Protestancy without principles, or, Sectaries unhappy fall from infallibility to fancy laid forth in four discourses by E.W.

CHAP. VI.

Sectaries without either Proofs or Prin∣ciples, VVrest Christs VVords to an Improper Sense, And vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy.

1. NOte first, when Christ our Lord said: This is my body &c. And used the like, or more sig∣nificant Expressions (Registred by the other Evangelists) He did not only Institute the Noblest of Sacraments, But made also his VVill and Testament, He Published a Law, gave a Command: Hoc facite, Do this. At least, all Ack∣nowledge, That He Delivered a Dogmatical Verity Con∣cerning our Christian Faith, And did This in such gra∣ve Circumstances, And to such Persons (His own Dear Disciples) That the Time, Place, and Persons to whom He Spak, Required no Dark, But most Plain and Pro∣per Language. As therfore no Man makes his last VVill, Publisheth a Law, Layes an Express Command on any, or Delivers a Truth which All are to Learn Vn∣der Tropes, Figures, Metonymies, or such Obscurities (Thefe have place in the Dark Speaking of Prophets, and serve well to set forth an Oration) But contrarywi∣se, in obvious Vulgar, and Intelligible VVords: So much

Less can it be Supposed (when Christ our Lord spak of these Serious Matters) That He Delivered his Mind in Obscure Metaphors, Tropes, or any such Expressions: Vnles, as I noted above, We certainly Knew by mo∣re plain Scripture, Then our Saviours words are now cited, That, Though He beguile us Here, with Tro∣pes, and Metaphors, Yet in other Passages of Holy Writ, He clear's all These dark Expressions by a contrary lan∣guage, And Speak's more Significantly for these Signes of Sectaries Then He doth for our Catholick Doctrin. Vnles, I say, such Texts be at Hand Nothing can Force us from that Express Sense, which the Gospel most Significantly Deliver's, concerning this Myste∣ry.

2. Note 2. Sectaries Advance their Cause nothing at all, when They tell us that the word, EST, someti∣mes Imports as much as if We said (Signifies) As when you se a Picture of Caesar on a wall, and Say: This is Caesar. The seed is (Signifies) the Word of God &c. Could this be proved, it is not enough, More is requi∣red; for They are Obliged to Show, And by an Vn∣deniable Principle (if my Faith Rely on their Gloss) That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense, and no Other. You know Scripture saith. Hic est filius meus dilectus. This is my beloved son &c. Now, no Man can Inferr Becaus EST, sometimes is Rendred (Signifies) That Here, it looses its Proper sense, And only Avail's as much, as if you Said: Christ only Signifies, or, is not otherwise the Son of his Father, Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign, or Figure of the Prototypon, This cannot be admitted of, Vnles, I say, a Stronger Prin∣ciple

(which is Impossible) Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense. And thus We Discours in our Present Matter.

3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on, to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words, or, to Favour our Adversaries Cause, must be Reduced to one of these Heads. To Plain speaking Scripture. To Vniversal Tradition. To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages, or, Finally to the General Consent of Fathers. If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin, it Fall's of it self, And wholy Relies on Fancy. Thus much supposed.

4. Here is my Proposition, and an Inference also. Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Prin∣ciples, VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sen∣se of Christs VVords. They cannot Prove that EST, in our Saviours Affirmation, Imports only as much, as if you said, it Signifies. Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacra∣ment, is wholy Vnwarrantable, and Built on Fancy Only.

5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably Evident as the very Assertion it self; For it is Manifest, No Scripture plainly Teaches (I say no More now) That the Verb EST, in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense, it Signifies: And it is as Clear, no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense. What then Remains, But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church, or, To the Gene∣ral Consent of Fathers? I say therfore. If they can Name any Vniversal Church, Nay any particular

Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over, That Interpreted these Words as They do, or, Clearly De∣nyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the For∣mes of Bread and Wine after Consecration, or, Belie∣ved that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body, Though it be Really no more But a Sign only, a Figure only, a Resemblance only of his Body; If, I say, any one of these things can be proved. They'l Come of Gloriously, And Gain Thousands to their Opinion. But I know, all is in a high Measure Impossible. I say, a Sign only, a Figure only; For, We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers, and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament, And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace, Yea, and a Figure also, a Memo∣rial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion; But this is not the Controversy between us, The sole Question therfore is, Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure, that the Thing Signified is not in the Sign, And the Verity in the Figure, That is. Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood, be not Truely and Substantially within the out∣ward Sign, and really Present There? This VVe Af∣firm, and Sectaries Deny, Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them.

