quando∣que convertitur in id quod erat, & non sit, ut Panis in Eucharistia, & tunc substantia convertitur sine forma.
• See above at the Letter (a)
• 5

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 24. Ne∣go Panem annihilari—nam etsi Panis nihil sit, tamen id in quod ipse conversus ēst, non est nihil, nec nullū, nec nusquam.
• 6

  Lessius Ies. Opusc. lib. 12. cap. 16. Circa substantiam Panis & Vini, primū miraculum est, quòd hae substantiae vi Cō secrationis funditus pereant, & veluti an∣nihilentur, quamvis non solemus dicere eas annthilari, eò quod haec desitio ex intentione divinâ, non sistat in nihilo, sed dirigatur ad po∣sitionem Corporis Christi: verum hoc ad modum loquendi spectat, nam quod ad rem attinet, nihil omninò substantiae panis manet, non for∣ma, non materia, non existentia, non gra∣dus aliquis, sed to∣tum ità funditùs pe∣rit, acsi prorsus in nihilum redactum esset, nullo positivo succedēte; nam quod aliud succedat, non est ex vi illius desitio nis—substantifico influxu subtracto, necesse est Rem in nihilum relabi.
• 7

  Ioh. Pallanterius de Castro sacrae Theologiae Doctor, Lectiones Aureae. Nec materia, nec forma panis manent in se, vel in Corpore, Christi post conversionem, quià vere annihilantur.
• 8

  Bellar. quo suprà. Pani sucredit Corpus Christi, corrumpitur, & interit quicquid definit esse: at non annihilatur, nisi ità desinat esse, ut nihil ea succedit, ità ut ejus desitio terminetur in nihil.
• See above at (g)
• 9

  Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu 75. Art. 8. Disp. 181. Cap. 2. Panis in conveersione desinit esse, & cùm dicitur panem desinere in corpus Christi, non probat ipsam desitionem terminari formaliter ad positivum in quod fit conversio.—Quocirca modus ille loquendi non formaliter sed caus liter debet intelligi, quis enim dicat defitionem alicujus rei formaliter in aliquid termanari?—Ità ut ipsa Productio, seu Adductio non sit formaliter Conversio, sed causa illius.—Est igitur Conversio formaliter Denominatio quaedam ordinis per modum Actus, in eo quod definit, relata ad id, quod fuit causa desition••. Aliquam 〈…〉〈…〉. Haea duo, quae diximus, sunt necessaria & sufficiunt, ut Panis, Vinum, hoc ipso quod desinant, dicantur converti in corpus est sanguinem Christi.
• i

  Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri, non tanquàm ex ma∣teria, sed tanquàm à Termino à quo, ut mundus ex nihilo: [then confuting him∣selfe] etiam sit ex a∣qua vinum (that was not, ex nihilo.) In praesenti negotio, Conversio non est Productiva, Panis e∣nim convertitur in Corpus Christi prae∣existens: ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane, & ex Carne est idem. Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium
• k

  Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christ{us}. Haer. 2. Ma∣nichaei dixerūt Chri∣stum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse; Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non as∣sumpsisse carnem ex Virgine. Item. Chili∣astae, Democritae, Melcluoritae, ut Pro∣cli mitae. pratcolus in Elench. Haeret. in suic quique titulis.
• l

  Homily en. Ea∣ster day, pag. 35.
• See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge.
• See above, E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4.
• S^r. H. L.
• See Booke 4. Chap. ••. Sect. 2.
• See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Chal∣lenge.
• See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. & 2.
• 10

  In his Booke of Spectacles, p. 142.
• See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10.
• See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge.
• See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4.
• m

  Si quis dixe∣rit remane•••• subst••n∣tiam Pan••s, Anathe∣ma sit. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. Can. 2.
• n

  Panis e••si non annihil••tur, tamen manet ni••••l in se; ut Aqua post Conver∣sionem in Vinum. Neq{que} obstat, quòd fouè materia man∣serit, nam materia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est Aqua. Prima ••̄o∣ditio in vera Conver∣sione est, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse. Bessur. lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum.
• 1. Cor. 11. 26, 27. & 10. 16.
• 1. Cor. 11. 22.
• o

  Archi••pisc. Ca∣basila. Latini nostros reprehendunt, quòd post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum] Panem & Vinum nominant, &c. Ex∣posit. Liturg. cap. 29.
• See above B. 2. ••••ap. 2. Sect. 6. Chal∣leng 1. See also Cy∣pri••••, and S. August. B••••k. 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9.
• Matth. 26. 29.
• p

  Origenes, Cy∣prianus, Chrysost. August. Hieron. Epi∣phan. Beda, Euthy∣mius, Theophylact. [Genimen Vi••s] ad Sanguinem Christi referunt.—Maldon. I••s Com. in cum locum; where he addeth: Persuadere m••h••non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda.—Hoc Patres, sed also sensu à Calvinistis, qui dicunt Christum Vinum appellâsse, quia Vinum erat: sed Patres vocâ unt Sanguinem Vanum, sicut Christus Car∣nem, Iohan. 6. vocabat Panem. Maldon. in eundem locum. Haec, nè illi Calvinistatum errori affinis esse vide∣atur. Maldon. ibid.
• q

  Novum pro∣misit, id est, Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno, id est, post resurrecti∣onem, quando Ci∣bum sumpsit corpo∣ralem. Theophyl. in Matth. 26. [Bibite ex hoc omnes:] &, [Non bibam amo∣dò, &c.] quâ in par∣te invenimus Vinum fuisse, quod Sangui∣nem suum dixit: un∣dè apparet Sangui∣nem Christi non of∣ferti, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 desit Vinum Calici. Cyprian. ad Cecil. Epist. 63. paulò ante medium & Epi∣phan. cont. Encratit. Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eu∣charistia••, ut dicant vino quoque uten∣dum: In hoc serme∣ne Domini (inquit) redarguuntur [Non bibam de fructu hu∣jus Vitis.] Epiphan. Tom. 2. lib. 2. [Non bibam de genimine hujus Vitis.] Christus post resurrectionem, nè putaretur Phantasia, comedit, undè Apostoli dixerunt, Act. 10. [Comedimus, & Bibimus cum eo.] Sed cu∣jus re: gratiâ non Aquam, sed Vinum bibit? ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum, qui Aquâ in Mysterijs utuntur. Idem. In nuda Mysterij mensa Vino usus est. [Ex genimine Vitis:] Certè Vinum non Aquam producit. Chrysost. in eum locum, Hom. 83.
• r

  August. de dogmat. Eccles. cap. 75. Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs, cùm dixit [Non bibam.]
• s

  Clemens Alex. Quòd Vinum esset, quod bene∣dictum fuit, ostendit rursus dicens, [Non bibam de fructu Vitis.] Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 2. sub finem.
• t

  Cùm Matthaeus, & Marcus nullius alterius Calicis secerint mentionem praeter sacri, quod dicitur [De genimine Vi∣tis] nullus alius Calix intelligi potest ab ijs demonstratus, quàm cujus mem inerant—Et omninò vide∣tur ex Matthaeo & Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem. Iansen. Episc. Concord. in eum locum, pag. 914. Col. 2.
• 12

