OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE BLESSED BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, (by some called) THE MASS OF CHRIST, Eight Books; Discovering the Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Abominations OF THE ROMISH MASS. TOGETHER WITH The Consequent Obstinacies, Overtures of Perjuries, and the Heresies discernible in the DEFENDERS thereof.  
By the R. Father in GOD THOMAS L. Bishop of Coventry and LICHFIELD.  
LONDON, Printed by W. Stansby, for ROBERT MYLBOURNE in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Greyhound. MDCXXXI.   

VTRIUSQVE ACADEMIAE CANTABRIG. & OXON. Praeclaris Luminibus ac Ornamentis; coeterisque Sacrae Theologiae candidatis, & sincerioris Literaturae Studiosis Gratiam & salutem in CHRISTO JESV.  
SIquanto amoris studio Vtramque Academiam persequor, tanto Honoris testimonio adornare eas possem (Viri Clarissimi) certè quidem hoc qualecunque Opus meum, vestro praesertim nomini inscriptum, usque adeò excellens & singulare fuisset, ut nec ad conciliandam gratiam Cujusquam, nec ad veniam deprecandam Praefatione aliquâ indigeret. In quo tamen si quaefortè vobis occurrant (ut sunt sanè plurima) nullo hactenùs, ex nostris partibus, Authore praevio, in medium prolata; vestrae perspicacitatis erit, quanti momenti illa fuerint, dijudicare: quorum duntaxat Apices aliquot saltem attingere operaepretium esse duxi.  
Sacramento Eucharistiae Resp. Christiana nihil unquàm sublimius, nihil sanctius habuit atque Augustius, quo Christiani quodammodò in Christum ipsum transformamur. Hujus Institutionem in frontispicio libri, ex aliorum placitis, MISSAM appello: quam vocem aliquis fortassis omissam nimis velit. Quin estotu bono animo, quisquis es pius zelôtes, & Papisticae Missae exosor vehemens. Etenim nomen [Missa] secum omen suum apportat, quod cum à Dimittendis iis, qui Eucharistiae participes esse nolunt, ortum suum traxit, Romanam Missam planè ingulat, quae (veluti Amasios suos) Spectatores meros omnibus lenocinijs ad se allicit atque invitat; ac si in illo uno Theatrico spectaculo Religio ipsa Christiana ferè tota consisteret: quos tamen Antiquitas Catholica, apud Graecoes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Latinos Discedere iussit; & in persistentes, ut in homines praefractos & impudentes, graviter acerbéque invecta est. Haec de Operis Titulo praefari mihi libuit, nè in isthoc vocabulo Missae, veluti in ipso vestibulo, impegisse videar.  
Ex parte Operis primâ, quam Practicam dicimus, constat Institutionis Christi Canones decem, per Tridentinos Canones, in Romana Missa perfringi jugiter & violari; sed maiori nè impudentiâ, an impietate difficile est dicere: nam in Depravationibus istis patrocinandis mille annorum Consuetudini universali anteponunt sequioris aetatis Diutissimè, scilicet, retentam (ut aiunt) trecentorum annorum modernae Ecclesiae Romanae (en!) sapientioris usum contrarium. Deindè Praeceptum praximque Apostolicam à Pontifice Rom. Abrogari posse garriunt: quin & adversus Exemplum Christi, multis retrò seculis vel ab ipsis Rom. Pontificibus sanctè religioseque observatum, obtendunt Consuetudinem contrariam habendam esse pro lege: hoc parum est, quià, quamvis de contrario Praecepto Christi constaret, nihilominùs Ius ipsum divinum à Pontifice Romano relaxari posse, jesuita blasphemo ore pronunciat.  
Sequitur pars altera, quam Dogmaticam nominamus, in multa Membra se diffundens, ità tamen ut horum verborum Christi [HOC EST CORPVS MEUM, etc.] Expositioni literali Mysterij Romani de Eucharistia moles tota nitatur. Quanquàm dùm in istis explicandis Adversarij nostri, Tridentinorum Patrum spiritu afflati, Tropum omnem ab eisdem longè exulare iubent; ipsi tamen (quae est vertigo mera) Tropos sex, velint nolint, coguntur agnoscere. Porrò in una particula [HOC] totius Controversiae cardo vertitur: de qua cum quaeritur, quid ea propriè designet, Pontificij Doctores in duas, easque contrarias, Opiniones distrahuntur. Alij enim per, Hoc, Christi corpus denotari volunt; alij ad aliud (quod ipsi commenti sunt) Individuum Vagum Pronomen illud referunt: ità ut utrique, Andabatarum more, à se invicèm vapulent, dùm hi priorem sententiam prorsùs Absurdam, illi posteriorem Absurditatum plenam non dicunt modò, verúm etiam solidis Argumentis evincunt. jam igitur, hoc uno fundamento ipsorum Pontificiorum Contradictionibus (ut olim Turris Babel) diruto atque dejecto, alia de Transsubstantiatione, de Corporali Christi Praesentia, Coniunctioneque cum corporibus Communicantium, de propriè dicto Sacrificio, & de divina denique Adoratione, superstructa portentosa Dogmata omnia corruere, & labefactari necesse est. De singulis, si placet, pauca delibemus.  
Primo in loco Trans●ubstantiationis non Dogma modò, sed & vox ipsa (multò aliter quam pisces) novitate sua foetent. Ecquid habent, quod opponant? nonnihil, nempè, Patres antiqui (inquiunt) de Conversione hujus Sacramenti verba facientes, Transformationis, Transitionis, Transmutationis, Transelementationis vocabula frequenter usurpârunt: unde ipsissimam suam Transsubstantiationem dilucidè probarigens Romana clamitat & vociferatur. Cum tamen Adversarios nostros minimè lateat, eosdem Sanctos Patres parilibertate sermonis iudicijque synceritate easdem voces singulas ad alias conversiones transtulisse, ut (exempli gratiâ) nunc Verbi praedicati in Auditorem, nunc Corporis Christi in Ecclesiam, nunc hominis Christiani in Christum, nunc denique Corporum Christianorum in ipsam Christi carnem. Vndè sequitur, quâ ratione praeclari isti Disputatores unam duntaxat Transsubstantiationem astruere conantur, eâdem ex ipsa lege Parium (ô homines miserè fascinatos, aliosque miserrimè fascinantes!) quatuor alias tenentur admittere.  
In Membro tertio partis Dogmaticae quaestio de Corporali praesentia Christi in Eucharistia agitatur; quaeque hùc pertinent omnia ad hoc unum Caput reducuntur; Quid sit illud, quod, iuxta Christi institutionem, iam dicitur [Corpus meum?] Hoc Catholica Ecclesia per multa secula ab Apostolicis usque temporibus nullum aliud esse credidit, quam quod à B. Virgin natum, unum, uno in loco Definitum, seu circumscriptum, Organicum quoque, & demùm Sensuum omnium absolutissimâ integritate juxtà & Gloriae perfectione cumulatissimâ praeditum. At quod Romanenses Carbonarijs suis Discipulis obtrudunt, Deus bone! quale Corpus, & quam minimè illud MEUM? Primò (id enim natura Transsubstantiationis necessariò exigit) Corpus, quale Pistores pinsunt, ex pane confectum; mox Corpus (namque hoc discontinuitas locorum per se postulat) multiplex, quale Geryonis illud fuisse fingitur: post, Corpus, (quià non definitiuè in loco) quale esse nullum potest, Infinitum: dein Corpus, (quia totum in qualibet parte loci) quale quis vix somniare potest, Paraphysicum: insuper Corpus (ut ipsi aiunt) omni movendi, sentiendi, intelligendique facultate destitutum, id est, coecum, surdum, exanime: Corpus denique nullis non sordibus cuiusvis sterquilinij, & locorum, quae honestè nominari non possunt, inhonestissimorum obnoxium. Qualia Opinionum portenta, ut omninò Haeretica, veteres Patres semper execrati sunt.  
Verùm enimverò diversarum aetatum subrancidas, Historias, si numeremus, Tredecim proferunt, in quibus memoria de verissimae carnis, verissimique sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Apparentiâ verissimâ Lectoribus commendatur. In quibus Miraculis, tanquàm in Dei testimonijs omni exceptione majoribus Adversarij nostri mirificè gloriantur; & dici vix potest quantoperè miseros mortales hâc una Persuasione sua dementarunt: cum tamen haec verissima, scilicet, si ponderentur, vanissima esse singula apparebunt. In quem finem bonis illis Historicis valedicentes, rectà Scholas petimus, exploraturi an Scholastici eandem insanirent insaniam. Hi tantum abest ut istis Legendarijs fidem assensionemve praebeant, ut in eiusmodi Apparitionibus vel veram carnem Christi, vel omninò veram carnem inesse ausint non pernegare modò, verum-etiam contrariam hanc suam sententiam exquisitis rationibus defendere. Quanquam quid horum probatione opus est? quandoquidem nemoferè est tàm muccosis naribus (modò non sensus suos prorsus obstruat) cui non suboleat, imò qui non eas legendo planè odoretur, & persentiscat has fabulas à maleferiatis hominibus aniliter esse confictas.  
Quarto, In Corporali sua (ut vocant) Christi conjunctione cum Corporibus Communicantium nihil aliud cernere licet quam Capernaiticam quandam stupiditatem; quoties Pontificios audimus antiquas suas canere Cantilenas: se nimirùm Dentibus terere, gutturibus deglutire, hoc est, ut nos quidem interpretamur, verè devorare; atque insuper hominum visceribus permiscere; imo tàm canum, muriumque, nec non vilissimi cujusque animalis intestinis, quam ullius etiam sanctissimi viri, qui illius particeps esse potest. Quis deinceps miretur fuisse olim qui Philosophos se dicerent, qui asserebant, Nivem sibi atram videri, Coelum consistere, & Terram motione suâ eâque perpetuâ rotari?  
Hosce scopulos praetervecti, in Contentionum labyrinthum dilabimur, de Sacrificio Missae, tot Amphibologijs & verborum involucris, tot Opinionum Antilogijs, ceu viarum anfractibus, & sinuosi Maeandris undique implicitam, ut absque commoda aliqua Distinctione difficiles, imo impossibiles habeat explicatus; eòque magis, quòd apud veteres Patres (ut quod res est liberè fateamur) de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia Incruento frequens est mentio. quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam, alioqui Doctorum hominum, ingenia exercuerint, torserint, vexaverint; aut econtrà quam jactantèr Pontificiy de ea re se ostentent: cum tamen hic nodus uno hoc Distinctionis quasi cuneo facilè discindatur. Corpus Christi dupliciter sumitur, velut Subjectum Celebrationis Eucharisticae, velut Objectum ejus. Si Subjectiuè accipiatur pro eo, cui externa Accidentia insunt, tùm non potest non Corporalem Praesentiam Christi designare: sin verò Objectivè tantùm, habitâ Relatione ad Christi corpus, vel ut olim in cruce pendentis, vel ut nunc in Coelo regnantis, Praesentiam duntaxat Symbolicam declarat; quoniam Objectum, licet rei cruentae, ut in Scaena, ipsum est tamen Incruentum. Id quod sex Argumenta, ex veterum Patrum testimonijs deprompta, dilucidè demonstrant. Eadem igitur Distinctione quivis poterit ità prorsùs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut non habeant quod contrà mussitent. Quid? quod praetereà etiam Romana Missa Grandis Sacrilegij rea arguitur.  
Ad extremum, extremae & nefandae Idolomaniae Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum, quae est Sacramenti Eucharistiae divina Adoratio, in medium protrahitur; ubi id, quod adorant, Posse esse adhuc Panem, propter ferè infinitos Defectus, ipsi Adversarij ultrò concedunt: & Nos, Non posse illud non panem esse, juxta Veterum sententiam, ex Rationibus circiter sexdecim evicimus: atque etiam quas Adorandi Formulas, ceu Pretextus, excusationis ergò, sibi tanquàm larvas induxerunt, illis detraximus, ut vultus eorum deformes horridique appareant; usque eò ut illi Idololatricâ impietate Ethnicos aequare, Excusationis verò futilitate longè superare videantur. Quid tandem? tota ferè Missae defensio Manicheorum, Eunomianorum, Marcionitarum, Eutychianorum, aliorumque multorum Haerefibus scatet passim, ut in postrema nostra Synopsi, veluti in speculo, contemplari quivis possit. Dùm ista literis consigno, ostensae sunt mibi, inter alias, Theses duae, quas Isaacus Casaubonus▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Adversarijs suis, propriâ manu scriptis, post se reliquit. Prima, justa Causa est (inquit) cur Transsubstantiatio rejiciatur, ut evitentur Absurda. Altera haec est; Veteres nunquam dixerunt destrui Symbola, sed semper de Signis locuti sunt, quasi de re ipsa. Quae quam verae sunt, & juxta Veterum sententiam ad Causam nostram oppidò necessariae, nostri muneris erit suo loco copiosè ostendere. Priusquàm verò perorare mihi liceat, vos orandi estis (Viri ornatissimi) ut de Adversariorum nostrorum Iniquitate, de meoquè erga vos studio ac Benevolentia nonnihil attexam.  
Bellarmino, Alano, Maldonato, alijsque Romanae Missae Asserioribus suum, ut par est, ingenij acumen, exactum & perspicax ingenium, omnium de●que tàm humanae quam divinae literaturae accuratam cognitionem facitè tribuimus; ità tamen ut in iis, dùm nostros Theologos criminantur, veritatem; dum suas opiniones defendunt, constantiam; dùm Patres, Patres crepant, obiectant, inculcant, fidem modestiamque defideremus. Vt nihil de Eorum juramentis dicamus, quibus se obstrinxerunt, non sine aliqua notâ Periurij; quod Synopsis nostra Secunda satis superque declarat.  
Ad nostram quod attinet Sacratissiman Eucharistiam; quia à Ministro Elementa consecrantur & benedicuntur, non minùs Sacramenta sunt, quam est aqua Baptismatis; quae tamen Istis non pudet probris suis contaminare, dum partem alteram merum Pistoris panem, alteram Oenopolae vinum nudum appellant nequitèr. Deindè (ut alias eorum Calumnias praetervolem) quòd eorum de Corporali Christi Praesentiâ in Eucharistiâ fanaticam opinionem, tanquàm impossibilem, propter implicitam Contradictionem, oppugnamus; Illi, quasi hoc esset Dei omnipotentiae detrahere, in nos impotentèr debacchantur. Si cui lubeat singulas Operis huius Sectiones percurrere, vix in aliquam incidet aut Obiectionem Adversariorum prosua Missa, aut Responsionem, aut denique Scripturae expositionem quam non facilè observet ab aliis Pontificijs Doctoribus aut luculentâ ratione solutam, enervatam, explosam; aut denique (quod maius est) per receptas Ecclesiae Romanae doctrinas oppugnatam. Nae illa praeclara est istorum hominum constantia, qui si minùs viribus nostris, suâ tamen imbecillitate & dissentione vincuntur, atque succumbunt.  
Praetereà de Pontificiorum Doctorum versutia obstinaciaque satis queri vix possumus. Versutia eorum cernitur cum in rebus aliis, tûm praecipuè in abutendis veterum Patrum Testimoniis, sive per falsas Editiones Translationesque ea depravando; sive novo excogitato Commento illudendo; sive denique adversis frontibus oppugnando: quorum omnium Exempla plurima Libri singuli sequentes vobis exhibent. Obstinaciae verò eorum specimen nullum potest esse illustrius, quam (quod in altera Synopsi nostra videre est) ex Veterum sententijs facta Collatione Eucharistiae cum Baptismate. Illi ad sua Dogmata stabilienda de Praesentia Corporali Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, ipsiusque adeò Adoratione Latreutica obijciunt Nobis, Patres negâsse Eucharistiam esse nudum Panem. Nos reponimus, eosdem Patres paritèr negâsse, in Baptismate esse Aquam nudam. At opponunt, Veteres Eucharistiam Sacrificium vocâsse. Nos rursùs, Baptisma quoque Sacrificium nominant. Illi, At apud Patres Eucharistia Sacramentum Terribile & Venerabile dicitur. Regerimus nos, à Patribus moneri homines ad Baptisma, utpote quod venerandum sit, cûm Tremore accedere. Pergimus dein, & per sexdecim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 par pari referimus, quod Adversariorum nostrorum, nisi animos obsirment, Conscientias mordeat & lancinet; sed manu tamen medicâ, ut sanet. Eant igitur Antagonistae nostri, & cum de Antiquitate agitur nos (ut solent) Novatores appellitent, nunquàm tamen efficiet, quin ipsi (ut praeclarè olim Clariss. vir josephus Scaliger) Veteratores habeantur.  
Redeo ad Vos tandem (dignissimi Viri) quorum intimos animorum conceptus audire mihi videor: quibus, quoad possim, & liceat, occurrendu esse● duxi. Prim in loco, Fateor equidem me iamdiú in ist usmodi Polemicis negotijs exercuisse calamum; non quòd nesciverim à Detractione neminem esse immunem, nisi qui nihil scriberet: sed quòd abundè noverim pro salute Patriae, proquè patria salutis, atque adeò pro fidei synceritate nullum non laborem esse subeundum. Secundò multos alios multo majore cum profectu munere hoc defungi posse agnosco: veruntamen, quatenùs praestare quicquam valeam, illud S. Augustini aures mihi vellicat, animumque stimulat: Qui mendacium docet (inquit) & qui veritatem tacet, uterque reus est; alter qui● prodesse non vult, alter quia nocere desiderat. Nec profectò hanc Romulei stabuli (cum purgandi non datur) exagitandi provinciam, in re Missatica, alio animo suscepi, quam ut omnes (quibus veritas cordi est) intelligant, Nos Anglicanae Ecclesiae Alumnos Causam nactos esse Divinis literis consentientem maximè, Catholicae Antiquitatis suffragijs comprobatam, mille omnis ordinis Martyrum sanguine testatam; imò etiam (addendum est enim) cuiusvis Christiani, si fieri posset, vel mille mortibus obsignandam. Praetereà, Romanae Ecclesiae Tyrunculis omissis, Antesignanos ipsos libentiùs aggredior, duplici ratione adductus; quià primò, his profligatis, illi non possunt consistere: deindè ut clariùs constet, in illam Ecclesiam quadrare illud Christi; Si lumen, quod in te, tenebrae, ipsae tenebrae quantae? Quos tamen, dûm Argumentis prosequor, non probris insector; quià in hoc altero Certaminis genere vincere vinci est: nam praeclarè olim Artaxerxes Rex militi, hostem convitijs proscindenti, Non ut maledicas te alo, (inquit) sed ut pugnes.  
Cur verò vobis potissimùm has meas Lucubrationes dedicarem, plurimae me Causae impulerunt. Antiquitùs plurimi dicebantur Episcopi Catholicae sive Vniversalis Ecclesiae, non solùm quòd Catholicam tenerent fidem, sed etiam quòd suam pro incolumitate Ecclesiae Vniversalis curam Scriptis & laboribus testarentur. Egone igitur ut non illud studium ergà utramque Vniversitatem profitear meum, quod ipsi (ut ità dicam) Vniversalitati debeam? Huc accedit (nam quidni fidorum Amicorum literis fidem habeam?) quòd cum vos Opus nostrum aliud, tribus abhinc annis publici iuris factum, non vulgari animorum vestrorum significatione approbâsse intellexerim; hocque, quod nunc ad umbilicum perduxi, non minori cum desiderio expectâsse (quorum illud GRANDEM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE IMPOSTURAM detexit, hoc ROMANAE MISSAE IDOLOMANIAM, tanquàm immane monstrum, confodicat) non committendum putavi, ut non grati animi meum hoc testimonium Vobis referrem. Quid? quòd Causae ipsius necessitas quoque id à me exigere videbatur, quae profectò in hac Causa homines Academicos nihil minùs quam Academicos & Scepticos esse sinet; nè quis vestrûm (quod detestabile omen Deus obruat!) in Rom. Artolatriam prolabatur, quò vel aliis scandalo, Majestati divinae odio, sibi ipsi denique certo exitio esse possit.  
Postremò, in hanc spem adducor, nunquàm defuturos ex utraque Academia viros plurimos, Theologici juris consultisses. omnibusque armis instructissimos, non modò ad hujusce Causae patrocinium sustinendum, verumetiam ad Mataeologiam omnem Romanensium expugnandam. Pergite igitur ô macti antiqua prudentia & veritate, pergite, inquam, & Amantissimum Vestri diligite; quod rectius noveritis impertite, & precibus vestris adjuvate. In Christo Jesus valete, qui vos conservet in gloriam Gratiae suae! AMEN.  
Tho. Coven. & Lichff.   