6. To clear this Point, And Add, If Possible, more Weight to our Assertion: We Have an Ample, Holy, and Learned Catholick Roman Church (whose sole Authority, set Scripture aside, is the Greatest on Earth) Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Do∣ctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years (I say Ever since Christianity began) And, can any one prudently Perswade Himself, That so Chois, and Learned a Society, That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Lan∣guage,

And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel, Hath, for so long a time lived in a Cheat, and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour? Admit of this Vast Improbability, We have yet a De∣monstration against Sectaries: And 'tis: No Or∣thodox Church can be named that ever Opposed, Found fault, or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery. Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain, upon a double Account, that Christ Taught it, And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it.

7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the o∣ther Principle, Which is the Vnanimous consent, not of a small Number, but of Many most Ancient, Learn∣ed, and Holy Fathers, These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery, And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed. If All Readers Ha∣ve not the Originals at hand, They may see them in the Authors Cited above, I shall only Hint at a few, For to Transcribe All, or Half of them, And Quote the Places Exactly, Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression, which I Intended to make short. In passing I'll only say thus much. If Sectaries, with all the Skill They have, can Interpret These few Testimonies, Which I shall briefly Glance at, They may with the same Ease, Yea, And far less labour, Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent, and make that to speak Protestancy, Or to Deny the Real Presen∣ce.

8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach: What we take into our mouths, is not that which na∣ture made, But what the Blessing hath Consecrated,

And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed. Thou hast learned that of bread, is made the Body of Christ, and the wine and water is put into the Chalice, But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word, it is made Blood. The Bread and Wine of the Eucha∣rist, before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity, were simple bread and wine, But the Invocation being once don, the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ, and the VVine his Blood. The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made Flesh, Christ, by his own Will, once changed water into wine, and is He not worthy to be Believed, that He changed Wine into Blood? Mark a substantial change. Wherfore, with all Cer∣tainty let us take this Body and Blood of Christ: For his Body is given thee under the Form of Bread, And his Blood is given thee under the Form of wine, Although sense tell thee Otherwise, yet let Faith confirm thee in this Truth. That which appears Bread is not Bread, Though it seem so to the Tast, But it is the Body of Christ: And that which appears wine is not wine, as the tast Iudges it to be, But the Blood of Christ. The Consecrated Bread, is not a figure only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Body of Christ, But the very Deified Body of our Saviour. The bread and wine are Superna∣turally changed, or Transmade into the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ was Carried in his own Hands. To the exteriour Sen∣se it seem's to be Bread, But know, by the sense of your Vn∣derstanding, That it is my Body, not an Other, But the sa∣me in substance, which shall be Delivered to Death for you. Other Fathers say. The same body is on the Altar, vvhich is in Heaven, The same Blood is in the Chalice which Issued out of our Saviours side. He gaue us that very flesh vvherin he walked here, to be eaten to Saluation. It is the

same flesh of our Saviour, which suffered for our Sins, which was on the Cross, vvhich was Born of the Virgin, This Bo∣dy vve Receive and Eate vvith our mouths▪ and have it Min∣gled with our Bodies.