  Innocent. 3. de officio Missae, lib. 4. cap. 2. Quod autem Vinum in Calice consecravit, patet ex eo, quod ipse subjunxit; [Non bibam ex eo, donec, &c.]
• See above, Book. 1. Chap. 3. §. 10.
• See above, Book. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Margin.
• u

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

  Substantia Pa∣nis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti, sed so∣lùm Accidentia. Bel∣lar. Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23 §. Respondeo substantiam.
• 1. Cor. 10. 17.
• y

  Vnus Panis, unum Corpus multi sumus, nam omnes in uno Pane partici∣pamus. Significatum unit as fidei in uni∣tate P••nis, ac unitate Corporis Metapho∣ricè, ad similitudi nem multorum gra∣norum, ex quibus conficitur Co••tus u∣num. Et attulit Pa∣nem propter id, quod dixit [Panis quem frangimus.] Cajctan. Card in cum locum. pag 137
• z

  Vnum Eccle∣siae corpus exmultis membris compositum est: nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis, quàm Panis Vinique ele∣mentis. Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur, & Vinum ex multitudine racemo••um existit. Ità fidelis; & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Catech. Roman. part. 2. d••••••ch. pag. 177.
• a

  Augustinus. Dominus noster Christus, inquit, Corpus suum in ijs rebus command avit, quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur: ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur, ex multis racemis unum Corpus confluit; utuntur hac similitudine Sa••••cti propè omnes Doctores. Teste Bozio de Signià Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6.
• b

  Consequen∣tia Christi, affirma∣tivè sumpta, Hoc palpatur, hoc videtur, Ergo est Corpus, op∣tu••a fuit, quià sensus non fallitur circa pro∣prium Objectum: ••ta{que} necessariò quod videtur, & tangitur Corporale est. At negativè, hoc non palpatur; nec videtur, Ergò non est corpus, Dominus non fecit, & mala est. Non fal∣luntur Sensus nostri, cum nos album quid, rotundum, solidum sentire arbitramur, quae sunt propria ob∣jècta. Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus ••atere denunciant, fallun∣tur. Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum, seu Phantasma, sed verum Corpus; id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi op∣timè probavit. Illud autem Corpus esse humanum, idem quod anteà suerat, non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento, ex Tan∣gendi sensu desumpto (quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens) sed multis alijs modis, loquendo, manducando, testimonio Angelorum, miraculo Piscium, allegatione Scripturarum. Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo.
• 1. Cor. 15.
• Ioh. 20. 27.
• c

  Optimè Origenes, Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo re∣suscitatum. Tolet. les. in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534.
• d

  Probatum est, Christum idem Corpus numero demon∣strāsse. Silarez Ies. Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1.
• 1. Cor. 15. 5.
• 1. Ioh. 1. 1.
• 1. Ioh. 20. 29.
• c

  Illud sine du∣bitatione dicere non verebor, non polle ab ullo D••mone for∣mari corpus corpus adeò si∣mile humano, ut si∣quis cum curà animi & attentione id tan∣geret, non facilè dig∣nosceret ipsum non esse corpus huma∣num. Itaque non po∣terit Daemon simili∣tudine corporis hu∣mani oculos fallere. Tactus autem sen∣sum fallere omninò non potest, quod quatuor Argumentis confirmabo—Hoc verissimum esse patet ex eo, quod Chri∣s∣tus dixit discipulis suis [Palpate & vide∣te:] & Thomae [Af∣ter digitum, &c.] Pe∣rer. Ies. in Gen. 6. num. 78. pag. 2.
• f

  Si Discipuli Christi non potuis∣sent Christi vera osta & carnes discernere, mollitiem, & duriti∣em eorum, non dix∣isset ijs [Palpate, & videte:] ac si di∣ceret, Palpate & Percipite veras car∣nes & ossa. Vasquez Ies. Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art. 2. disp. 184. cap. 2. pag. 487. Thomas dicit singula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia, benè tamen conjuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophe∣tarum—Ego tamen cùm Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandum vetitatem Corporis humani in Christo. Idem. ibid.
• g

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

  Aug. de tempore. Si fortè, inquit, Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, at non possemus dicere ma••us frustratas: de Tactu non potest dubitari. Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quàm fides credentium Discipulorum prosuit: quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur, mens nostra omni dubltatione postpositâ. Teste Maldon. Ies. Com. in Ioh. 20.
• i

  See above at (b)
• k

  Eranistes apud Theod. Quia sicut Pa∣nis desinit esse Pa∣nis post Consecrati∣onem, sed mutatur in substantiam Cor∣poris Christi. Ita Corpus Christi post resurrectionem desi∣nit esse propriè Cor∣pus, sed in Naturam divinam mutatur Or∣thodox. Imò verò, ut te capiam in laqueis his: Signa mystica non recedunt à natu∣rà suâ, manent enim in priori suâ formâ, figurâ, & substantià. Theod, Dial 2. c. 24.
• See hereafter, Sect. 12.
• l

  Beda ex Augu∣stino, Serm. ad Insd••••∣tes in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 139. apud Bedam. Quod vidistis Panis est, quod oculi vestri renunciant, quod autem fides vostra, &c. Sic•••• ex multis granis tritici unus Panis: Ita ex multitudine fidelium, una assurgit Ecclesia.
• 13

  Chrysost. de Resurrect. (Objected by D. Heskins in his Parliam. Book. 2. Chap. 11.) Non est meum, meos ludificare Phantasmate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus ac digitus exploret: Possie fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere: Palpatio Corporalis verum Corpus agnoscat, Spiritus non habet ca••∣nem & ossa, ut me sentitis habere. Quòd ostia clausa penetravi, sola est virtus divina, non sola carnis substantia.
• 14

  August. in Ioh. Tract 26. Objected by Dr. Heskins, Parl. Book. 2. Chap. 219.
• 15

  Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 6. ad Mag. Nam quando Domi∣nus Corpus suum pa∣nem vocat, de mul∣torum granorum ad∣unatione congestum; Populum nostrum quem portabat, indi∣cat adunatum: & quando Sanquinem suum v••num appellat, de botris & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expressum, gregem item nostrum signifi∣cat commixtione a∣dunatae multitudinis copulatum. (luxta Edit. Pamel. Epi. 76)
• 16

  Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in As∣sumpt. Christ.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• m

  Tertull de A∣nimà, cap 7 ad finem. Quid agi••. Academi∣ce procacissime? to∣tum vitae fl••tum e∣vertis, ipsius Dei providentiam excae∣cas—non licet in dubium sensus istos revocare, nè & in Christo de fide eo∣rum deliberetur: nè fortè dicatur, quòd falsò Patris vocem audicrit de ipso testi∣ficatam, aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum tetigit: aut alium po∣stea unguenti sense∣rit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam ac∣ceptavit: a••um po∣steà Vin•• ••aporem, quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam con∣secr••••t. Sic enim & M••rcion Phantasma cum maluit credere, totius corporis in eo dedigna••us veritatem: Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est, fidelis fuit & visus, & auditus in Monte, fidelis & gustus Vin•• in nup••••js, fidelis tactus Thomae. Recita testationem Iohannis; Quod audivimus, inquit, quod oculis vidimus; & ma••us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum & aurium, & ma∣nuum sensus natura mentitur.
• Luc. 24. 16.
• Ibid. vers. 31.
• Hieron. ad Pammach: contra Errores Iohan. Ieru∣sal. Episc. Scias er∣rorem fuisse non cor∣poris Domini, sed oculorum fuisse clau∣sorum: nam aperti sunt oculi eorum, & videbant.
• 17