An Advertisement  
To all Romish Priests and Jesuits of the English Seminaries, concerning the Necessity of this ensuing Treatise; as also of the Author's Sincerity, and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors.  
Grace, Peace, and Truth in CHRIST JESUS.  
AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion, none were ever more hot, to draw Protestants violently into the fire, than these two; first the denying of your Roman Church to be The Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation: the second to affirm the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous. Therefore have I especially undertaken the discussion of both these Questions, that seeing (as S. Augustine truly said) It is not the punishment, but the Cause which maketh a Martyr; it might fully appear to the world, whether Protestant's enduring that fiery trial, for both Causes, were indeed Heretics, or true Martyrs: and consequently whether their Persecutors were just Executioners of persons then condemned, and not rather damnable Murderers of the faithful Servants of Christ. And I doubt not but as the first hath verified the Title of that Book, to prove your Doctrine of the Necessity of salvation in your Romish Church to be a GRAND IMPOSTURE: So this second, which I now (according to my promise) present unto you, will make good, by many Demonstrations, that your Romish MASS is a very Mass, or rather a Gulf of many Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Positions and Practices.  
And because the very name of Roman Church is commonly used as (in itself) a powerful enchantment to stupefy every Romish Disciple, and to strike him deaf and dumb at once, that he may may neither hear nor utter any thing in Conference concerning the Mass, or any other Controversy in Religion, be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for truth, or ancient for time, or universal for Consent, or necessary for belief: I therefore held it requisite, in the first place, to discover the falsehood of the former Article of your Church, before I would publish the Abominations of the Mass; to the end that (for Idolatry in Scripture is often termed spiritual Adultery) the Romish Church, which playeth the Bawd, in patronising Idolatry, being once outted, your Romish Mass, as the Strumpet, might the more easily either be reform, or wholly abandoned.  
This may satisfy you for the necessity of this Tractate. The next must be to set before you your own delusorie tricks, in answering, or not answering Books written against you; especially such as have been observed from mine own experience. One is to stangle a Book in the very birth: so dealt Mr. Breereley long since by a letter writ unto me, to prevent the publishing of my Answer against the first Edition of his Apology, when he sent me a second Edition thereof to be answered, which both might and ought to have been sent a twelvemonth sooner; but was purposely reserved to be delivered not until the very day after my 
* See the Protestants Appeal in the beginning.  Answer (called and Appeal) was published. Of which his prevention I have therefore complained as of a most unconscionable Circumvention. Another device you have, to give out that the Book (whatsoever) written against your Romish Tenants is in answering, and that an Answer will come out shortly. So dealt Mr. Parsons with me 
* In his Sober Reckoning.  Certifying me and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which he had received from a Scottish Doctor, censuring my Latin Apologies to be both fond and false; and promising that his Answer to them, Printed at Gratz in Austria, should be published before the Michaelmas following: whereas there have been above twenty. Michaelmasses sithence, every one giving Mr. Parsons his promise the flat lie. A third Art is a voluntary▪ Concealment and thus Master Brereley, who having had knowledge of the forementioned Book of Appeal, manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absurdities in doctrine, his ignorances and frauds in the abuse of his Authors, as in other passages throughout that book, so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Mass, yet since hath written a large Book, in defence of the Romish Liturgy or Mass, urging all the same proofs and Authorities of Fathers; but wisely concealing that they had been confuted, and his fashoods discovered. Only he and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeal an explanation which I gave of the testimony of Gelasius (in condemning the Manichees, concerning their opinion of not administering the Eucharist in both kinds) did both of them divulge it in their Books and reports also in many parts of this kingdom, as making for the justification of their sacrilegious dismembering the holy Sacrament, and fora foul Contradiction unto myself: notwithstanding that this their scurrilous iusultation (as is 
* Book 1. c. 3. §. 7.  here proved) serveth for nothing rather than to make themselves ridiculous. The last, but most base and devilish, Gullery is a false imputation of Falsehoods in the alleging of Authors, which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons; a man as subtler for invention, as elegant for expression, for observation as dextrous and acute, and as politic and persuasive for application, as any of his time. He in an answer to some Treatises written against your Romish black art of Aequivocation by mental Reservation, and other Positions fomenting Rebellion (to wit) in his books of Mitigation and Sober Reckoning, doth commonly leave the principal Objections & Reasons, and falleth to his verbal skirmishes, concerning false Allegations: and (as turning that Ironical counsel into earnest, Audacter & fortiter calumniare etc.) he chargeth me with no less than fifty Falsifications. All which I spunged out in a Book entitled an Encounter, and retorted all the same Imputations of falsehood upon himself, with the interest of above forty more. Which may seem to verify that Cognizance, which your own Brotherhood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeve, calling him The Quintessence of coggery.  
As for mine own integrity, I have that which may justify me; for howsoever any one or other Error may happen, in misalleaging any one Author, yet that I have not erred much; or if at all, yet never against my Conscience. Hereof I have many witnesses; One within me, a witness most Domestical, yet least partial, and as good as Thousands, mine own Conscience: a second is above me, God, who is Greater than the Conscience. A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by me, even all they who have been conversant with me in the perusal and examination of Author's Testimonies, by me alleged; men of singular learning and judgement, who can testify how much they endeared them-selves unto me, when any of them happened to show me the least error in any thing. (He that shall say, Non possum errare, must be no man; and he that will not say, Nolo errare, as hating to err, can be no Christian man.) The last witness for my integrity may be the Books of my greatest Adversaries, Mr. Parsons, and Mr. Brereley, whose many scores of falsehoods have been laid so open and published for above sixteen years passed in two Books (one called an Encounter against the foreman, the other an Appeal against the second) yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries for the vindicating of them herein.  
By these Advertisements you may easily conceive with what confidence I may proceed in this work, wherein is displayed and laid open, in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, [HE BLESSED; BRAKE; GAVE; TO THEM; SAYING; TAKE; EAT; DRINK,] your Ten Romish Prevarications, and Transgressions. Afterwards in the following Books are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes, Sacrilegiousnes, and Idolatry of your MASS; together with the notorious Obstinacies, some few Overtures of Perjuries (out of that great Sum, which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Roman Faith) and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof: as also their indirect and sinister Objecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Father's throughout, as if they contended neither from Conscience, nor for Consciencesake.  
To Conclude. Whosoever among you hath been fascinated (according to your Collier's Catechism) with that only Article of an Implicit Faith; let him be admonished to submit to that Duty prescribed by the Spirit of God, to Try all things, and to Hold that which is good. And if any have a purpose to Rejoine, in Confutation either of the Book of the Romish Imposture, or of this, which is against your Mass; I do adjure him in the name of Christ, whose truth we seek, that avoiding all deceitful Collusions he proceed materially from Point to point, and labour such an Answer, which he believeth he may answer for before the judgement seat of Christ. Our Lord jesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace. AMEN,  
Tho: Coven: & Lichff.   