9. Thus the worthiest Fathers of our Christian Faith Speak, And as I said just now, Neither the Council of Trent, nor, Any Modern Catholick can speak mo∣re significantly in Behalf of the Doctrin, We All Pro∣fess. I Say also. No Ancient Fathers ever Expres∣sed Themselves with Greater Energy, when They treat of that High Mystery of our Faith, The Sacred Tri∣nity, which Sectaries joyntly Believe with us, Then These have Don in the present Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament. I Appeal to our Adversaries own Con∣sciences, And ask whether They can Contradict me? If they Do, I must Tell them, they cannot Think it, or, if They Seriously Judge so, Their Judgement, Be∣caus Contrary to the greatest Part of the Christian world, is Weightles, And (finally resolved) comes to no more but Fancy. I have told them often in this Trea∣tis, That, any Heterodox May with greater Ease, and lesser Violence Offered, either to Scripture or the most Primitive Fathers, Turn off all that can be Said for the Proof of any Christian Verity Then They are able to Enervate the plain VVords of Christ and Fathers, now alleged for this Mystery.

10. Be it How you will, Our Adversaries, if They'l yet Wilfully run on in an Heresy, Are at least Obliged to stand on Equal Term's with us, To give us Proof for Proof, Weight for Weight, Measure for Measure. Here are our Principles. We have Plain and Express Scri∣pture for our Catholick Verity, They have not a Word.

We Plead our Cause by a Constant and never Inter∣rupted Tradition, They have None. We have a Renowned, Ample, and most Learned Catholick Church, which both Believed and taught this Catho∣lick Doctrin, They have neither Orthodox Church nor Chappel, that Taught or Talked, seven hundred years agon, of Their Tropes, and Figures only. We have the General Consent of Fathers, They have only Patches and Fragments weighed out of their Circumstances, for Their Condemned Opinion. We have Miracles, Clear and Vndeniable Miracles, which confirm our Do∣ctrin: Both Ancient Fathers and Modern Doctors Recount Them, who cannot be Supposed, to have wilfully Damned Their Soules by Obliging Posterity to Believe Impostures upon Misinformation. They have neither Miracle nor Sign, But the Empty Sign of a Piece of Bread, For their too long known, And as long since Decryed Heresy. Finally (And here is a sad Thought for Sectaries) If ever Heresy was in the World, This of Theirs is, or never any Deserved That Name. At least, All the Marks, All the Signs, All the Characters of Heresy follow it, That can be Ima∣gined. It is a late Found out and a new Invented Opinion. The Chief Author of it, Berengarius (no Saint I'll promis you) is Known. The time When, And the Place Where it Began, The few Followers it then Had, the Trouble it Caused among Orthodox Believers, the Opposition made Against it, The Trial, The Examina∣tion, the Sentence and Condemnation of it, Are Known, And All upon Record. Almost every Catholick Au∣thor that Handles this Subject, Assert's and Proves what I say, by Vndeniable History. Could our new

Men Allege But half as Much Against our Catholick Doctrin; Could They Point out The First Broachers of this Popery; Could They name the Place, the Ti∣me of its first Rise, Or, Tell us what Orthodox Church, After a Severe Examination Condemned it, They might take courage, Speak Boldly, And well Hope to Drive us of our Principles. But, when we find them Vnac∣countable in These Particulars, and see Evidently They cannot look one of these Difficulties in the face, nor Hint Probably at the least Sign of any Novelty in our Doctrin. When Again we Reflect, How easy Their Tenent is to Sense, and Ours contrary very Dif∣ficil, (And therfore could not hiddenly Creep into the world without Clamours Against it.) When we se∣riously Consider, That both the Latin and Greek Church, though now at Variance in other Points, yet well Agree in one Profession of Faith concerning this Mystery. Finally, When we know, that the Greatest part of the Christian world (Wherof many were, and are, no less Profoundly Learned, then Eminent in Sanctity▪) Hath notwithstanding the Opposition made by Secta∣ries, believed as We Do to this Day, and Dyed in that Belief. We may Hope to Silence these Men Hereafter, and Well Conclude: That our Doctrin, which Stand's sure on Christs plain VVords, Which the strongest Pillars of the Ancient Church Vphold, which the Roman Catholick Church yet Defends, And no Orthodox Church ever Opposed, Which Indu∣bitable Miracles have Confirmed, and none Denyed, But Known and Professed Enemies of Truth; We may, I say, rightly Conclude, That our Faith is Anciently Ca∣tholick, And therfore True; And That the contrary

Opinion of Sectaries is a meer Fancied Novelty, And Therfore Fals, and Heretical.