  Mr. Malloun in his Reply, pag. 305.
• n

  (I.) & (II.) Hostia magna quan∣titate sumpta verè nutrire potest. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 77. art. 6. Etiam Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. [Alius Ebri∣us, quidam esurit:] ubi Glossa notat eos, qui post Consecrati∣onem oblationes suas vendicantes inebria∣rentur. Aquin. ibid. (III.) Archiepisco∣pus Eboracensis hau∣sto in ipso Calice (ut aiunt) veneno obijt. Matth. Paris. Anno 1154. in vita Steph. Item, Victor Tertius veneno Callci primae Missae mixto perist. Ma••ms••••r lib. 3. cap. 39. & Volater. lib. 23. Henricus Lucel∣burg. Imp. cùm Eu∣charistiam acciperet à Fratre ordinis Prae∣dicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis, & à Siciliae rege suborna∣to, illicò caepit aegre∣t••re: ferebatur Mo∣nachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse, quo & Calicem, & Hostiam infecerat: mox obi••t Imperator, & Beneventi animain Deo reddidit, Anno 1313. Cuspinian. & Volater. lib. 23. ut resert Zuingerus. (IV.) Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est, cùm ex∣perimentis constet. Difficultas ergo circa modum est. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art. 5. Disp. 57. pag. 427. Alij ex aëre vermes generari dicunt. Thomas refert hanc opinionem, sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei; quod ad sensum apparet: quod reverà ita est, satis{que} ab ipso quatuor rationibus confirmatur. Suarez ibid. (V) Ge∣neratio, & Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis, quae divinitùs locum tenet materiae Panis, ut Thomas explicat. Greg. de Valent. Ies. lib. 2. Exam. my••tag. Calvin. p. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam, sed solam quan∣titatem sufficere, ut substet formae substantiali advenienti, sive de potentia ejus educatur, sive per nutritionem varietur. Sic Thomas, & alij. Fundamentum hujus opinionis est, quià convenienter hic modus est sine novi•• Miraculis. Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi omninò, & incredibilis.—Dicendum est, necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam, ex qua Generatio siat, quià de ratione essentiali hujus Compositi est substantialis materia; propter quod Aristoteles dicit, Impossibile esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ. Ergo impossibile est, ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae, & substantialem Causalitatem ejus. Suarez quo supra Disp. 57. Art. 8. §. 3. p. 733. Algerus, Guitmundus, & Waldensis dicunt, ex speciebus nutritionem & generationem fieri non posse. Suarez. ibid. Vtrùm materia generationis sit eadem, quae fuit antèa sub speciebus Panis, vel alia: Thomas eandem esse negat, ne multiplicetur miraculum sinè necessitate. (VI.) Mihi tamen videtur ean∣dem numero esse.—Etiam juxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam, Alens. Bonavent. Innocent. nec majus est miraculum, sive eandem, sivè materiam novam facere. Suarez. ibid.
• o

  Quomodò fiat haec materia—Thomistae liquot di∣cunt per Conversio∣nem aliquam in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sum, Panem, A•••• iterùm Crea••••; & hoc verius ••uare•••• quo supra {fleur-de-lys} V••••∣qu••z in 3 Tho. qu. 76. Art 8. Disp 184. c. 5. Probabilior senten¦tia est, à solo Deo per creationē produci {fleur-de-lys}
• p

  See above at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 num. 3.
• q

  Platina in vi∣ta Victoris. Henrici Regisfraude (ut Mar∣tinus scribit) venend in Calicem injecto, dum sacrificat, neca∣tur See also above at (n) num. 3.
• In Cella Vi∣••••ria, novis vinis ••••plerà, solus Acc¦odore infectus, me∣••••t. Cost. Ies. Chri∣stian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• See below in this Booke, Chap. 4. Sect. 7.
• 18

  Fra. Marin. Marsen. ord. Minim. Com. in Gen. cap. 1. v. 1. pag. 464. Angelos nullam substantiam cre••re posse, Sc••tus probat, nisi virtue primi Agentis: quia eorum volitio, intellectio, potentia, sunt Accidents. At impossibile est Accidens osse prin∣cipium formale producendi substantiam quamcunque, quia Substantia est nobilior quovis Accidentè.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iustin. Exposit. Fidei.
• 19

  Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 24. §. Respondeo tra∣ctantur—Si mu∣tatio in Pane Eucha∣ristiae sit sola altera∣tio, ut calefactio, cōdensatio, tum non requiritur materia aut substantia pro sub∣jecto: nam Acci∣dētia omnia pro sub∣jecto habent Quan∣titatem, quae in Sa∣cramento maneat, unde Hostia conse∣crata dicitur alba, sa∣pida, rotunda, parva. Haec enim omnia de∣nominant Quantita∣tem, alioqui non pos∣sit fieri denominatio, non enim Acciden∣tia de seipsis dicun∣su•• in Concreto, sed solùm de Subjecto, exceptà Quan••••tate, quae dicitur Quanti∣tas & Quanta.
• 20

  Lessius Ies. Opusc. de Perfectio∣nibus divinis. lib. 12. cap. 16. num. 112. Alterum Miraculum est circa species, quòd ita Passiones & Im∣pressiones suscipiant aliarum quantitatum, perindè ac si Mate∣riae Panis & Vini rema••••rent, calescunt enim Species, atque frigeseunt, similesque mutationes subeunt. Qui∣dam putant Quantitatem sol•••• esse immediate Subject••••h omnium Accidentinum, quod difficile est creditu, quid enim Quantitatis indoli cum illis Qualitatibus? non enim Quantitas haber ullam propensionem ad ca∣lorem, frigus, saporem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & similia; neque enim illa dicuntur calescere, frigescere, aut benè maleve olere.
• 21

  Ibiden. Mihi semper verius est visum, non solùm Quantitatem, sed & alias Qualitates hîc per se existere, nullique Subjecto niti, ac proinde calorem & frigus, & similes Impressiones extrinsecùs immissas non recipi in Speciebus, tanquam in Subjecto proprio, sed & penetrativè, & mutuo nexu commisce••i.
• r

  Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis, qui est à tetrâ, jam non Communis Pa∣nis est, sed Euchari∣stia, ex duabus rebus constans, terren à & coelesti: Sic Corpo∣ra nostra participan∣tia Eucharistiam jam non sunt Corruptibi∣lia, sed spem Resur∣rectionis habentia.
• s

  Origen. in Matth. 15. Ille Ci∣bus, qui sanstificatur per Verbum Dei & Orationem, juxtà id quod habet materi∣able in secessum emit∣titur: And after hee calleth this [M••te¦riale] Materia Panis, super quem dictus est sermo. ibid.
• Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 11. Subd. 3.
• t

  Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacrament. cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius Sermo Christi, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud con∣vertantur?—Tu eras vetus Creatura, post∣quam consecratus, nova Creatura esse coepisti.
• See below, ch. 4. Sect. 2. at the let. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• u