The principal Heads of the Tractate following.  
I. BOOK. VNfoldeth the Ten Transgressions of the Canon of our Lord Christ his Institution, in the now Romish Mass.  
II. BOOK. Manifesteth the palpable Falsehood of the Romish Exposition of Christ's words of Institution, [THIS IS MY BODY.]  
III. BOOK. Discovereth the Novelty and (indeed) Nullity of the Romish Article of Transubstantiation: and proveth the Continuance of the substance of Bread, after Consecration.  
IV. BOOK. Reveileth the manifold Contradictions in the Romish Defence of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; and consequently a necessary Impossibility thereof, without the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God (yea with the advancement thereof:) Together with a Discovery of the falsehood of their Thirteen Histories, relating so many Apparitions of True Flesh, and true Blood of Christ in the Eucharist: As also showing the Determination of the General Council of Nice upon the the point of Corporal Presence.  
V. BOOK. Noteth the threefold Capernaitical Conceit in the Romish (pretended) Corporal manner of Eating, Swallowing, and g●t-receiving of Christ's flesh.  
VI BOOK. Displayeth the manifold and gross Sacrilegiousnes in the Romish Mass; upon their profession of a Proper and properly Propitious Sacrifice therein.  
VII. BOOK. Proveth the abhominable-double Idolatrousnes of the Romish Mass, as well Formal as Material.  
VIII. BOOK. Besides the Three Synopses or Summarie Comprehensions; First of the superstitiousness; Secondly, of the Sacrilege; Thirdly, of the Idolatry of the Romish Mass; it further declareth the divers Perjuries, and Obstinacies of the Defenders; and also the many notorious Heresies in the Defence thereof.    

OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST, etc.  

The first Book.  
Concerning the Active part of Christ his Institution of the Eucharist; and the Ten Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof.  

CHAP. I.  

That the Original of the word, MASS, nothing advantageth the Romish Mass.  
SECT. I.  
DIvers of your Romish 
a Nomen antiquissimum, Missa, (quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur) ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur, Missah, i. e. spontanea oblatio, conveniens instituto Sacrificio. Baron. Cardin. Anno 34. num. 59 Est Hebraicum. Tolet. Ies. & Cardin. Instruct. Sacerd. li. 2. c. 4. Quidam, ut Reulin, Alcian, Xaintes, Pintus, Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum. At Azor. jes. reporteth, in Inst. Moral. par. 1. li. 10. ca 18.  Doctors would have the word, MASS, first to be (in the first and primitive Imposition and use thereof) Divine. Secondly, in time, more ancient than Christ. Thirdly, in signification, most Religious, derived (as They say) from the Hebrew word Missah, which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice; even the highest homage that can be performed unto God. And all this to prove (if it may be) that which you call THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.  

CHALLENGE.  
SO have these your Doctors taught, notwithstanding many other Romanists, as well Jesuits as others of principal Note in your Church, enquiring (as it were) after the native Country, kindred, and age of the Word, MASS, do not only say, but also prove, first, that It is no Hebrew-borne. Secondly, that it is not of Primitive antiquity, because not read of before the days of S. Ambrose, who lived about three hundred seventy three years after Christ. Thirdly, that it is a plain Latin word, to wit Missa, signifying the Dismission of the Congregation. Which Confessions being testified (in our 
b Latinum, non Hebraicum est, ut Neoterici studiosè exquitunt. Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur complures. Durant. de Ritib. l. 2. c. 2. p. 190, 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin. Salmeron Ies. Epist. ad Canis. de nomine Missae. [So also Azor. the Ies. in the place above▪ cited.] Multò probabilius esse Latinam; nam si vox Hebraica in usu apud Apostolos fuisfet, certè retinuissent eam Graeci, & Sylli, aliaeque Nationes, ut retinuerunt vocem Hosanna, Allelujah, Pascha, Sabbatum, & similes voces.— Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio; pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt: est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aeunus, sive ministerium publicum. Bellar. l. 1. de Missa. c. 1. Melius qui Latinam— Suarez Ies. in Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 74. §. 3. [wheres he allegeth Lindan. Thom. Hug. de Vict.] Leo primus quidem est author, apud quem legerim Missae verbum. Masson. l. 2. de Episc. Rom. in Leon. 1. [And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellar. or Binius, in the places before-quoted, could mention.] Missa à Missione dicta est. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 16. pag. 390, 391. [It is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church: and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romans.] See the Testimony following.  Margin) by so large a consent of your own Doctors, proved by so clear Evidence, and delivered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your own Church; must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors (noted for Neotericks) who have vainly laboured, under the word MASS, falsely to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing Mass.    

That the word, MASS, in the Primitive signification thereof, doth properly belong unto the Protestants: and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Mass.  
SECT. II.  
THe word, MASS, (by the 
c Missa à Missione dicta est, quoniam Catechumeni ●â susceptâ foras de Ecclesia emitterentur: ut in ritibus Paganorum dici consueverat, Ilicet, quod per Syncopen idem est ac, Ire licet. Sic nostrum verbum, Missa, Ite, missa est. Salmeron. Ies. in the place above-cited, p. 390, 391. Sic accipitur in iure Canonico, & in Patribus etiam, atque Concilijs. Azor. Ies. Inst. par. 1 pag 850. Gemin● Missio; prima Catechumenorum, alia peractis sacris, Missâ completâ. Binius in the place aforecited. Esse à dimissione, per ●te, missa est, tenet Alcuin. Amalar. Fortunat. Durant. quo suprà. [And the other forenamed Authors, who confess the word to be Latin, do hold that it cometh of Ite, Missa est; ●or] jubebantur exire Catechumeni, & Poenitentes, ut qui nondum ad communicandum praeparaverant. Cassaud. Consult. Art. 24. As also in his Tract. de solit. Missa p. 217. with others. (See more hereafter, Chap. 2. §. 5. where this point is discussed.) [As for the dismissing of the whole Congregation after the receiving of the Sacrament, by an Ite, missa est, it was used in the second place, after the other. See Binius above]  Confession of Jesuits and others, and that from the authority of Counsels, Fathers, Canon-Law, Schoolmen, and all Latin Liturgies) is therefore so called from the Latin phrase [Missa est] especially, because the company of the Catechumenists, and those which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament, after the hearing of the Gospel, or Sermons, were Dismissed, and not suffered to stay, but commanded To depart. Which furthermore your Ies. Maldonate, out of Isidore, the most ancient Authors, and all the Liturgies, is compelled to confess to be the 
d Alij, ut Isidorus de diuin. office dixerunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem, à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur: quam sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss. Authoribus.— Clamabat enim Diaconus post Concionem, Catechumeni exeunto, et qui communicare non possunt: ut constat ex omnibus Liturgijs, ubi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacrificio. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7 Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Primum. p. 335.  Most true meaning of Antiquity.  
Which Custom of exempting all such persons, being every where religiously taught and observed in all Protestant Churches; and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers, at this day, being exercised only in looking and gazine upon the Priest's manner of celebrating your Roman Mass, without communicating thereof, contrary to the Institution of Christ; contrary to the practice of Antiquity; and contrary to the proper use of the Sacrament: (All which 
* See Chap. 2. Sect. 9  hereafter shall be plentifully showed) it must therefore follow, as followeth.  

CHALLENGE.  
Whereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your speeches, more ordinary in your outhes, or more sacred in your common estimation, than the name of the Mass; yet are you, by the signification of that very word, convinced of a manifest Transgression of the Institution of Christ: and therefore your great Boast of that name is to be judged false, and absurd. But of this Transgression more 
* See below, Chap. 2. Sect. 5.  hereafter.    

The Name of CHRIST his MASS how far it is to be acknowledged by Protestants.  
SECT. III.  
THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies, and others, naming the Institution of Christ, 
e Durand. Ration. lib. 4. c. 1. & Durant: de Ritib. l. 2. c. 3. So Christoph. de Capit● fontium Archiep. Caesar. var. Tract. de Christi Missa, pag. 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent:— Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat.  call it his Mass. And how often do we hear your vulgar people talking of Christ his Mass? Which word MASS (in the proper signification already specified) could not possibly have been so distasteful unto us, if you had not abused it to your feigned, and (as you now see) false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation and Sacrifice. Therefore was it a superfluous labour of Mr. 
f Liturg. Trac. 1. §. 1.  Brereley, to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word, MASS.  