11. We might yet Go on (And to clear all) Answer now to a few Fals Supposed Grounds of Sectaries, But the Learned Bellarmin Hath done the work to our Hands, and Contributed more then Enough to Their utter Overthrow. Truly, is very pittiful to Se, How, after all their Braggs of Scripture, Scripture is Here so Scarce with them, That they cannot Find a Word through the whole Bible, so much as remotely Favour∣able for this Heresy. Observe wel what Straits They are put to.

12. First, the Particle, EST, in our Saviours Pro∣position, must either Sound as much as Significat, (Signisies) or Sectaries are undon. And who Tell's Them so but Fancy? O, It often Hath that sense. I answer no such matter. For, EST, ever retains its own simple and p••••per Signification in every true Propo∣sition, and doth no more but joyn's the Predicate with the Subject, what ever it be. The reason is. If any Trope, or, Metaphor, lie hidden in the Copu∣la EST, it may certainly be Resolved into an other Word or Diction of a more Simple, Clear, and Open Signifi∣cation Then, EST, by its own force Expresseth. But this is Impossible, For, no Word can be clearer then the Clearest, more Open, then what is most openly significant: This Copula is Always so, and therfore can∣not be Resolved into any clearer Diction. And hence it is, That when your Rhetoricians Treat of Figurative Speec∣hes, or Locutions, They never Place the Trope or Figure on the Verb Substantive, But either on the Attribute or Sub∣ject. 'Tis true, the Predicate, or Subject in many Proposi∣tions,

known (Aliunde) or by other clear Grounds, to be Metaphors, must be Explicated by clearer Terms, whilst yet the Copula EST, Holds its most Simple, and Proper Signification. Take one Instance. Semen est verbum Dei, The seed is the word of God. The Word Seed, as it is a Sign, made by Institution essentially to Signify; so, in this place, it is a Trop, or Metaphor also, (For certainly Christ said not That material Seed cast into the Earth is really his Word:) if Ther∣fore it be here both a Sign, and Metaphor, you must ul∣timatly Resolve the Proposition into a clearer Sense Thus. The very Essence of a Sign is to Signify, This Word Seed, is a Sign Ad placitum, Metaphorically Representing the Word of God, Therfore, as well as a Metaphor can Do, it Signifies this Divine Word where you se, EST, keeps its proper Signification: And Therfore, The whole Proposition finally Resolved, Renders this Sense. This Metaphor Seed, is a Sign signifying Gods Word. Now if you say We Grant at last, That the Copula May here be Expounded, Significat; I An∣swer, most True, Yet without any Trope in EST, For, in such Enunciations, Praedicatur Signum de Signo, (as Bellarmin notes) The Sign is Predicated on the Sign; As in this Proposition. Amare, Est, diligere. That is: Amare, is a synonimal Sign, or signifies the same as Diligere, And therfore is Explicated by Significat, Be∣cause the essence of a Sign is to signify. But it is not so in other Propositions, where that which is predicated is neither formally a Sign Only, nor any Metaphor at all.

13. You shall se what I say now Evidenced in our Sectaries Opinion: For, whilst they Explicate Christs Proposition. This is my Body, the Copula, EST, Re∣tain's

purely its own proper Signification, without any Trope. I prove it. When we find a Trope in a Proposition, it must lie There, or in that Part of it, into whose place, when the whole Proposition is Resol∣ved, We put an other more plain and Significant Word to explicate the Trope clearly (by this Resolving of a whole Proposition into its Parcels we easily judge whe∣re the Trope is.) Now Observe. Our Sectaries resolve Christs Proposition Thus. This is my Body. Hoc est signum corporis mei. This is a Sign of my Body. Mark well. The words Subrogated to Explicate the Trope, are these Two, Signum Corporis; But these two Words, which belong to the Attribute or Predicate are not, as is most evident, Substituted in the place of the Copula, EST, Therfore the Trope lies not in the Copula, which Keep's still its proper Significaiton, But accor∣ding to this Resolution in the word Corpus, or Body. Now How Fals it is, That any Trope lyes in the word Body, And consequently no where in the whole Proposi∣tion, is Evidently Convinced by our Saviours true As∣sertion. This is my Body, which shall be given for you. Believe it. No sign of his Body was given for us, But his Real Body. Be it how you will. Thus much is Clear, That the Verb Substantive, even here Retain's its Simple, Proper, and most Common signification.