  Cyprias. lib. de Vnctione. Dedit Do∣minus noster in Men∣sâ, in qua ultimum Convivium cum A∣postolis participavit, propris manibus Pa¦nem & Vinum: in Cruce verò manibus mili••um corpus tra∣didi•• v••••••tandum, ut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostolis secre∣tiùs impressa sincera veritas & vera since∣rit••s, exponeret Gen∣tibus, quomodò Pa¦nis & Vinum Caro ejus essent & Sangui••; & quibus rationibus Causae effectis con∣renirent, & diversa nomina, vel species ad unam reduceren∣tur essentiam, ut sig∣nificantia & signifi∣cata eisdem vocabu∣lis conferentur.
• x

  Casaubon. Ex∣ercit. ad Baronij An∣nal. c. 38. Ignatius E∣pist ad Ep••es. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ad Philadelph. de Eucha∣ristia loqueas; Pa∣nis, inquit, omnibus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] comminutus est. Vox haec propriè de ijs usurpatur, quae i•• m••nutas partes comminuuntur. Sunt qui eas micas vocant. August. in Epist. 59. ad Paulinum; Cum illud, ait, quod est in Domini mensâ be∣nedicitur, & Sanctifi∣catur, ad distribuen∣dum comminuitur. Idem. Casaub. qua supra cap. 50. Olim in Ecclesia partes divi∣sas vocabant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 potiùs, quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Patres in Synod. Ni∣caen. Can. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [Yea and Ba∣ronius himselfe, Anno 57. num. 149. Euch∣ristiae partes. Tert. de Monog. Buccellas: & August. ac Alij Parti∣culas vocant. Cyrillas in Ioh. l. 4. c. 14. Chr∣stus dedit fragmenta Panis. Cyprianus de Coena. Buccellam de manu Domini accipe∣re And Aug. Burcel∣la] See 〈◊〉〈◊〉 5. c. 3. §. 2.
• 22

  Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ.
• Below in the fourth Booke. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• See 〈…〉〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge.
• y

  Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ulti∣mam nobis Comme∣morationem, & me∣moriam reliquit: quēadmodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei, quem diligit, derelin∣quat, ut possit eius amicitias, & beneficia commemorare.
• z

  Gaudent. Tract. 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus Novi, tanquàm Pignus suae Praesentiae, dereliquit.
• Primasius, See-Booke 5. Chap. 9. §. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a

  Theod. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post san∣ctificationem mysti∣ca signa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorem habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (de summatim dicam) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: etiamsi post resurrectionem immortale, & immune ab om∣ni corruptione.
• b

  Non loquitur de substantiâ, quae di∣stinguitur contra Ac∣cidentia, & quam in Categori••â posuit A∣ristoteles; sed de Es∣sentiâ, & naturâ Ac∣cidentium. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 27. §. Sed me.
• 23

  Gordon. Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num. 12. De signorum (id est, Accidentium) substantia loquitur.
• 1. Cor. 15. 34.
• c

  Alphonsua à Ca∣stro, de Haeres. Eurych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam hu∣manam; tantùm in eo ponentes naturam divinam.
• Alter hireum mulget: alter cribram supponit.
• 23

  Athan. Tom. 1. Disput. cont. A••ium, ubi Arius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cui Athan••s••••s, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Vid Protestants Appeale, Book. 2. ch. 2. §. 10.
• d

  In his Liturg•••• of the Masse. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3. p. 254.
• Not so, for he was now not i••••a per∣sonall Dispute, but de∣liberately writing a∣gainst th•• Heresia of the Eutychiant.
• Valent. Ies. l. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Da∣bimus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo respon∣sum. Enimverò an∣tequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiati∣one palàm in Eccle∣sia agitaretur, mini∣me mirûm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui, minùs consi∣derarè, & rectè hac de re senserint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractar••nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem.
• e

  Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus. Bellar. lib. ••. de Euch. c. 27.
• f

  Baronius him∣selfe ••••tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius, Anno 496 num. 123. &c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gel••∣siu•• doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius, ex E∣pist. ad P••••enos, & Dardan. Episc. num. 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and Anno 494. num. 2. And af¦ter Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying, Vides, Lector, ex usu verborum Phrasiquè d••cēdi Ge∣lasij Papae, & alia ejus sententia perspi∣cu••, demonstratum esse, &c. Et An••o 996 num. 13. Gel•• in Epist. ad Picen est, Peccato Origi¦nall substantiam hominis esse depravat••m, eum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; ut pote justitia originalis, & alia dona 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g

  Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutyche••em. Genad. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth. Patrum. pag. 467. Masson de Episc. Rom. in vita ••elasij. A••p••onl. lib. de naeres. Tit. Christus, haeres. 3. in fine. Onuphrius de Creat. Pontif. & Cardin Gel••sius (〈◊〉〈◊〉) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem & Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episco∣pum, non posse jure affirmari videtur. And proveth, why not.
• h

  Gelasius lib. de duab. natur. cont. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, 〈…〉〈…〉 corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis, & via••; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And againe. Permanent in proprietate naturae.
• i

  Bellar. & Baton quo supra. At dicit Gelasius. In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ pro••••etate naturae: [By this it may bee seene, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latine Author, (but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret?) when the Latine Language was not so perfect, and that he did use the word equivocall••, but yet so; that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereo, when hee speaketh of the Substancè of Bread, for confutation of the same heresie.]
• k

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

  Greg Nyssen. A quam per benedi∣ctionem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrum sit, à quo mirabi∣les existunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo.
• m

  Dionys. Hie∣rarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. §. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e

  Non suit hic Papa Gelasius 〈…〉〈…〉 Adversarij impuden∣tèr jactant; sed Ge∣lasius Caesariensis E∣piscopus. Bellar. lib. ••. de Eu••h. c. 27.
• f

  Baronius him∣selfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius, Anno 496 num. 123. &c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gela∣siu•• d••th expound the doubtful words there of by the Phrases of Pope Gelasius, ex E∣pist. ad Picenos, & Dardan. Episc. num. 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and Anno 494. num. 2. And af¦ter Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying. Vides, Lector, ex usu verborum Phrasiquè d••cēdi Ge∣lasi•• Papae, & alia ejus sententia perspi∣cu••, demanst••••tum esse, &c. Et An••o ••96 num. 13. Gel. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epist. ad Pice•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Peccato Origi¦••all substantiam hominis esse depravat••••m, cum tamen eadem substantiam hominis esse depravatam, cum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; ut pote justitia originalis, & alia dona erant 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g

  Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem. Gena••. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita Gelasij, Margari••us de la Biga•• lib. 5. Bibli••th Pat••um, pag. 467. Masson de Episc. Rom. in vita Gelasij. Alp••••s. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Daeres. Tit. Christus, ••aeres. 3. in fine. On••plarius de Creat. P••nti••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cardin Gelasius 〈…〉〈…〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem & Nestorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episco∣pum, non posse jure affirma•• vide••ur. And proveth, why not.
• h

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

  Bellar. & Ba••on quo supra. At dicit Gelasius, In Divina••u transeunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ prop••ietate naturae. [By this it may bee seene, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latine Author, (but what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this to the Greeke Theodoret?) when the Latine Language was not s•• perfect, and that he did use the word equivocall••, but yet so, that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use there••, when hee speaketh of the Substa•• of Bread, for confutation of the same heresie.]
• k