CHALLENGE.  
FOr otherwise We (according the above-confessed proper Sense thereof) shall, together with other Protestants in the 
* Confess. Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini.  Augustane Confession, approve and embrace it; and that to the just Condemnation of your present Roman Church, which in her Mass doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification thereof, according to the Testimony of Micrologus, saying; 
g Microl. de Eccl. obseruat. c. 1. Propter hoc certe dicitur Missa, quoniam mittendi sunt foràs, qui non participant Sacrificio, vel communione Sancta. Teste Cassand. Liturg fol 59  The Mass is therefore so called, because they that communicate not, are commanded to depart. By all which it is evident, that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Mass, which she hath appropriated to herself as a flag of ostentation (whereof more 
* See below. c. 2. sect. 9  hereafter.) In the Interim, we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your own Waldensis, saying, 
h Attend Missam Christi, etc. walden's. de Missa.  ATTEND, and observe the Mass OF CHRIST.    

Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASS, and at what words it beginneth.  
SECT. IV.  
CHrist his Mass, by your own 
i Hoc officium Christus instituit, ubi dicitur, [Accepit Iesus panem] Durand. Ration. l. 4. c. 1. p. 165. Christus instituit, Lu. 22 Accepto pane, etc. Durant. de ●iti. l. 2. c. 3 p. 211.  confession, beginneth at these words of the Gospel, concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist, Math. 26. Luc. 22. [And jesus took bread, etc.] which also we do as absolutely profess.  

What Circumstances, by joint consent on both sides, are to be exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Mass; or the words of his Institution.  
It is no less Christian wisdom and Charity to cut off unnecessary Controversies, than it is a serpentine malice to engender them; and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ, beginning at these words; [And jesus took bread, etc.] To know, that all other circumstances, which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally, or but occasionally (because of the than jewish Passeover, which Christ was at that time to finish; or else by reason of the custom of judaea) do not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Mass; whether it be that they concern Place, (for it was instituted in a private house:) or Time, (which was at night:) or Sex, (which were only men:) or Gesture, (which was a kind of lying down:) or Vesture, (which was we know not what:) no nor yet whether the Bread were unleavened, or the Wine mixed with water, two points which (as you know) Protestants and yourselves 
k Antiquissimus decumbendi usus more accumbendi nondum invento, ex Philone lib. de jos pho.— judaeorum mos jacendi inter Epulas. Amos c. 2. 〈◊〉. Foeneratores super Vestimenta in pignus accepta discumbunt iuxta quoduis altar: ubi vestimenta pro lectis. Casaub. Exerc. 16. in Baron. [And lest any might object a necessity of representation Aquae, quae fluxit è corpore Christi, Bonavent. q. 3. D. 11. clears it thus] Dicendum quòd per aquam illam non signatur aqua ista, nec è converso: sed aqua illa aquam Baptismatis signat. [Again, concerning the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is plain, that although Azymes were used by Christ, it being then the Paschal feast, yet was this occasionally by reason of the same feast, which was prescribed to the jews, as was also the eating of the Lamb.] Graeca Ecclesia peccaret consecrans in Azymo. Tolet Ies. instruct. lib. 2. cap. 25. Lutherani non disputant de necessitate fermenti, aut Azymi. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 7. Res videtur esse indifferens in se, sed ità ut peccatum sit homini Graeco contra morem & mandatum suae Ecclesiae in Azymo: & nos in Latina Ecclesia, nisi in Azymo, sine scelere non facimus. Alan Card. l. 1. de Euch cap. ●2. pag. 267. Error est dicere alterutrum panem, sive azymum sive fermentatum, esse simplici●er de necessitate Sacramenti in hac vel illa Ecclesia: tàm Graecis quam Latinis licet consuetudinem suae Ecclesiae sequi. Suarez Ies. Tom 3. disp. 44. §. 3. p. 523. In fermentato confici posse, Ecclesia Latina docet, nam Azymus panis fermentato non substantia, sed qualitate differt. Salmeron Ies. To. 9 Tra. 12. p. 75. Christus dicitur panem accepisse: ex quo intelligitur quemvis panem proprie dictum esse posse materiam Eucharistiae, sive azymum sive fermentatum. jansen. Episc. Concord. c. 131. p. 899. Maior pars Theologorum docet, non esse aquam de necessitate Sacramenti— Opinio illa Cypriani, quod at●inet ad modum loquendi— quod ad rem attiner, non Catholicae Ecclesi●, fortasse etiam nec Cypriani. Bel. l. 4. de Euch. c. 11. §. Quinto. And of leavened Bread, Mr. Brerely Lit. Tract. 4. §. 6. p. 413. when the Ebionites taught ●nleavened Bread to be necessary, the Church commanded consecration to be made in leavened Bread.  giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament, but in their own nature Indifferent; and only so far to be observed, as the Church, wherein the Christian Communicants are, shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof.    

The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Mass, and appertaining to our present Controversy, are of two kinds, viz. 1. Practical. 2. Doctrinal.  
SECT. V.  
Practical or Active is that part of the Canon, which concerneth Administration, Participation, and Receiving of the holy Sacrament, according to this Tenor, Math. 26. 26. [And jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, etc. And Luc. 22. 19, 20. Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also after Supper be taken the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this.] But the points, which are especially to be called Doctrinal, are implied in these words of the Evangelists; [This is my Body: And, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many for remission of sins.] We begin with the Practical.    

CHAP. II.  That all the proper Active and Practical points (to wit, of Blessing, Saying, Giving, Taking, etc.) are strictly commanded by Christ in these words [DO THIS,] Luc. 22. Matth. 26. & 1. Cor. 11. 

SECT. I.  
THere are but two outward material parts of this Sacrament, the one concerning the element of Bread, the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both, whether in Administering, or Participating thereof, are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholic unto the ends of the World. The Tenor of his Precept or command, for the first part, is [Do this:] and concerning the other likewise saying, 1. Cor. 11. 25. [This do ye as often, etc.] Whereof your own Doctors, aswell Jesuits as there's have rightly 
a [Hoc facite.] Alter sensus est, Facite viz. quod feci— Christus accepit panem, gratias egit, benedixit, etc. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis, eorumque successoribus Sacerdotibus. Barrad. Ies. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 82. col. 2. [which sense he also embraceth, although he excludeth not a second.] Illud [Hoc facite] posuit post datum Sacramentum, ut intelligeremus iu●●i●●e Dominum ut sub etc. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 25. §. Resp. mirab. Idem. [Hoc facite] illud i●bet ut totam actionem Christi●mitemur. Ib. c 13. § Quod illa.— Pronomen [Hoc] non tantum ad sumptionem, sed & ad omnia, quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur, refertur: mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit, nempè, Accipere panem, gratias agere. ●ansen. Episc. Concord. c 131. p. 903. Again Bellar. Videtur ●n. sententia johannis à Lovanio valde probabilis, qui docet verba Domini [Hoc facite] apud Lucam ad omnia referri (id est) ad id quod fecit Christus, & id quod egerunt Apostoli: ut sit sensus, Id quod nunc agimus; Ego dùm consecro & porrigo, & vos dùm accipitis, etc. frequentate usque ad mundi consummationem. Profert n. idem Author veteres Pa●res, qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem, Cyp●. l. 2. Epist. 3. Damas' l. 4. de fide. c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum, ut Basil. reg. mor. 21. Cyril Alex. l. 11. in joh. c. 58. Thus far Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur.— [Hoc facite] Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea, quae verbis antecedentibus, in ipsa narratione Institutionis, habentur, [Viz. to those circumstances, which go before that, He took bread, etc.] nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi [Hoc] & verbi [Facite] ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur, ad eas tantum actiones referatur, quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat, velfaciendas significabat: quae quid em actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis, quae incipit ab illis verbis [Accipiens panem.] Greg Valent. Ies. Tract. de usu alterius spec. in Euch. c. 2. §. Id manifestè— [Hoc facite.] Ex tribus Euangelistis, & ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto & praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse. Alan. Card. de Euch. c. 10 p. 255. [Hoc facite.] Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, tàm à Presbyteris quam à plebe faciendam. Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in joh. c. 58. ex. Basil. moral. reg. 21. c. 3. Idem Alan. ib. c. 36. p. 646. [Hoc facite.] Idem habet & Paulus 1. Cor. 11. qui narrat id ipsum dici circa calicem, ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo, etc. Quod Lucas complexus est, dicens, Similiter & calicem jansen. Concord c. 131. p. 905. [& Durand. l. 4. c. 1. is of the same mind, calling this Institution of Christ, Officium Missae.] Non dicit, Hoc dicite, sed [Hoc facite.] quia mandat facere quod ipse fecit, sc. Accipere panem, Gratias agere, Consecrare, Sumere, & Dare. Caietan. Card. in Lucam pag. 304. in fine.  determined with a large consent; that the words [DO THIS] have relation to all the aforesaid Acts, even according to the i●dgement of ancient Fathers; excepting only the Time of the Celebration, which was at Supper: and which (together with us) 
b [Coenan tibus autem illis.] & [Postquam coenanit.] Non necesse est huiusmodi Sacramenti celebrationem aut coena praecedat, aut consequatur, nam Christus ante coenaverat, non ut exemplum praeberet, fecit, sed necessariò, quia opo●tebat vetera Sacramenta prius implere, quam nova instituere (id est) agnum paschalem prius edere, quam corpus & sanguinem su●m dare. Agnus autem non alio tempore quam coenae edi poterat. Maldon. Ies. in Mat. 26 super illa verba [Coenantibus autem.] etc.  you say were put in, not for example, but only by occasion of the Passeover, then commanded to be observed. Thus you.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis Command of Christ, being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Divines in the Roman Church, must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance. Upon examination whereof, it will appear unto every Conscience of man, which Professors (namely, whether Protestants or Romanists) are the true and Catholic Executors and Observers of the last will and Testament of our Testator jesus: because that Church must necessarily be esteemed the more loyal and legitimate Spouse of Christ, which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestial Bridegroom. We, to this purpose, apply ourselves to our business, by enquiring what are the Active Particulars, which Christ hath given in charge unto his Church by these his express words [Do this.] All which we are to discover and discuss from point to point.    

TEN TRANSGRESSIONS, And Prevarications against the Command of Christ [DO THIS,] practised by the Church of Rome, at this day, in her Roman Mass.  
SECT. II.  
We list not to quarrel with your Church for lighter matters, albeit your own Cassander forbeareth not to complain that your 
c Has Panis Oblatas, quae nunc ad imaginem nummorum, & ad tenuissimam & levissimam forman a veri panis specie alienam redactae sunt, per contemptum (ab ordinis Rom. Expositore) vocari minutias nummulariarum Oblatarum, quae panis vocabulo indignae sunt: propter quas Ecclesiasticum officium eiusque religio per omnem modum confunditur. Cassand. Liturg. sol. ●6.  Bread is of such extreme thinness and lightness, that it may seem unworthy the name of Bread. Whereas Christ used Solid and tough bread [Glutinosus] saith 
d Panis azymus glutinosus erat, & frangebatur sive manu, siuè cultro. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. v. 42. §. Indicat.  your jesuit) which was to be broken with hands, or cut with knife. Nevertheless, because there is in yours the substance of Bread, therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadows; but we insist upon the words of his Institution.   