14. You may se more of this subject in Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. §. secundo, and cap. 11. per totum Whe∣re He Learnedly Explicates other Propositions Alle∣ged by Sectaries, as Petra erat Christus, Agnus est Pascha &c. All I'le now say, And 'Tis what I noted Above. Although it were granted that the Copula, EST, someti∣mes sound's as much as, significat, Yet, unles this

sense Hold in All other Locutions of Scripture (which is absolutely Fals) our Adversaries are far enough from Proving their Intent, Becaus they cannor Convince by any probable Principle, That, EST, in this place Hath that Determinate meaning, which They would give it. Therfore Fancy or something Worst, must Help them to Mantain this Improbable Gloss.

15. They Object 2. Those Words of Scripture. Do this in Remembrance of me: And then Discours. We Commemorate no Body, nor Celebrate any Ones Me∣mory, unles He be Absent; But Christ, As we Teach, is Always Present in the Holy Eucharist, Therfore we can∣not make a Commemoration of Him, as of One Absent. The Apostle 1. Corrinth. 11. Answer's the Difficul∣ty, For After He Had sayd: Do this in Remembrance of me. He add's. Quotiescumque enim &c. As often as you Eat this Bread and drink this Chalice, You shall shew the Death of our Lord until He Come, But the Death of our Saviour is long since Pas't and not Present, Ther∣fore we may wel Commemorate his Death and Pas∣sion, as Priests do in every Masse they say. In Ri∣gour therfore, These Words Precisely force not on us any Memory of his sacred Body, or Blood Present, But only Mind us of his Action of Sacrificing in his last Sup∣per. However, to Satisfy our Adverfaries, be plea∣sed only to put this supposition: That a Prince were with his Nobles in a Disguised weed, And Would not appear to their Senses but Disguised; Might they not well, Although they knew otherwise He were their Conceiled Prince, and Present, not Only Reverence and Adore him, But also make a Commemoration of Him? Most certainly yes. This is our Case.

As therfore that which we call a Sign, requires not the Absence of the thing signified, For, the Ark of the Covenant was a Sign of God Present, and the Dove Descending on Christ, was a Sign of the Holy Ghost Pre∣sent: So, likewise a Remembrance or Commemoration Implyes no Necessity of his Absence, that is Remem∣bred. Finally, We may Remember our Lord and Saviour, as He is in Heaven absent, whilst He Feed's and feast's us here on Earth with his precious Body and Blood on the Altar. The Objection therfore is For∣celes every way.

16. They Object 3. This Sacrament is called Bread. Answ. But, never Bakers Bread after the Words of Consecration, Fancy only say's so, and no Proof. Again. 'Tis called Bread becaus it's made of Bread, as Man is called Dust because made of Dust. Such Objections are Trivial.

17. They Object 4. The Breaking of Bread strong∣ly argues, 'Tis plain Bread, Though Deputed to a Holy Vse. Answ. The Breaking here is Sacrificing, as Calvin Himself confesseth. The Argument, though it Proves just nothing, is seemingly more for Luthers Opinion of Bread, and Flesh together, then for our Sectaries.

18. They Object 5. Christ is called a Vine▪ a Rock, and a Doore. Answ. What then? Put a Minor Proposition to these Words, and Se How weak a Con∣clusion Followes. Is it any Consequence, that be∣cause figurative Speeches are in Scripture sometimes, Therfore all we Read there, must be Tropes, and Me∣taphors? We know, and the whole world knowes also by other Principles, that These are Tropes, And

we evidently know by as assured Principles, that, Mr BODY GIVEN FOR YOU. MY BLOOD SHED FOR MA∣NY. Are no figurative Locutions.