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

  Greg Nyssen. A quam per benedi∣ctionem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrum sit, à quo mirabi∣les existunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo.
• m

  Dionys. Hie∣rarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n

  Chrysost. Ante Consecrationem Pa∣nem vocamus, Divi∣nâ verò gratiâ Sacer∣dotis ministerio san∣ctificatur, & digna appellatione Domi∣nici Corporis habe∣tur, etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit. E∣pist. ad Caesar. [See of this Doct. Vsher, ad Ann. 400. in his An∣swer to the Iesuits Challenge. pag. 64]
• o

  So our Peter Martyr.
• p

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

  Author operis imperfecti, in Matth. Hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus trans∣ferre sit periculosum, in quibus non est Corpus Christi, sed Mysterium Corpo∣ris ejus continetur; quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitan∣dum praeparavit?
• r

  Dr. Iames in his Specimen Corrupte∣larum, &c. Haec ve∣ba habentur in edi∣tione Antwer•••••• â Anno 1537. Apua Ioh. Steelsium, & i•• Parisiensi An. 1543. Apud Ioh. Roydwey, ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum, Ann. 1557.
• s

  Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini 810. de Corpore & Sanguine Christi. Prohibitum est omninò à Clmente octavo in postremo Indice librorum pro∣hibitorum. Possevin Apparat. Tit. Bertram.
• t

  Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis & Vini substantian••, quae figuram, similitud••nem, & appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit. Senens. Biblioth. lib. 6. Anno 196.
• u

  Bertramus. Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerant ante Consecrationem, hoc & posteà con∣s••••unt: Panis & Vinum priùs extitêre, in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt, permanere videntur. de Corpore Do∣mini, pag. 38.
• x

  Animadvertat (Clarissime Princeps) sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs, & Patium dictis, &c. Idem pag. 65.
• y

  Iulicium Vni∣v••sit••t••s Du••censis, Bertr••m Catholicus Pres••yter, & Mo∣nachus Corvinensis—••a C••ho••cis vere••bas ••••••lari∣mos 〈◊〉〈◊〉 erro∣res, & extenaemus, excu••emus, excogi∣t••to Commen•••• ••ae∣pè negemus, & c••n∣modum e••s sensum assingamas, du••n••ob∣••••••acur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Disp••••a∣••••onibus cum Ad••er∣s••••js. Index Ex••urg. juxta Conc. Tride••t. Decret. 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan. Jussu Anno 1571.
• z

  Bertramus Pres∣byter. qui in divinis Scriptu••s valdè peri∣tus, non m••••ùs vitâ, quàm doctrinâ i••sig∣nis, multa scripsit praeclara Opu••cula, de quibus ad meam noti••••m pauca per∣venerunt Ad C••ro∣lum Regem, fratrem Lotharij Imperaro∣ris, scripsit Commen∣dab••le opus de Prae∣destinatione; & li∣bru•• u••u•• ••e Cor∣pore, & Sanguine D••n••i. Trithem. Abbas.
• 24

  Photius Bibli∣othec. ex Ephr••mio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pag. 415. Edit. August••ae Vindelic. 1601.
• a

  Ambros. Ser∣mo Christ••, qui po∣tuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erant &c. De myster. i••tian••. c. 9.—At omnipotentia non requiritur, ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrosius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio consecravit. Idem. ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior. & Aug lib. 3. de Trinitate, cap. 4.
• b

  Ex Cyprian. de Coena D••mini §. Secundum.—Panis iste non effigie, sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas: ità Sacramento visibili di∣vina ••••effundit essentia. Ob. Bella••. lib 2 de Euch. cap. 9. [Whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance, but the Condition: Et factus Caro, is no more than a Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ, as all other places of Cyprian shewe••.]
• c

  Aug. de Trini∣tate. lib. 3. Non san∣ctificat ut sit mag∣num Sacramentum, nisi operante spiritu Dei, quae per illos, cum haec omnia Cor∣porales motùs sint, Deus operatur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo.
• d

  Chrysost. hom. 83 Non sunt hu∣manae v••tutis haec o∣pera, quae tunc in idâ Coe••â confecit, ipse nunc quo{que}, operatur, ipse perficit, mini∣strorum nos crdinem tenemus: qui vera ••aec sanctificat at{que} transmutat ipse est. This is objected by Mr. Brerely, Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. a. pag. 111. Liturg.
• e

  See above in his objecting of Am∣brose.
• f

  Calvia. Sem∣per memoriâ repe∣tendum est, Sacra∣menta nihil quàm ••ustrumentales esse confetendae nobis gratiae Causas. An∣tid in Conc. Trid. Sess. 7 Can. 5.
• g

  Solus Deus (communi Consen∣su) instituere Sacra∣menta ex authori∣tate potest, quae gra∣tiam efficiunt, aut etiam infallibiliter significant. Bellar. l. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23.
• h

  Card. Alan de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. & 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem; ne{que} ad ullam Creaturam pertinere: nec hoc solum sed etiam, &c—propter solam significationem Gratiae, quam Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus, d••bebant etiam vetera Sacramenta determinari per applicationem mortis Christi: quia licet quidem in Creaturis, ad signationem effectuum spiritualium, aptitudo quaedam sit, tamen ista aptitudo non nisi a divinâ institutione determina••ur ad peculiarem effectum. Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem signi∣ficet, at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet, & hominis sanctificationem reprae∣sentet; divinae tantùm institutionis est, per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consuetudinem, non solùm quoad vim operandi, sed etiam significandi. Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari, quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum, ut in veteri lege, quae debant munditiem legalem. These (hee saith) that he speaketh, Ex Theologorum Sententia.
• Booke 2. Chap. 3. §. 6.
• See above at the letter (c)
• i

  Ambros. lib. 4 de Sac. am c. 4. Si tan¦ta vis est in sermone Domini, ut incipian•• ess quae non erant quantò magis Ope∣ratorius est, ut sint quae erant, ••t in al••d convertantur?—Tu ipse eras ver••••s homo, postquàm consecratus eras, no vus homo esse coe∣pisti.
• k

  These words [ut sint quae erant] are wanting in the Roman and Paris E∣ditions, Anno 1603 as Bishop Vsher 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit.
• l

  See above at (1)
• m

  Per 〈…〉〈…〉 ••or Explica∣ti••e; Corpus signifi∣catur.
• n

  L••ndan A••ea 〈…〉〈…〉 Cypri••ni v••••o—••ie 〈…〉〈…〉 adv••gilate, Evang••••••, & D••∣vum Cyp••anum or∣b••s totius Doctorem, imò••n r••culum, judi∣cem incorrupt••••l••m 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap 6.
• o

  Ho•• Testi∣mon••um nullam. ad∣mit•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉〈…〉 c. 9. § 〈…〉〈…〉
• p

  Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lit••rg. Praef. §. 14. pag 51.
• q

  Author illius de Coena Domi••••t non est Cyprianus. ••ed aliquis post cum. Bellar. •••• 2. de E••ch. cap 9. §. Extet.
• r

  Cyprian. de Coena D••n. Pa••s ••ste natu••à mu••••tus om••••potentia ve••b•• factus est C••ro, &c.
• Ephes. 2. 3. Au∣gust. Ipsam naturam a••••ter dicem: cum prop••••è loquimu•• na∣turam hom••••s incalp••bi••s factus est.
• Litu••g. Tract. 4. § 6.
• 1

  Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus, renati ad innocenti∣am & immortalita∣tem regenerati in u∣mus AEternitatis na∣turam.
• 2

  Ambros. de jis qui initiantur my∣ster. cap. ult. Major benedictionis omnis virtus quàm na∣turae, quià benedi∣ctione etiam natura ipsa mutatur.
• 3

  Aug. Tom. 9. in Se••m de Cataclys∣mo.
• See above Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16.
• s

  Et sicut in persona Christi hu∣manitas videbatur, & latebat Divinitas; ità Sacramento visi∣bili ineffabilitèr di∣vina se effundit essen∣tia. Author. Coenae. Ibid. §. Quarto.
• Rom. 1. 16.
• t

  Greg. Nyssen. erat. de Baptism. Di∣vinum Lavacrū mag∣num quid operatur per Benedictionem, & mirabiles producit Effectus.
• 4

  Cyprian de Coena Dom. Chri∣stus usquè hodie ve∣rissimum, Sanctissi∣mum suum Corpus creat, sanctificat & benedicit, & piè su∣mentibus dividit. Ob∣jected by Dr. Hes∣kins Parl. Booke 2. Chap. 8.
• 5

  Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. In verbis Cypriani illa, Creas, sanctisicas, be∣nedicis, referuntur ad materiam, unde consicitur Corpus Christi: agimus enim gratias, quod per Christum primò pa∣nem crëet, deindè per eundem sanctificat & benedicat, con∣vertendo in Corpus suum—Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo, patet ex eo, quòd vera∣cissimum illud ap∣pellat. [Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body, for this Sacrament wee say is a figure, not of a fan∣tasticall, but of a sub∣stantiall Body.]
• 6

  Cyprian de Vnctione. Dedit Do∣minus in mensa, in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participa∣vit Convivium, pro∣prijs manibus Panem & Vinum, in Cruce vero manibus mili∣tum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, ut in Apostolis exponeret quomodo Vinum & Panis corpus esset & sanguis Christi; & quibus rationibus causae cum effectibus convenirent, & di∣versa nomina vel species ad unam re∣ducerentur essentiam, & significata & signi∣ficantia eisdem ••o∣cabulis censerentur.
• 7

  Cyprian de Coe∣nae Dom. (in the place objected, Ineffabiliter Sacramento visibili divina se infundit essentia, ut esset Re∣ligioni circa Sacra∣menta devotio, ut ad veritatem cujus cor∣pus & sanguis Sacra∣menta sunt syncerior pa••eret accessus. Ob∣jected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ.
• See before at num. 6. in the Mor∣gin.
• a

  Irenaeus lib. 4. contra. Haer cap. 34. Non est Panis Com∣munis. Bellar. Ob∣ijcit lib. 2. de Euch. per totum.
• b

  Sol. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. hom. 16. De aqua Baptismi. Non est aqua Com¦munis.
• See in this Se∣ction li••. (c. h.)
• d

  Bellamin. Ob∣lustin. Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sol. Ratio, quia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, Euchari∣sticatus, sivè sanctificatus Cibus.
• e

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Ob. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sol. I••em. Ca∣tech. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f

  Oh. Cyrill. my∣stag. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  ••ot Sequiturs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Idem Catech. My∣stag 3
• h

  Greg. Nysson. Altare hoc sanctum, cui adsistimus, l••pis est naturâ Commu∣nis, nihil differen•• ab alijs crustis lapide••s, ex quibus pavimenta nostra exornantur: Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur, & d••dicatur, & benedi∣ctionem accep••t, mē∣sa facta, & Altare immaculatum est. O∣rat. de Sancto Baptis∣mo. Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum, neque id Commune putes, &c.
• i

  Cyrilli Testi∣monium vel solum sufficere deberet, est enim hujus Sancti, & antiquissimi, & ex opere ejus indubit••to, & clarissi••u•• & apertissimum, ut nullo modo perverti possit; & est in Catechesi, in quâ solent omnia propriè & simplic••••er explicari, & deniquè nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujas circa Eucharistiam. B••••ll••r. lib 2. de Euch. cap. 13.
• k

  Cyril. Pro cer∣tissimo habeas, Pa∣nem hunc, qui vide∣tur à nobis, Panem non esse, etiamsi gu∣stus Panem esse sen∣serit, sed esse Corpus Christi—Rursus. Christus, cui creda∣mus, Panem in Cor∣pus Transmutavit—Nam sub specie Pa∣nis datur tibi corpus: sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis. Catech. Mystag. 4.
• l

  Cyrillus aper∣tè ponit Transmuta∣tionem Panis in cor¦pus Christi, & solas species Panis rema∣nere post Transmu¦tationem: quià dicit Corpus Domini sub specie Panis sum••, distinguens Corpus à Pane. Bellar lib. 2 de Euch cap. 13. ad∣ding; Hoc est Aper∣tissimum Argumen∣tum.
• Liturg. Tra∣ctat. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116.
• m

  Cyril. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cate•••• Mystag. 4. Russus Mystag. 5. Non ex∣istimetis vos gustare Panem & Vinum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• n

  Bellar. Hoc confirmat sententi∣••m nostram. Nam Cyrillus non eodem modo loquitur de Chrismate, & de Eu∣charistia. De hac e∣nim ait, Non esse Panem Communem, sed Corpus Christi: de Chrismate vero dicitur quidem, non esse Commune Vn∣guentum, sed non addit Spiritum san∣ctum, vel Corpus Christi: sed esse Chrisma Christi san∣ctificatum oleum. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 13.
• o

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cyril. Ca∣tech. Mystag. 3.
• 8

  Not. M. S. in Bellar. formerly alle∣ged.
• p

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22.
• q

  Mr. Brerelay, Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 2. pag. 167.
• r

  Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 8. Eti∣amsi sensui, & co∣gitationi nostrae ab∣surdum esse videatur quod dicit, superat{que} sensum nostrum & rationem sermo ip∣sius, quaeso, quod in omnibus rebus, sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus? non illa quae ante nos jacent aspicientes, sed ver∣ba tenentes? nam verbis ejus defrau dari non possumus, sed sensus saepiùs fal∣litur. Quoniam igi∣tur ille dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum] nul∣la dubitatione tene∣amus, sed credamus, nihil enim sensibile traditur à Christo nobis, sed in rebus sensibilibus. Omnia verò, quae tradidit, sunt insensibilia; si∣cut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud conceditur—Rege∣neratio intelligitur, quia est: nam si in∣corporeus esses, in∣corporea tibi tradi∣disset dona; quoni∣am verò Anima con∣juncta est Corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit.
• s

  Bellar. Non potuisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariùs, si Calvinistam aliquem habuisset, quem hortari ad fidem voluisset. Ibid. quo supra.
• t

  Non sunt Con∣cionatorum verba in rigore accipienda, quùm primùm ad au∣tes perveniant, mul∣ta enim per Hyper∣bolen Declamatores enunciant: hoc in∣terdum Chrysosto∣mo contingit. Senen∣sis Bibliotheca. An∣not. 152.
• 9