The first Transgression of the (now) Church of Rome, in contradicting Christ his Canon, is collected out of these words, [AND HE BLESSED IT;] which concern the Consecration of this Sacrament.  
SECT. III.  
FIrst of the Bread the Text saith [He blessed it:] next of the Cup it is said [When he had given thanks:] Which words in 
e Non dubium est quin apud Euangelistas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem sit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: nam quod Matthaeus & Marcus dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] post de chalice loquentes, dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Lucas & Paulus dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Maldon. Ies. in Math. 26 and Stapleton. Antidote. in eum locum. Promiscuè unum pro altero indesinenter accipi. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 12. Haec duo verba idem valent, ut Cyrillus admonet, & sicut apparet ex Euangelistis, & S. Paulo. Ind est quòd Ecclesia Latina, pro eodem accipiens has voces, simul conjunxit. Idem ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma eius Sacramenti, & idem est, Benedicere, & uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita. Alan. l 1. de Euch. ca 15. p 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere & Consecrare res proposi●as. Idem ibid. Dixit S. Paulus [Calix benedictionis, ●ui benedicimus] i e. cui benedicendo Sacerdotes consecrant in altari, ut exponit B. Remigius. Salmeron. Ies. quo sup. See also jans. Concor. c. 131. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem valere, vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16, 17. Marc. 8. v. 6. 7. Mat. 15. 36.]  your own judgements, are all one as if it should be said, He blessed it with giving of thanks. By the which word, Blessing, he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament. So you.  

The contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass; wherein she, in her Exposition, hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration.  
The Canon of the Romish Mass attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only unto the repetition of these words of Christ [This is my body,] and [This my blood.] etc. and that from the judgement (as 
f Communis sententia est non solùm Theologorum recentiorum, led etiam veterum Patrum, Christum consecrásse his verbis [Hoc est corpus meum. Hic est sanguis meus] Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 13. §. Quod attinet— Probatur ex Conc. Florentino, & Conc. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 1. Barrad. Ies. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum— Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem. Maldon. Ies. Disp. de S. Euch. pag. 134. Nè formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur, ab Euangelistis & Apostolis docemurillam esse formam. Catechis. Rom. de Euch. num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambaous manibus hostiam, profert verba Consecrationis distinctè [Hoc est corpus meum.] Missal. Rom. iussu Pij Quinti Pont. edit. Rubrica Canonis, & Aquinas part. 3. qu. 60. Art. 8.  Some say) of your Council of Florence, and Trent. Moreover you also allege, for this purpose, your public Catechism, and Roman Missal, both which were authorized by the Council of Trent, and command of Pius Quintus then Pope (See the Marginals.) Whereupon it is that you use to attribute such efficacy to the very words, pronounced with a Priestly intention, as to change all the Bread in the Baker's shop, and wine in the Vintner's Cellar into the body and blood of Christ: As your 
* Summa Angelica, tit. Eucharistia num. 25. de P●ne. Sacerdos consecrans ex intentione Ecclesiae unâ vice possit conficere tot hostias, quae sufficerent toti mundo, si necessitas effet Ecclesiae.  Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread.   

CHALLENGE.  
But Christopherus your own Archbishop of Caesarea in his Book dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus, and written professedly upon this Subject, cometh in, compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and Reasons, to prove 
g Christoph. de capite fontium Archiepise. Caesarien. Tract. var. ad Sixtum Quintum Pont. Paris. 1586. Cap. 1. Non solùm Thomas, sed omnes ante Caietanum Theologi fatentur Christum, cum benedixit, consecrasse. Nec ullum verbum (ut ait Alphonsus à Castro) est apud Euangelistas, quo Consecratio significetur, praeter verbum [Benedixit] vel per verbum [Gratias egit] quod ibi pro eodem sumitur.— Cap. 5. Ad formam à Christo institutam obseruandum urget praeceptum imitationis, nempè, [Hoc facite.]— D. jacobus in Missâ sua post recitationem verborum, viz. [Hoc est corpus meum] accedit ad benedictionem, quod est argumentum firmiss. non credidisse eum in sola verborum illorum prolatione Consecrationem fieri. Eodem modo Clemens in Missa suâ. Dionies. cap. 7. Hierarch. dicit, Preces esse effectrices Consecrationis. Ergo non solùm verborum istorum prolatio.— Lindanus probat ex lustino, sine precibus Consecrationem nullam esse. Amalcharius' praef. in lib. de office Apostolos solâ benedictione consectare consuevisse. Idem habet Rabanus,— & Cap. 6 Certum est, Graecoes sustinere, non istis verbis, sed Sacerdotis benedictione, seu precatione Consecrationem fieri— Nullus ex antiquioribus Ecclesiae Doctoribus per sola quatuor verba Christi Consecrationem fieri dixit.— Irridet eos Scotus, qui supernaturalem virtutem, de novo creatam, verbis istis inesse putant,— Scotum sequuntur Scholasticorum turba Landolfus, Pelbertus, Mart. Brotinus, Nic. Dorbellis, Pet. Tarraretus, Catharinus.— Lindanus de justino ait, quòd negat Apostolos istis verbis u●os ad consecrandam Eucharistiam. De Basilio asserit, quòd priscos Patres dicit non fuisse contentos solis istis verbis. Greg l. 7. Ep. 63. Morem fuisse Apostolis ad solam Dominicam orationem oblationem consecrare. Hier. in Sophon. 3. Solennem orationem Sacerdotis precantis Eucharistiam facere. D Ambros. Consecrationem incipere ait ex eoloco Canonis, viz. Quam oblationem tu, Deus, benedictam, etc. Visscire (inquit) quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? accipe quae sint, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, etc. Idem tenet Odo Camerac.— etiam Bern. Audi quid Sacerdos in consecratione corporis Christi dicat, Rogamus (inquit) hanc oblationem benedictam fieri, etc. [And jest that any should object, that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right order of Christ's acts, He addeth;] Omnes nunc provoco Lectores ad legendos Missales libros Liturg. jacobi, Clementis, Bafilij, Chrysost. & Ecclesiae Latinae, & videbunt, nisi sibi oculos eruere velint, quam constanter omnes unoore asserant & testentur, Christum dando Eucharistiam Apostolis dixisse, [Hoc est corpus meum:] post verba [Accipite & manducate.] Hier. Epist. ad Hebdid. q. 2. Panem, quem fregit Christus, dedirque Discipulis esse corpus Domini Saluatoris, dicens, [Accipite & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum.] Haec ille. Nota quòd ait Christum dixisse ad Apostolos, non ad panem. [Hoc est corpus:] Ergò non per ista verba panem consecravit— Si mihi opponant authoritatem Pij Quinti in Catechis. qui post Conc. Tried factus est, ego opponam illi non minoris authoritatis & sanctitatis, eruditionis autem nomine maioris, Innocentij tertij sententiam oppositum sentientis— Et dico, librum illum Catechismi non definiendo, sed magistraliter docendo factum esse. Hactenus ex Archiep. Caesarien.  that the Consecration, used by our Saviour, was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer, which preceded the pronouncing of those words, [Hoc est corpus meum:] [This is my body, etc.] To this purpose he is bold to aver that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholics before Cajetan have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [Benedixit, that is, He blessed it.] And that Saint james and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words, but by Prayer. Then he assureth us that the Greek Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction, by Prayer, and not in the only repetition of the words aforesaid. After this he produceth your subtlest Schooleman Scotus, accompanied with diverse others, Who Derided those, that attributed such a supernatural virtue to the other form of words. After steppeth in your Lindan, who avoucheth justin (one of the ancientest of Fathers) as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words, [Hoc est, etc.] and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer.  
Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals, and you shall further find alleged the Testimonies of Pope Gregory, Hierome, Ambrose, Bernard, and (to ascend higher) the Liturgies of Clement, Basil, Chrysostome, and of the Roman Church itself; in gainsaying of the Consecration, by the only words of Institution, as you pretend. And in the end he draweth in two Popes, contradicting one the other in this point, and hath no other means to stint their jar, but (whereas the authority of both is equal) to think it just to yield rather to the better learned of them both. Whosoever requireth more, may be satisfied by reading of the Book itself.  
It will not suffice, to say, that you also use Prayer in the Romish Liturgy: for the question is not merely of Praying, but wherein the form of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist. Now none can say, that he consecrateth by that Prayer, which he believeth is not ordained for Consecration. We may furthermore take hold, by the way, of the Testification of Mr. 
h Tract. of the Mass, pag. 105.  Brereley a Romish Priest, who out of Basil and Chrysostome, [calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus] alloweth Benediction to have been the Consecration thereof.  
All this Army of Witnesses were no better than Meteors, or imaginary figures of battles in the air, if that the Answer of Bellarmine may go for warrant, to wit, that the only Pronunciation of these words [Hoc est corpus meum] imply in them (as he 
i Verba haec [Hoc est corpus meum] pronuntiata à Sacerdote, cum intentione consecrandi Sacramentum, continent implicitè Invocationem. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quintum arg.  saith) an Invocation, or Prayer. Which words (as any man may perceive) Christ spoke not supplicatorily unto God, but declaratively unto his Apostles, accordingly as the Text speaketh, [He said unto them:] as is also well 
* See the former testimony, letter (g.)  observed by your foresaid Archbishop of Caesarea, out of Saint Hierome. But none of you (we presume) will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples. These words therefore are of Declaration, and not of Invocation. Which (now) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating, by reciting these words [This is my body, etc.] your Divines of Colen 
k Vehemens prorsus insania est, quòd nune arbitrantur se consecrate hoc Sacramentum sine prece, quam Canonem appellamus, absque invocatione super dona, sed tantùm recitatione verborum, etc. Talis recitatio non est Consecratio.— Alitèr profectò erat in Ecclesia orientali, & occidentali.— Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctum fuit, in piece, quâ Sacerdos sic invoca● [Hanc Oblationem quaesumus, Domine, acceptabile facere dignetis, etc. Antididag. de Cath. Relig. per Canon. Eccles. colonians. Tract. de Missa, p. 100 §. An sine prece.  have judged to be a Fierce madness, as being repugnant both to the Eastern and Western Churches. But we have heard diverse Western Authors speak, give leave to an Eastern Archbishop to deliver his mind. 
l Quod autem ille sermo Domini sufficiat ad sanctificationem, nullus neque Apostolus, nec Doctor dixisse cernitur. Nic. Cabasil. Explicat. Euch. c. 29. Latini obijciunt Chrysostomum dicentem; Quemadmodùm opifex sermo dicens [crescite & multiplicamini] semel à Deo dictus perpetuò operatur, etc. Resp. An ergò post illud dictum Dei [Crescite] nullo adhuc opus habemus adiumento, nullâ prece, nullo matrimonio? Ibid.  No Apostle, or Doctor is known to affirm (saith he) those sole words of Christ to have been sufficient for Consecration. So he, three hundred years since, satisfying also the Testimony of Chrysostome, objected to the contrary.  
As miserable, and more intolerable is the Answer of others, who 
* See the Testimony before at the letter (g) towards the end.  said that the Evangelists have not observed the right order of Christ his actions: as if he had first said, [This is my body] by way of Consecration, and after commanded them to [Take and eat.] Which Answer your own 
m Alij dixerunt, Christum his verbis semel dictis consec●âsse, sed Evangelistas non seruâsse ordinem in rei gestae narratione. Sed cum omnes Evangelistae conveniunt in hoc, ut dicant, primùm Christum accepisse panem, deindè Benedixisse, tertiò fregisse, & tùm de disse, dicendo [Hoc est corpus meum] videntur non casu, sed consilio Evangelistae rem narrâsse, ut gesta est. Maldon. Jes. Disp. de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. [And among them that do invert the order, is Alan. lib. 〈◊〉. de Euch. c. 15. p. 295.] Alij docuerunt, Christum haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum, etc.] bis repetivisse: quae sententia est falsa, quia null● conjecturâ probari potest. Idem ibidem.  jesuit hath branded with the note of Falsity: yea, so false, that (as it is further 
* See above, lit. (〈◊〉.)  avouched) all ancient Liturgies, aswell Greek as Latin, constantly held, that in the order of the tenor of Christ his Institution it was first said [Tak● ye] before that he said [This is my Body.]  
Lastly, your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former, where, when the judgement of Antiquity is objected against you, requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer unto God: 
n justin. Apol. 2. docet, Oratione confici Eucharistiam. Iren. lib. 4. c. 5. Invocatione nominis Dei. Cyril. Hier. Catech. mystag. 3. & 4. Invocatione Spiritus Sancti. Hieron. Epist. ad Evag. Sacerdotum precibus. August. Semperferè prece mysticâ (ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin.) Sacramentum fieri asserit.— Respondetur, Primò quòd veteres non curabant passim exactè declarate & praecisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur: licet Ministris secretiore institutione ea tradidisse constat. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p. 310. [To whom might be added Cyprian de coena Domini, Calix benedictione sacratus.]  you answer that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people, but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise. Which Answer (besides the falsity thereof) We take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquity, and all one, as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would profess one thing in the Cellar, and proclaim the contrary on the housetop. It were to be wished, that when you frame your Answers, to direct other men's Consciences, you would first satisfy your own, especially being occupied in soule's-businesses.  
We conclude. Seeing that Form (as all learning teacheth) giveth being unto all things; therefore your Church, albeit she use Prayer, yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Form of. Consecration of this Sacrament, how shall she be credited in the Materials; wherein she will be found, aswell as in this, to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ, [DO THIS?]  
Nevertheless, this our Conclusion is not so be interpreted, as (harken 
o It was M. Brereley his error, Liturg. p. 101. in alleging Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Quandò mixtus calix, & fractus panis percepit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia. [Here by verbum Dei, is not meant the words of Hoc est, etc. but Prayer, and the word of Blessing, commanded by the Word of Christ, who blessed it, and commanded his Church, saying, Do this: as appeareth by Iraen. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith, Panis percipiens vocationem (for Invocationem) Dei, non est communis panis.] In the next place Ambrose. l. 4 c. 4 de Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini jesus, etc. Ergò sermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum, nempe is, quo facta sunt omnia, iussit, & factum est. [This is the Allegation; whereas if he had taken but a little pains to have read the Chapter following, be should have received Saint Ambrose his plain Resolution; that they meant the words of Prayer. Visscire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe verba, Dicit Sacerdos, Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam, etc. Then he procecdeth to the Repetition of the whole Institution. We see then that the Latin Church had this form (Fac) even as the Greek had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: both in Prayer, but neither of both without reciting the form of Institution.]  Mr. Brereley) to exclude, out of the words of this Celebration, the Repetition and pronunciation of these words [This is my Body: and, This is my Blood of the new Testament.] far be this from us, because we hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ; and are used in the Liturgy of our Church: for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration, (because not of Petition, but of Repetition) yet are they Words of Direction; and, withal, Significations and Testifications of the mystical effects thereof. Your Objection out of the Fathers is 
* See at the former letter (o.)  answered.    