19. They Object. 6. The Cup is called the Fruit of the Vine, therfore it is not Blood. Answ. 1. It may be called Heavenly Wine, as Christ called him∣self Heavenly Bread &c. But the true Solution is. There were two Cupps on the Table that night be∣fore our Saviour suffered, the Legal, and the Eucharisti∣cal, or Sacramental Cup, That's called the Fruit of the Vine, This not.

20. They Object 7. Some places of Scripture. The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. The flesh Profiteth nothing. All did eat the same Spiritual Food, and all drank the same Spiritual Drink. Answ. Nothing But meer Fancy, or something Wors, can Draw these Texts to the sense of Sectaries. The open and plain Meaning of Christs words without Violence offered to them, (easily Gathered By the whole Context) is Thus. I have spoken to you of Divine and Spiri∣tual Matters, conducing to Eternal Happines, But your Thoughts are still on Earth, As, if I were to cut off certain Pieces of my Body, and give them you to Eat (so S. Austin explicates this Place) it is not so, saith our Saviour, I spak of that more Hidden Mystery of the Sacra∣ment, which Being Believed and Spiritually Vnderstood▪ will Quicken you and Give you Eternal life: The Flesh therfore, That is, a Carnal Vnderstanding of my words Profit's Nothing &c. This is the Genuin and can∣did sense of Christs Expression. For, it were a Blasphe∣my to say, that his sacred Body Profit's none. I Answer To The other Passage of S. Paul, Its, an Errour to

judge, That the Jewes Received no less the Substance and Benefits of Christs Graces in Their Figures, Then We do in our Sacraments. The Apostle Intimates no such Thing, But only Saith. They all (the He∣brewes) among Themselves, good and bad, Eat the same Meat, and Drank of the same Rock, which was a Figure of Christ. Now, Pray you Tell me, Do all Calvinists, Good and Bad, when They Receive Christ by the Mouth of their Faith, Equally participate of his Graces? Or, were There any such Ample Promi∣ses Annexed to the Eating of Manna in the Desert, and Drinking the Wather Issuing out of that Rock, as are now made to the Sacraments of the New Law? No. They were Egena elementa, Barren Elements for so Scripture speak's. You'l Ask, Why Then doth the Apostle call the Manna, and Water, Spiritual Food and Drink? I Answer, They are called so, not Be∣caus they Produced Grace as our Sacraments Do, But becaus They had a Spiritual Signification, And were caused by a Special supernatural Providence, contrary to the Ordinary Cours of nature.

21. They Object 8. Such ought to be the Way of Receiving this Food of the blessed Sacrament, as is Answerable to the Quality of the Food and End, for which we take it. But, both the Food it self (to wit Divi∣ne Grace) and the Final end of it, which is a Union of the soul with Christ, are purely Spiritual; Therfore the Way, or Mode of Receiving it, must be Propor∣tionably Spiritual: But, no Mode or Way of Taking it, can be more Fit, or Spiritual then Faith; Therfore we are to Receive it by Faith Only as the meetest Instru∣ment. Answ. The Objection (no less improper in

Speech then simply Fallacious) Distinguisheth not right∣ly Between the Immediate Cause of Grace, the effect of Grace, and the Disposition necessary to Receive this Effect Fruitfully. The immediate cause of grace, is Christs sacred Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine. Now to say, That his Body is the Way or Manner of Receiving our Spiritual Nutriment, is an Impropriety in Speech. And to say Again, That, this Body ought to be Ejusdem planè rationis, of the self same Na∣ture with the Spiritual Food it Causeth, or, That a Corporal thing cannot be Ordained to Produce a Spiritual Effect, is most untrue, For, the water in Baptism produceth grace in the Baptized, yet is Corporeal; the Corporeal visible Effusion of Christs sacred Blood in his Passion, Freed us from a Spiritual Death, and brought us to a Spiritual Life. And do not Sectaries Hold, that the very Material Hearing of the Word of God is a fit Means to Beget Faith both Spiritual, and Supernatu∣ral in the Hearers Soul? The Difficulty therfore Proposed comes to nothing but Fancy. Finally, if we speak of the Disposition requisite to Receive the Ef∣fect of this Sacrament (you may call it, if you plea∣se, the Mode, Way, or Manner necessary to a due Re∣ceiving) All Catholicks Profess, that not only Faith, at least Habitual, but Charity Also, per se loquendo, Are Prerequired as necessary Dispositions to the Effect ther∣of, Because it is Sacramentum Vivorum the Sacrament of Those, who now Live by Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Notes