  Quod dicit Chrysostomus, meli∣us esse non interesse Sacrificio, quàm in∣teresse, & non com∣munica••••: D••co Chry∣sostomum, ut quae∣dam alia, per exces∣sum esse locu••um. Bellar. lib. 2. de Mis∣sa. Cap. 10. §. Ad illud.
• u

  Dentes Carnl suae insigere. Chrys. Homil. 45. in Iohan. Lingua cruentatur hoc admirabili Sen∣guine. Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam cir∣cumsusam rubificri. Lib 3. de Sacerdotio.
• x

  Num vides Pa∣nem? num Vinum? nè putetis Corpus ac∣cipere ab homine, sed ex ipso Seraphin forcipe ignem, Idem. Tom. 3 de Eucharist. in Encaenijs.
• y

  Sacramentum est invisibilis grat••ae signum visibile. Ma∣gister Sentent. lib 4. dist. 1. Sacramentum est ••es sensibus ob∣jecta. Catech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram cap 11.
• z

  Sensus non fal∣litur ••••cà proprium objectum Sententia vera. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24.
• a

  Sicut in Baptis∣mo, &c. Chrysost. See above, §. 5. at (r.)
• See hereafter at large in the 8. Book.
• See above Chap 3. §. 13.
• b

  Nos per hunc Panem unione con∣ju••gimur Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24.
• c

  Chrysost. Hom 50 in Matth. juxta Edit. Graec. Nè exi∣stmes Sacerdotem esse. qui hoc facit, sed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Then follow∣eth of Baptisme, Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 9

  Dr. Heskins in his partiam of Christ, Book. 2. Chapt. 55. objecteth.
• See above c. 3. §. 7.
• Ibid. in the Chapters following.
• c

  Eusebias Emiss. Adest Substantia Pa∣nis, sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi. Hom. 5. Ob∣jected by Mr. Brerely. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. {fleur-de-lys} And Damasc. lib. 4. de Orthod. side, cap. 14. Panem corpus suum facere. Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament. Booke 2. Chap. 20. {fleur-de-lys}
• See above B. 2. throughout.
• d

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cyrill. sup.
• See above, Booke 2. cap. 1. §. 4.
• c

  Ambros. De Pane; Fit Corpus caro Christi. Ob by Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 14. and by others.
• f

  Chrysost Nos secum Christus mu∣nam, ut ità dicam, massam reducit, ne{que} id fide tantùm, sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit. In Matt 26. hom. 83. Objec•••• by Mr. Brerely. Li∣turg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2.
• g

  Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Ca∣pite suo, quod ascen∣dit in coe••um, unus est Christus. Enarrat. in Psal. 127. Et in Psal. 26. Titulus Psalmi: Omnes •• illo, & Christi, & Christus sumus
• h

  Leo, De homine Regenerato per Bap∣tismum. Vt susceptu, à Christo, & suscipi¦ens Christum, non idem sit post Lava∣crum, quod ante Bap∣tismum fuit, sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. de passione. 14.
• i

  Beda in 1. Cor 10. Num & nos ip∣sius Corpus facti su∣mus, & quod accipi∣mus, nos sumus.
• k

  See above, c. 4. §. 7.
• l

  See above c. 4. §. 2.
• m

  Ibid. at the Letter (r)
• o

  Gregor. Nyssen. Quicquid assu••••enu conveniens est, & ex∣pertrum sit, ut Apo∣stolus vult, qui han•• mensam nobis p••a∣pa••vit, in id com∣mutatur, infirmor∣bus olus, Infantibus Lac, &c. Lib. de vita Mosis pag. 509.
• ••certne Councell of Ni•••• L. 4. c. 11. §. 3.
• p

  Greg. Niss. Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nostrum ingrediens totu n••in se transfert. Ob. by Bellar. l. 2. c. 10. §. Idem Greg.
• 10

  Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. ca. 6. Idem Gregorius in Orati∣one Catechetica cap. 37. multa habet ex∣pressè de veritate hu∣jus hic locus ab Eu∣thymio. Dicit corpus Christi immortale cum nostro corpore mortali conjungi, & immortale per illud reddi: & quod in corpus nostrum in∣grediens terum in se transfert & commu∣tat—Deinde se explicat—Dicit hoc fieri divinâ vir∣tute, & explicat se∣ipsum, dicit enim, nunc Panem mutart in Carnem Christi, quemadmodum, dum adhuc in terris esset, mutabatur Panis, quo ipse vescebatur, in Carnem ipsius. Quae ••am sunt perspicua, ut non fuerit ausus ullus Adversariorum, quòd sciam, vel ad haec ••oca respondere, vel aliquid ex hoc au∣thore nobis objicere.
• 11

  Bellarm. de Script Eccles. ••d An∣num 380. Tit. Greg. Nyssen.—Obser∣vatio secunda, praeter libros numeratos, ex∣••nt ex Editione Pa∣••siensi, Anno 1573. Catechetica oratio, &c.
• 12

  Author prae∣fat. ad E••lit. Paris. Anno 1573. Quae de Transubstantiatione in Cap. 37. & 38. habentur, in exem∣plaribus Manuscriptis multis non haberi. [To that of the Bo∣dies of the Receivers to be made immortall, See an Answer, Book 5. Chap. 8. §. 3. Your Objection of Divine Power is Answered already, in this Chapter, Sect. 2. To that hee Questioneth, how Christ's Body, being but one, can hee, without Diminution, received of so many? it is Answered in the 4. Booke.
• See above at (p.)
• 13

  Nyssen. in Orat. Catech. q••o su∣pra. Corpus Dei verti ad divinam Dignitatem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—& in illo Corpore (sc. Christi.) transmutants Panis transit in divinam naturam.
• 14

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Eucharist. cap. 16. Gregor. Nyssen. de vita Mosis. Panis, qui de Coelo descen∣dit, qui verus cibus est, qui aenigmaticè hac Historiâ (de Manna) significatur, non incorporea res est, quo enim pacto res incorporea cor∣pori cibus fiet? res autem quae in corpo∣re est, corpus omni∣nò non est.
• See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 10.
• 15

  Aqam part. 3 Qu. 77 Art. 6. Spe¦cies Sacramētales—manifestum est quòd nutriunt.
• q

  Mr. Brerely, Tract. ••. § 4. Subd. 2. pag. 164.
• r

  Chrysost. Ad∣miranda Mysteria—ut non solùm per di∣lectionem, sed reipsa in illam carnem con∣vertamur. Hom. 45. in Iob.
• 16

  And againe, Hom. 51. in Matth. 14. Quam Satisfacti∣onem offeremus, si cùm nutriti hoc cibo, ipsi in lupos conver∣tamur?
• s

  Theophylact. in Marc. 14. Vocat hanc Conversionem Trans-elementationem, quae quidem vox nihil minus significat quàm Transubstantiatio: nam Trans-elementatio significat mutationem totius rei—ad ipsam ma∣teriam, quae ab Aristotele Elementum dicitur. Si mutatio solius formae, rectè dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Transformatio, & mutatio, externae figurae transfiguratio, cur mutatio substantiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantiatio? Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Secundo.
• t

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

  Isi••or. Pelusiat. lib 3. Epistol 107. De recipiente semen, ut terra bon••: Qui verbum recipit [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x