The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of. Institution, [HE BROKE IT.]  
SECT. IV.  
HE broke it.] So all the Evangelists do relate. Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that he Broke the Bread, for distributing of the same unto his Disciples. And his Command is manifest, in saying as well in behalf of this, as of the rest, [Do this.] Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Host into three parts upon the Consecration thereof: but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking, for Distribution to the People.  

The Contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass.  

p Ecce, in coena Christus fregit panem: & tamen Ecclesia Gatholica modò non frangit, sed integrum dat. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. §. Name. p. 275.  BEHOLD (say you) Christ broke it; but the Catholic Church (meaning the Roman) now doth not break it, but giveth it whole. And this you pretend to do for Reverence-sake, Lest (as your 
q Amulto tempore non usupatur fractio, sed singuli panes, seu minores hostiae consecrantur, ad evitandum periculum decidentium micarum. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. 42. Bonâ ratione, nè micae aut particulae panissacri pereant. Salmeron quo suprà, aliquantò post.  jesuit saith) some crumbs of Bread may fall to the ground. Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Break the Bread, either before or after Consecration, in your Roman Mass; especially that which is distributed to the people.   

CHALLENGE.  
But now see (we pray you) the absolute Confession of your own 
r Fregit.] Nimirùm in tot particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi, praetersuam, quam Christus primus accepit. Et (ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit) quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum, ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit. Salmerquo suprà Tract. 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apostolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis, ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi, ut Christus fecit in coena. Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit, de quo Apostolus; Panis, quem frangimus, nun communicatio corporis Christi Domini? in qua fractione pulchrè repraesentatur Passio corporis Christi. Idem Ies. Tract. 35. §. Vocat. pag. 288. [Infractione Panis, Act. 2.] Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu, sive cultro; quià panis azymus glutinosus ità facilius dividitur. Lorinus Ies. in eum locum p. 138. col. 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio, fractionem sequitur Communio.— Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tàm Graeca quam Latina, quarum Liturgiae etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent, certè omnes in eo conveniunt, quòd parts has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent, nihil de essentialibus omittentes. Vsus autem Ecclesiae & eius celebrandi ordo nos docent, qualis fuit Christi Missa, & quo illam ordine celebravit▪ Archiep. Caesar. var. Tract. pag. 27.  Doctors, whereby is witnessed, first, that Christ broke the bread into twelve parts. Secondly, that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principal Act, that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it, by the Apostles, to be called Breaking of Bread. Thirdly, that the Church of Christ always observed the same Ceremony of breaking the bread, aswell in the Greek as in the Latin (and consequently the Roman) Church. Fourthly, that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolical Ceremony betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's body upon the Cross, but also (in the common participation thereof) representing the union of the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, Communicating together of one loaf: that as many grains in one loaf, so all faithful Communicants are united to one Head Christ, as the Apostle teacheth, 1. Cor. 10. thus, [The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread.] We add, as a most special Reason, that this Breaking it, in the distribution thereof, is to apply the representation of the Body crucified, and the Blood shed to the heart and soul of every Communicant; That as the Bread is given broken to us, so was Christ crucified for us. Yet, nevertheless, your Church contrarily professing, that although Christ did break bread, yet (BEHOLD!) she doth not so; what is it else, but to starch her face, and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand (as you now see) in effect saying; But do not this.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE.  
AS for that truly called Catholic Church, you your-selves do grant unto us, that by Christ his first Institution, by the Practice of the Apostles, by the ancient and universal Custom of the whole Church of Christ, aswell Greek as Latin, the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed. Which may be unto us more than a probable Argument, that the now Church of Rome doth falsely usurp the Title of CATHOLIC, for the better countenancing and authorising of her novel Customs, although never so repugnant to the will of Christ, and Custom of the truly called Catholic Church.  
In the next place, to your Pretence of Not-Breaking, because of Reverence, We say; Him, scilicet, Quanti est sapere! As if Christ and his Apostles could not foresee that your Necessity, (namely) that by the Distributing of the Bread, and by Breaking it, some little crumbs must cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants, or else fall to the ground. Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence, and not rather Arrogance, in making your-selves more wise than Christ, who instituted; or then all the Apostles, or Fathers of primitive times, who continued the same Breaking of bread.  
Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution, never regarding what the Scripture saith; 
* 1. Sam. 15. 22.  Obedience is better than Sacrifice. For, indeed, true Reverence is the mother of Obedience; else is it not Devotion, but a mere derision of that Command of Christ, [Do this.]    

The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass; contradicting the sense of the next words of Christ's Command, viz. [— GAVE IT UNTO THEM.]  
SECT. V.  
IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Mass, [And he gave it unto them;] even to THEM, to whom he said, [Take ye, eat ye.] By which plurality of persons is excluded all private Massing; forasmuch as our High Priest Christ jesus (who in instituting and administering of this Sacrament would not be alone) said hereof, as of the other Circumstances, [Do this.]  

The Contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass.  
This holy Synod (saith your 
a Missas illas, in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicate— probar atque adeò commendat. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 6.  Council of Trent) doth approve and commend the Masses, wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone. So your Church.   

CHALLENGE.  
But who shall justify that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest? which we may justly condemn by the liberal 
b Sunt qui in Missa communionem requirunt: sic, fateor, à Christo institutum fuit, & ita olim fieri consuevit. Eras. Concord. Eccles. vers. finem. [Act. 2. Erant communicantes in Oratione & communicatione fractionis Panis] it est, in Eucharistia non minùs quam oratione. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 2. 46. Odo Camera cens. in Canonem scribit, Missas solitarias antiquitùsi● usu Ecclesiae non fuisse.— Et hunc fuisse antiquum Ecclesiae Rom. morem, ●t plures de eodem Sacrificio participent, doctiss●●i quique agnoscunt.— Itáque hac nostra aetate R. Pater, & vir doctiss▪ joh Hoffmeisterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit. Res, inquit, clamat, tàm in Graeca quà● in Latina Ecclesia non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem, sed & reliquos Presbyteros & Diaconos, necnon & reliquam plebem, aut●altem plebis aliquam partem communicâsse, quod quomodò cessavit mirandum est.— Et aliquos cum Sacerdote adfuisse, qui sacrificia laudis offerebant, & Sacramentorum participabant, Canonis (Romani) verba manifestè significant: viz. Quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem filij tui s●mpserimus, etc. Item, Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia, quae sumpsimus. Teste G. Cassandro Consult. Art. 24. pag. 216, 217,— 223. etc.  Confessions of your own Doctors; who grant, first, that this is not according to the Institution of Christ, saying in the Plural, [To them.] Secondly, nor to the practice of the Apostles, who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread. Act. 2. 46. that is (say they) aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer. Thirdly, Nor to the ancient Custom of the whole Church, both Greek and Roman. Fourthly, neither to Two 
c Idem Ioh: Hoffmeisterus; Quomodò (inquit) ordo antiquus cessaverit, mirandum est, & ut bonus ille usus revocetur laborandum. Nunc verò postquàm communionis ordo à nobis obseruari desijt, idque per negligentiam tàm plebis quam Sacerdotum, ut ait Hospin.— Ex Canone quodam Cone Nannetensis, Sacerdos solus Missam celebrare vetatur: absurdum n. est ut dicat, [Dominus vobiscum: &, Sursum corda: &, gratias agimus Deo Domino nostro] cum nullus est qui respondeat: aut ut dicat [Oremus] cum nullus adest qui secum oret.— Et simile Decretum reperitur in Conc. Papiensi, ut nullus Presbyter Missam celebrare praesumat— Curio autem Canon noster [Speaking of the form of the Roman Mass] aliis in superstitionem, aliis in contemptum adductus sit, in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus. Georg. Cassand. quo sup.  Counsels, the one called Nanetense, the other Papiense, decreeing against Private Mass. Fiftly, nor to the very names of the true 
d Act. 2. 42. [Erant communicantes▪ etc.] Vsus fuit quondam frequentandae quotidiè Eucharistiae, non minùs quam Orationis.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur pro usu istius Sacramenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eadem est vis etiam vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro congregatione fidelium, ut interpretatur Basilius. Lorin. Ies. loco supracitato.  Sacramental Mass: which, by way of Excellency, was sometime called [Synaxis] signifying (as S. Basil saith) the Congregation of the faithful: sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion, or Communicating: and sometimes the Prayers, used in every holy Mass, were 
e Collectae, per figuram, dicebantur Preces, ab ipsa celebratione Missae, quum ad eam populus colligebatur. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem.  called [Collectae] Collects, because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Mass itself. Sixtly, Nor to the very 
* See above at (b.)  Canon of the now Roman Mass, saying in the Plural [Sumpsimus] we have received. And thereupon (seventhly) repugnant to the Complaints of your own men, against your Abuse; who calling the joint Communion, instituted by Christ, the 
f Generaliter autem dicendum est, quòd illa est legitima Mis●a, in qua sunt Sacerdotes, Respondens, Offerens, atque Communicans, sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat. Durand. l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walf●idus Strabo, etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretessolam legitimam Missam fatentur, cui interfuit Sacerdos, Respondentes, Offerentes, atque Communicantes. Cassand. quo supra.  Legitimate Mass; do wonder how your Priests sole Communicating ever crept into the Church; and also deplore the contempt, which your private Mass hath brought upon your Church. Hitherto (see the Marginals) from your own Confessions.  
Let us add the absurdity of the Commendation of your Council of Trent, in saying, We commend the Priest's communicating alone. A man may indeed possibly talk alone, fret alone, play the Traitor alone: but this Communicating alone, without any other, is no better Grammar than to say that a man can confer alone, conspire alone, contend, or Covenant alone. Caluine saith indeed of spiritual Eating, which may be without the Sacrament (as you also 
g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse, etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur, atque eo cibo animam all, vera quidem asserunt. Acosta Jes. de procur. Indorum Salut. c. 7. p. 532.  confess) that a faithful man may feed alone of the Body and Blood of Christ: But our dispute is of the Sacramental Communicating thereof. 
* See above at the letter (a)    