• The Natu∣re of a no∣ble Sacra∣ment, Christs own will, a Dogmati∣cal Verity.
• And other grave cir∣cumstances require plain and proper Language.
• Christ could not speak so ob∣scurely of this Myste∣ry without clearing all in other passages of Holy writ.
• Though the particle Est in some Propositions may be In∣terpreted, it Signifies.
• That's not enough, Se∣ctaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instan∣ce.
• No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries.
• A Proposi∣tion against Sectaries.
• The Proofs of it, are no less clear, Then the Proposition it self.
• A Fair of∣fer made to Sectaries.
• Protestants you shall se, will never Answer Directly, to what is here propo∣sed.
• What They are to An∣swer To.
• The sole Authority of our Ro∣man Church, is Sufficient to Convin∣ce Sectaries of Errour.
• No Other Or∣thodox So∣ciety Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin.
• The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers.
• Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin.
• These Fa∣thers are Faithfully cited, Though to avoid Te∣diousnes in a short Di∣gression, I thought it best, not to give the Reader more Trou∣ble then is necessary, by quoting Exactly the places.
• You have the most of them in Bellarmin, and the other Au∣thor named above.
• If Any Doubt of These Au∣thorities, I oblige my self to quo∣t•• the pla∣ces exactly, Now only omitted becaus they are vulgar∣ly known.
• The expres∣sions of Fa∣thers, as si∣gnificant for This Mystery, as for a Tri∣nity.
• Sectaries may with greater Ea∣se Deny Any Chri∣stian Verity, then this Mystery. They are at least obli∣ged to Match us with equal Proofs. The Ca∣tholick Principles, Briefly Declared.
• Sectaries want all these Proofs and Prin∣ciples▪
• A sad Thought f••r Secta∣ries.
• What Marks and Signs ac∣company This Here∣sy.
• Could Se∣ctaries Say but half as much a∣gainst our Catholick Doctrin, could They weaken it by one of These Proofs.
• They might Ca∣vil more justly.
• But no∣thing is spoken pro∣bably.
• Other Con∣firmations of our Ca∣tholick Ve∣rity.
• Not one word of Scripture in the who∣le Bible for Sectaries.
• How they Trifle in a most weighty matter.
• They Err in their In∣terpreta∣tions of Christs Words.
• No Trope or Figure found in the verb Substanti∣ve though often in the Attribute or subject.
• An In∣stance.
• How Fi∣gurative Propositions are to be Resolved.
• Sectaries explicate Christs proposition, without placing the Trope on the verb Substanti∣ve.
• The words subrogated to explicate the Trope with Secta∣ries be long to the At∣tribute.
• Sectaries are far from pro∣ving their intent, we∣re all gran∣ted they pretend to. A second Objection.
• If is one thing to say. Do this Action you se me Do in Remem∣brrance of me. And ano∣ther to say, the Sacra∣ment is on∣ly a Re∣membran∣ce of Christ.
• A Disgui∣sed Prince may be Re∣membred, though present with his Nobles.
• A Sign re∣quires not the absence of the thing signified▪
• The Sacra∣ment is not called Ba∣kers bread.
• Calvin saith, Breaking of Bread, is Sacrificing.
• A weak Inference of Secta¦ries.
• The legal, and Sacra∣mental Cup, Distin∣guished.
• The sense of Christs own words is clear, by the whole context of the Gospel
• If Sectaries can prove the contra∣ry, let the•• them do by a sure Principle.
• The Apost∣les words misonder∣stood by Sectaries.
• Why the Apostle call's Man∣na Spiri∣tual Food.
• An Obje∣ction con∣cerning the way and manner of Receiving showed null.
• Sectaries distinguish not rightly between the cause of Grace, the effect it self, and the Disposition necessary to receiving.
• A mate∣rial thing can cause Spiritual Grace.
• What Dis∣position is necessary.