  Theophyl. in. Math. 26. Panis in∣eff••bili modo trans∣formatur—Panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. Objected by Mr. Ererely, Laturg. Tract. 2 §. 2. S••bd. As for [est caro] this Phrase 〈◊〉〈◊〉 beene al∣ready answered. See above at (s.)
• y

  Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem, & b••nedixit, fregi••, Transfigurans Corpus suum in Pa∣nem: quod est Ec∣clesia praesens, quae frangitur in passioni∣bus.
• 1

  Leo. Non alia igi∣tur participatio Cor∣pous, quàm ut m••id, qu••d summus tran∣seamus. De Passione Serm. 24
• a

  Mr. Brereley in his Apologie (of the first Edition) con∣cerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church.
• b

  Hier. Patriarch. Non enim hic no∣minus tantùm com∣municatio est, sed rei identitas: etenim ve∣rè Corpus & San∣guis Christi mysteria sunt: non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur, sed nos in illa, melioribus praevalentibus. Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Wit••enbèrge.
• 17

  Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit. Artic. Confess. Angi in Art. 28 Orientalis & Oc••identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiati∣onis conveniunt. Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura, contra Lutherum, idem fatetur.
• 18

  Conf••ssio fidei •• Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constanti••op. nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit. Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram & realem Christi consitemur & pr••fitemur: at illam, quam Fides nobis offert, non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstan∣tiatio.
• 19

  Gordon. Ies. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num. 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congre∣gatis cōminiscuntur Adversarij, cos ni∣mirum nègâsse Tran∣substantiationem, a∣pertum est Commen∣tum,—Nam Dis∣putatio tantùm erat, quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio, seu Consecratio.
• 20

  Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess. 25. [In vobis &c.] Cùm Pontifex egisset, ut Graeci dice∣rent, quid statuerent de Processione Spiri∣tus, de Purgatorio, de{que} divina Tran∣substantiatione pa∣nis: Cum{que} respon∣dissent, se admittere Purgatorium &c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent
• Appeale. lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. [The testimony it self, cited out of Greg. by M•• Brereley, is answered in the first Book, con∣cerning EATING.
• Set the 9 §. following, Dio••ysius.
• See Booke. 5. cap. 8. § 1.
• See above in this Chap. §. 3. &c.
• Booke 8 Chàp. 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Baptisma non Cor∣potis, sed mentis o∣culis considera•• dum. Apud Binium lib 3. Decret. Conc. Nic. de Baptismate.
• Notes extra∣cted out of the above-mentioned M. S. of Mr. Isaac Casaubon, by M. Mèiric Casau∣bon his sonne.
• Verbis Christi adhae serunt [Hoc est corpus meum •• & il∣lam locutionem reti∣nuerunt, quae nihil juvat hodier••os Pō∣tificios: quia aliud est usurpare loq••endi modum, quo usus Christus: aliud de∣finire quomodò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explican∣dus sit ille modus.—Fateor veteres Patres aliquandò videri tale quid in Sacramento agnoscere: sed si ver∣ba eorum accuratè expendantur, planè apparebit, Praesen∣tiam Christi eos ag∣novisse, absque hoc mysterio. Transub∣stantiationis. Iustinus utitur exemplo In∣carnationis: sed ni∣hil hoc ad Transub. Nam Deus, cùm as∣sumpsit Carnem, non est muratus in Car∣nem, ne{que} desijt esse quod erat.—Patres 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agnovisse, sed va∣riè expos••sse, & pla∣nè contra Rom. Ec∣clesiae sententiam.—Greg. Nyss. Et alij Patres, qui 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adstruunt, utuntur exemplis, quae Transubstantiationem destruunt: ut aquae in Baptismo: saxi in Altari: Idiotae in Sacerdotem: nostri in filios lucis, qui eramus filij tenebrarum. Accedant loca Patrum, ubi disertè negatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, aut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—Patres in Sacramento agnoverunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & rem symbolis significatam, & quae cum Symbolis exhibetur, & per Symbola.—saepe igitur cum Christo loquuntur, sed nunquam adjiciunt Interpretationem, quae stabiliat doctrinam d•• Transubst. & de Accidentibus sine substantiâ.—Patres perceptionem hujus mysterij tribuerunt fidei, ità tamen ut os non excluderent proprer Symbola—Sunt qui putent, quoties inveniunt apud Patres sumi corpus Christi, aut praesentem esse Christum, aut ut loquitur Chrysost. Tom. Front. p. 43. Chri∣stum reliquisse nobis suum corpus, & id genus, ipsissimam esse doctrinam Pontificiorum, fed falluntur. Obser∣vandum enim, Patres studiose servàlle genus loquendi, quo usus est Christus, & servavit Apost. sed modum non exposuisse.—Patres de hoc mysterio & ejus effectu cum sentirent augustissimè, multi sunt in ejus commendatione, & suis illis hyperbolis hoc in argumento habenas suas laxârunt. De effectu dixerunt, Hominem fieri Deum per hoc Sacramentum. Vide excerpta è Dionys. Areop. de scopo Sacramenti hujus, & ad Dionysium notata, p. 33. De Sacramento Eucharistiae, quod putabant esse causam Instrumentalem effectus, pari magnificentia locutisunt.
• 20

  Iosephus An∣gles Flor. Theolog. qu. 5. Art. 1. Disp. 3 Conclu. 1. Panis fit corpus Christi, est falsa positio; quià non suscipit Corpus Christi formam panis. Conclu. 2. Panis mutatur in Corpus Christi, falsa est propositio, quià in hac conversione nullum subjectum manet, & nulla intervenit mutatio, (nempè Corporis Christi.) Sic ille. Aquinas, part. 3. qu. 75. Art. 8. in hoc Sacramento, factâ conversiont, aliquid idem manet, s••ilicet, (Accidentia panis) secundum quandam similitudinem harum locutionum aliquae possunt concedi scil. quod de pane fit cor∣pus Christi, ut nomine panis non intelligatur substantia panis, sed in universali Hoc, quod sub speciebus panis continetur.—Et paulo post, ad 1. Non tamen proprie dicitur quod panis fiat corpus Christi, nisi secun∣dùm aliquam similitudinem, ut dicitur. Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu. 75. Art. 8. Disp. 181. cap. 14. Verum cum jam à nobis notatum est, verbum [FIERI] in praedictis propositionibus non sumi propriè pro aliqua corporis, Christi productione, sed pro eo, quod est, corpus Christi adduci, seu fieri praesens in Sacramento, ex hac parte nihil difficultatis est in praedictis annuntiationibus.—Panis fit Corpus Christi melius docent Tho. Rich. Gabr. Sotus, Ledesma, hanc propositionem esse falsam, si secundùm proprietatem vocum accipiatur. Et ratio manifesta est, quià cum aliquid dicitur fieri aliud, debet esse aliquod commune, saltem materia sub utro{que} termino Transmutationis, hic autem nihil manet commune nisi Accidentia, quae non fiant corpus Christi, sed continent. AEgidius Coninck de Sacramentis. Qu. 75. Art. 8. De pane sit Corpus Christi: Ex pane fit corpus Christi, in rigore sunt falsae, si apud Patres inve••••antur, piè explicandae sunt, Patres Catachresi usos esse.
• See above Chap. 4. § 4.