A SECOND CHALLENGE  
Against the former Prevarication, condemning this Roman Custom by the Roman Mass itself.  
We make bold yet again to condemn your Custom of Private Mass, and consequently the Commendation given thereof by the Council of Trent. For by the Canon of your own Mass, wherein there are interlocutory speeches between Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament, the Priest saying [Dominus vobiscum: The Lord be with you;] and the People answering the Priest, and saying [And with thy Spirit] your Cl. Espencaeus, sometimes a Parisian Doctor (one commended by 
h Claudij Espencaei Theologi Parisiensis Tractatus de utraque Missa: quarum alteram publicam, alteram privatam appe●lant. Operâ Gilberti Theologi Parisiensis. Genebrard.  Genebrard for his Treatise upon this same Subject of the Private Mass) albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Council of Trent, against them that hold Solitary Masses to be unlawful; yet after the expense of much paper, to prove that some private Mass must needs have anciently been, because Primitively Mass was celebrated almost in all Churches every day; and that S. 
* See below at the letter (p.)  Chrysostome did complain of the absence of the people: yet coming to determine of the point, 
i Haec & similia pro priuatarum Missarum usu & vetustate probabilia quidem sunt, sed minus aperta, nec n. qui oblatum dicunt communicatum negant, etc. Espen. Tract. de utraque Missa fol. 226. [where also had been objected the complaint of Chrysostome, sc. fol. 222.]  This Reason (saith he) is only probable, but not evident; for although they affirm a daily celebration of the Mass, yet do they not deny a daily Communion.  
Afterwards he seeketh the Original and beginning of private Mass out of private 
k Monachos, plus alioqui iam satis gravatos invidiâ, primos prinatarum Missarum Authores fuisse, quidam faciunt. Espenc. ibid. fol. 227. Non est quòd ex publicarum Missarum Monachis cum interdictione colligamus Privatarum ab eis inventionem. Ib. fol. 228.  Monasteries: yet, not able to satisfy himself there, he cometh at length to debate a Controversy, wherewith many were then perplexed, to wit; how it could be said by a Priest, being alone, [The Lord be with you;] or Answer be made to, and by the said Priest, being then alone, [And with thy Spirit.]  
To this end he propoundeth many 
l Dominus vobiscum, etc. Quarè salutatio non Cleri modò sed & plebis fuit. Ex horum verborum occasione mota olim iam tanta quaestio, quâ non alia sit in hodiernis de religione controversijs gravior au● magis agitata.— Gratianus rospondet, piè credi, Angolorum in Missa praesentiam, & nobis orantibus assistentiam: ad Angelos igitur, cum deessent homines, salutationem hîc videtur retulisse. Ecquò n. aliò melius referret? An vel ad lapides? ut videtur ante illum Odo Cameracens. Episc. ad id Canonis [Et omnium circumastantium] cum postea, inquit, mos inolevit solitarias Missas, & maximè in Coenobijs fieri, ubi non habeant quam pluraliter Collectam salutent, nec plures mutare possunt salutationes, convertunt se ad Ecclesiam, dicentes, se Ecclesiam in Ecclesia salutare, & in corpore totum corpus colloqui. Exercuerat & ante hos Cardinalium Decanum à fratribus Eremitis proposita quaestio, utrum singulares in cellulis, & orantes iuxta morem Ecclesiaicum, sibimet dicere deberent [Dominus vobiscum] quando nemo sit qui responde●t? quidam etiam inter se sic rationabantur, Hoc lapidibus▪ aut tabulis dicendum. Respondet peculiari opusculo, quod & ideò inscriptum, Dominus vobiscum.— Ca 4. In his docuit seruandam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, & hanc Sacerdotalem salutationem nec per traditionem permutari licere: Ecclesia siquidem Christiana tanta charitatis inter se compage invicem connectitur, ut in pluribus una, & in singulis sit per mysterium tota; & unaquaeque electa anima per Sacramenti mysterium plena esse credatur Ecclesia. Thus far Espen. quo sup fol. 212, 213. & Gers. Tract. Question. cum Resp. Quid Sacerdos gerit vicem popull.  Answers, which I refer to your Choice; whether you will believe with Gratian, that the words [Dominus vobiscum: The Lord be with you] spoken by the Priest, being alone, may be thought to have been spoken to Angels: or, with Cameracensis, unto Stones: or, with the Heremites in their Cells, unto forms and Stools: or else, with the Dean of the Cardinals, teaching any Eremite being alone, to say, [The Lord be with you] as spoken to himself. All which imaginary fooleries are so unworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men, that we may fear to be held inconsiderate, if we should endeavour to confute them. Only we can say no less, than that if the Apostle did condemn them, who speak with strange languages in the public assembly (although they that spoke understood themselves) because that in such a Case 
* 1. Cor. 14. 23.  If (saith he) there be none to interpret, and there come in an Ignorant or Infidel observing this, will he not say, you are mad? how much more extreme Madness must we judge this to be, where men either talk to themselves, or else (as if they were metamorphosed into the things, whereunto they speak) unto forms, stones, stools, and the like?  
For Conclusion, hear the said Dean of the Roman Cardinals (from whom a 
m Sacerdos dicit [Pax omnibus vobis:] quoniam autem pro se invicem precari est praeceptum Apostolicum, propterea populus quoque ei ipsam pacem precatur, dicens, [Et cum spiritu tuo.] Nic. cabas. Archiep. Thessaly. Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 25.  Greek Archbishop shall not descent) speak reason, and withal tell you that the Correspondency of speech used betwixt Priest and People, was to unite the hearts of both Priest and People together. We say, with him, to unite them, not (as you do) to separate People from Priest by your solitary Masses; and yet to confound their speech by your [Dominus vobiscum.] And if this may not prevail with you, yet me thinks the authority of Pope Gregory, surnamed the Great, may command your belief. He upon the form of the Roman service, by an interchangeable speech between Priest and People, concludeth that 
n Greg. Papa. Sacerdos Missam solus nequaquam celebret; quià sicut illa celebrari non potest sine salutatione Sacerdotis, & responsione plebis: ità nequaquàm ab uno debet celebrari, esse n. debent qui ei circumstent, quos ille salutet, ad reducendum in memoriam illud Dominicum [Vbicunque sunt duo aut tres congregati.] Teste Cassandro Liturg. fol. 96.  Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Mass alone. And yet behold a Greater Pope than he, even Soter, more ancient by 400. years, and also a Martyr, 
o Soter B. of Rome Ann. 170. [who suffered Martyrdom, made this Decree for celebrating of Mass:] Vt nullus Presbyterorum praesumat, nisi duobus praesentibus, & ipse tertius habeatur: quià cum pluraliter ibi dicitur [Dominus vobiscum] & illud in secret is [Orate pro me] apertissimè convenit, ut ipsius respondeatur salutationi. Witness M. Harding Art. 1. Divis. 29. apud juellum.  decreeing, as most convenient, (for Answer unto the Priest's Vobiscum, and Orate) that there be two at least besides the Priest.  
An 
* One that of late writ to a Popish Lady, not discovering his name.  Anonymus, not long since, would needs persuade his Reader that by [Vobiscum] was meant the Clerk of the Parish. But why was it than not said, Dominus tecum, The Lord be with thee? O, this forsooth, was spoken to the Clerk in civility, according to the ordinary Custom of intitling singular persons in the plural number: and this Answer he called Salving of a doubt.  
But any may reply, that if it were good manners in the Priest to call upon the Clerk with [Vobiscum] in the plural number for Civility-sake, it must then be rusticity in your Church, to teach your Clerk to answer your Priest [Et cum Spiritu tuo: And with thy Spirit.] And again, the Answer is impertinent, for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerk, he cannot be said to be Alone. And so the Answer of this man must be indeed not Salving, but (as the rest of his manner of answering) a Quack-salving rather, and a mere Delusion.   

A THIRD CHALLENGE Against the same Custom.  
A Custom Commendable, say your Fathers of Trent; Condemnable, say we, even from your own Consciences, because you were never hitherto able to produce either any Commendable, yea or Tolerable example, expressly recorded within the many Volumes of Antiquity, of any celebration of the Eucharist, without a Communion; no, not in that only objected place of 
p Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. 3. Frustrà habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altar, cum nemo est qui participet. Ob. à Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 9 [Not that in these daily Celebrations None at all did communicate with the Priest: for he was accompanied, at least, with some ecclesiastics; as is employed in the words, (Stamus ad Altar) And it is no rare Hyperbole in Chrysostome to use the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, a Paucity.]  Chrysostome, whose Speech is not a Grant, that absolutely All were absent from his administration of the Eucharist: but certainly it is a vehement Invective against all wilful Absents. So far was he from allowing, much more from Commending Communicating alone, who elsewhere, against such as neglected to Communicate with the poor, taking his Argument from the example of Christ, That Supper (
q Chrysost. Illa coena (Christi) communiter omnes accumbentes habuit. Tom. 4. in illum locum Pauli; Oportet Haereses esse. 1. Cor. 11. 19  saith he) was common to All. The very Argument of Saint Hierome, saying (yet more obligatorily) 
r Hieron. Coena Domini dicitur, quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta. Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis. In 1. Cor. cap 11.  The Lord's Supper ought to be common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ. And as touching 
* [For again, if it should be strictly racked, so should he himself not have participated, and then was it no Mass at all. But Chrysostom's Rhetoric, in Hyperbolising, is noted especially by your Senensis; as may be observed in Chrysostome's like Invective against the carnal security of men, even in the word, Nemo: Nemo divina sapit: nemo terrena contemnit: nemo ad coelum attendit. Hom. 12. ad Heb. Now, None is so senseless as to think hereby that Chrysostome thought himself absolutely to be wholly alone.]  [Nemo, No man] in the testimony of Chrysostome, it is known to be taken restrainedly, for Few; and so 
s [Frustrà stamus, etc.] Ex quibus verbis apparet, in his quotidianis Missis solos ferè Ministros & Clericos, paucos verò autnullos à populis communicâsse. G. Cassander de Liturg. Chrysost● [Yea and Epenseus durst not rely upon this Testimony.  acknowledged by yourselves in the place objected.    

The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the sense of the next words, [— SAID UNTO THEM.]  
SECT. VI  
IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Mass it followeth, [And he said unto Them.] Christ Saying or speaking to his Disciples, by commanding them to Take, etc. did, doubtless, so speak, that they might hear his Command; to wit, in an audible voice. Which done, he further commanded, concerning this same Circumstance, jointly with the rest, saying, [Do this.]  

The contrary Canon of the Roman Mass.  
But your late Council of 
a Si quis dixetit, Ecclesiae Rome ritum, quo submissâ voce pars Canonis, & verba Consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse, Anathoma sit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Can 9  Trent pronounceth him Anathema, who shall condemn her Custom of the Priest, uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice. Whereby (saith your 
b Quibus verbis Conc. verba Consecrationis altâ voce proferri prohibuit. Ledesima Ies. de Script. quavis ling. non legend. p. 161. In inclinatione Sacerdotis & osculatione altaris, thurificatione secunda expletâ, Sacerdos se convertens ad populum sub silentio dicit [Dominus vobiscum:] Et mox voce aliquantulum elevatâ dicit, [Orate pro me, fratres.] Durand. Ration. l. 4. c. 32. initio.  jesuit) it forbiddeth the words of Consecration to be delivered in a loud and audible voice. So they.   

CHALLENGE.  
Do you see what your Church doth profess? See also, we pray you, notwithstanding, what your own Doctors are brought to 
c Christus altâ voce pronuntiabat verba illa [Hoc est corpus meum] ut audirentur ab Apostolis. Bellar. l. 〈◊〉. de Missa, c. 12. §. Quod attinet.— In Ecclesia Orientali altâ voce recitari consuevisse, non negamus. Idem. ibid. § Respondeo.— Certè ex Graecorum Liturgijs invenies tàm ●n Missa jacobi Apostoli & Clementis Rom. quam in illis quae editae sunt à Basilio & Chrysostomo, quòd ubi Sacerdos protulisset verba Consecrationis tàm post panis, quam post vini Consecra●ionem, populus acclamabat dicendo, Amen. Idem etiam confirmatur ex Leone, Aug. Ambrosio, & aliis multis Patrib. Salmeron. Ies. Con. in 1. Cor. 14. Disp. 22. p 188. Moris' enim fuit Ecclesiae primitivae, ut constat ex Leone magno, & justino Martyr, ut verbis Consecrationis altâ v●ce prolatis, populus responderet, Amen. Idem Tom. 9 Tract 13. pag. 90. Col. 2.  confess (namely) first, that The Example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a low and inaudible voice. Secondly, that The same Custom was controlled by the practice of the whole Church of Christ, both in the East part thereof (from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies, and Fathers) and in the ancient Roman Church, by the witnessing of two Popes; in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pronounced, did answer thereunto, AMEN. Thirdly, that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperor justinian, who severely commanded by his Edict (as 
d Novellâ Constit. 123. justiniani severè praecipitur Sacerdoribus, ut in Eucharistiae celebratione verba clarâ voce pronuntientur, ut à populo exaudiantur— [Which made Bellar. to bluster after this manner:] Admetus Novellam responderi possit imprimis, ad Imperatorem non pertinere de ritu sacrificandi leges far: proinde non multum referre quid ipse sanxerit. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa c. 12. §. Ad Novellam.  you know) that The Priest should pronounce the words with a clear voice, that they may be heard of the people. Whose authority you peremptorily contemn, as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Laws in this kind. But forasmuch as the King of Kings, and the High Priest of Priests, the Son of God, hath said of this, as of the other such Circumstances, [Do this,] who are you, that you should dare to contradict this Injunction, by the practice of any Priest, saying and speaking (yet not as Christ did, unto Them) but only to himself, without so much as any pretence of Reason, 
e Vtile est, ad reverentiam tanti Sacramenti (ut Basil. rectè docet l. de Sp. Sancto c. 27.) & multum confert ad dignitatem & reverentiam mysteriorum ut non assuescant homines eadem saepius audire: vel potius ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi. Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij & Chrysost. praescribunt quaedamsub silentio dicenda.— In Liturgijs Chrysost. Sacerdos orat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod non significat moderatâ voce, sed planèsecretò. In Latinis Liturgijs, Innocentio rest, praecipua pars Missae secreta erat. Bellar. quo supra. [We oppose 1. Never were any words held secret, so, as not to be beard of them that were baptised, and were allowed to be Communicants. Basil. speaketh of the rites of Baptism to be kept secret, but to whom? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and how secret? by silence of voice in the Congregation? no, but, Non convenit circumferri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And of what? of words? nay, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither doth Chrysostome's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor Innocentius his Secreto infer any more than such a Service, in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion. Secondly, we oppose, concerning the point in question, that the words of Institution were in th●se times pronounced with an audible voice both in the Greek and Latin Churches (as hath been confessed, and their own Writings do verify:) Basil. Liturg. Sacerdos benedicens panem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— altâ voce dicens; Accipite, Hoc est corpus meum. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 15. Hom. 40. Vobis, qui mysterijs estis initiati (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) volo in memoriam revocare eam dictionem, etc.] secundùm Graec. Edit.  which might not likewise have moved the ancient Church of Christ, both Greek and Roman, to the same manner of Pronunciation? Whereas the Catholic Church, notwithstanding, for many hundred years together, precisely observed the ordinance of Christ.   

THE SECOND CHALLENGE.  
In respect of the necessity of a Loud voice, especially by the Romish Priest, in uttering the words of Consecration.  
THe greatest silence, which is used by the Roman worshippers, is still in the Priests uttering, or rather muttering the words of Institution [Hoc est corpus meum: and, Hic est sanguis meus:] albeit here is the greatest and most necessary Cause of expressing them, for the satisfaction of every understanding Hearer among you. For those you call the Words of Consecration, the just pronunciation whereof you hold to be most necessary: because if the Priest, in uttering of them, fail but in one syllable, so far as to alter the sense of Christ's words (which as you say may happen by six manner of Defects) than the whole Consecration is void; and the thing, which you adore, is in substance merely 
* See Book 7. C. 5. §. 2.  Bread still. If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves, whether the words, which are concealed, be duly uttered by the Priest to himself, how shall it not concern them to hear the same expressly pronounced, lest that (according to your own Doctrine) they be deluded in a point of faith, and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Son of God? Whereof we are to entreat at large in due 
* Ibidem.  place, if God permit.    

Your fifth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, is a second Contradiction against the Sense of the former words of Christ [— SAID UNTO THEM.]  
SECT. VII.  
Again, that former Clause of the Canon of Christ, to wit [He said unto them] teacheth that as his voice, Saying unto them, was necessarily audible, to reach their ears; so was it also Intelligible, to instruct their understanding: and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknown. Which is evident by that he giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup [Enim] For this is the blood, etc. which particle [For (saith your 
f [ENIM.] Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 14.  Cardinal) is employed in the first part also. Now, whosoever reasoneth with another, would be understood what he saith.  

The contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass.  
The Council of Trent (saith your 
g Concil. Trident. Sess. 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divinum Officium vulgari passim linguâ celebretur. Azor. Ies. Inst. Moral. par. 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum-enimverò.  jesuit) decreed, that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a known tongue. Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrary Doctrine of Protestants to be 
h Asserere Missas celebrandas esse linguâ vulgari, consilium est Schismaticum— Haereticum— & non acceptandum,— nè Ecclesia dormitâsse aliquandò, atque adeò errâsse videatur. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 32. Sect. 5. p. 251  Heretical and Schismatical, and no ways to be admitted. But why? Lest (say you) the Church may seem a long time to have been asleep, and to have erred in her contrary Custom. So you. Our Church of England contrarily thus: 
* Article 24.  It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God, and Custom of the Primitive Church to have public prayer, and ministering of the Sacraments in a tongue not known of the people. This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome, first, in defence of the Antiquity and Universality, next for the Equity of Prayers in a known tongue, in the public service of God.   

I. CHALLENGE.  
Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholic and universal practice● of the Church, and the Antiquity thereof.  
IN the examination of this point, Consider in the first place your own Confessions, given by your 
i Tempore Apostolorum totum populum respondere solitum in divinis officijs— Et longo tempore post in Occidente & Oriente Ecclesia: tempore Chrysostomis, & Cypriani, atque Hieronymi, eadem Consuetudo invaluit. Et Hieronymus scribit in praefat. lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste tonitru audiri populum reboaniem, Amen. Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap 16 §. Sed neque. Tempore Apostolorum, cum celebratetur Sacrificium hoc, Sacerdos dixit, [Hoc est corpus meum] & populus respondebat, Amen.— Et hic usus manavit in totam Ecclesiam usque ad mille & amplius annos. Maldon. Ies. Disp. de Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. Conject. 1. §. Vbi Scribit.  jesuits, and others, acknowledging that In the days of the Apostles, and a long time after, even for a thousand years and more, the whole Church, and in it the People of Rome had knowledge of this part of service, concerning the Sacrament, and used to say, AMEN! So you. And this is as much as we need to require, concerning the judgement and practice of the true Antiquity of this Custom. You will rather doubt (we suppose) of the Universality thereof, because you usually go no farther than your Dictates, which teach, that because there were generally but three general and known tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, therefore the divine service was celebrated throughout the Church in one of these three. And because these could not be the vulgar language of every Christian Nation, it must follow (say 
k Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 15. & 16, and so Others also.  they) that the People of most Nations understood not the public Prayers used in their several Churches. And with this Persuasion do your Doctors lock up your consciences in a false belief of an universal Custom of an unknown service of God. Which you may as easily unlock again, if you shall but use, as a key, this one Observation, viz. That the three common tongues (namely) Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, although they were not always the vulgar Languages, yet were they known Languages commonly to those people that used them in Divine Service. Which one only Animadversion will fully demonstrate unto us the truth of our Cause.  
It is not denied but that the three Languages Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were, in primitive ages, most 
m Tres hae linguae universalissimae, ità ut Hebraica per totum fere Orientem: Omnes enim Chaldaicâ, aut Syriacâ. i. Hebraicâ, sed corruptè joquebantur. Graeca per totam Graeciam, & Asiam minorem, olim, ac varias provincias latè patebat: Latina autem per magnam Europae partem vagabatur. Ledesima Ies. in defence. Bellar.  universal; insomuch that the Hebrew was spoken (albeit corruptly) throughout almost the whole Eastern Church. The Greek was currant thorough the whole Greek Church also, and in the lesser Asia. And the Latin was dispersed over a great part of Europe. It will now be fully sufficient to know, that the most of these languages were certainly known, in public worship, unto all them of whom they were used in public Sermons, and preachings. For your own Church, howsoever she decreed of Praying, yet doth she forbid Preaching in an unknown tongue.  
Now therefore join (we beseech you) the eyes of your bodies and mind together in beholding and pondering our Marginals, and you shall find, first (if we speak of the 
n [Concionatus est Graecè Chrysostomus apud Antiochenos, apud Caesari●nses Basilius, apud Alexandrinos' Athanasius, apud Hierosolymi●anos Cyrillus.] Thus from Constantinople to Antioch, throughout Asia, was the Greek Language universally known.  Greek Language) that there was a general knowledge thereof even among the vulgar people of the Churches of Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, and throughout Asia. Secondly, if of the Latin, you may behold anciently the familiar knowledge thereof in the Church of Rome, whereof St. 
* See about, at the letter (i)  Hierome hath testified, that The people were heard in the Churches of Rome resounding and thundering out their Amen! This in Church's unmixed. Thirdly, in mixed Congregations of Greek and Latin, that the 
o Cum Ecclesia Rom. de Latinis & Graecis es●et permixta, singulae ●ectiones de utraque lingua recitabantur: nam ab una lingua recitantes ab utriusque linguae populis intelligi non poterant. Rupertus de Divin. office l. 3 c. 8.  Service was said both in Greek and Latin. Fourthly, your own general Confession, yielding a common knowledge of the Latin tongue to the people of a great part of Europe: and we say also of Africa, (insomuch that Augustine doth openly teach that the 
p [Augustini sunt plurimi Tractatus & Sermons ad Hipponenses suos. With whom he rather chose to speak ossum than os: to the end they should understand him.] Lib. Retract. cap. 20. Psalmum, qui iis caneretur, per Latinas literas feci, propter vulgi & Idiotarum notitiam. Idem Sermon. 25. de verb. Apostol. Punicum proverbium est antiquum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punicè non omnes nôstis. So well was the Latin known unto them. Item Tert. ad uxorem scripsit Latinè, Ad mulieres de Habitu, ad Foeminas de cultu, ad Virgines de velo, directing the same writings to them, thus; Dei Servae, Conservae, & Sorori meae, etc. Cyprianus saepe ad Martyrs & plebem Latinè.]  Latin tongue was better known to his Africanes than was the Punic, although this were their native Language:) And also of 
q Curabant Romani, ut & in provincijs plurimi loquerentur Latinè, ita ut Hispanias & Gallias Latinas prorsus fecerint, veteribus illarum gentium linguis abolitis. Vives in Aug. de Ci. Dei l. 19 c. 7. Nostri per totum ●erè occidentem, per Septentrionis, per Africae non exiguam partem brevi spatio linguam Romanam celebrem, & quasi Regiam fecerunt.— Nostra est Italia, nostra Gallia, nostra Hispania, Germania, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Illyricum, & multae aliae nationes. Valla Praesat. in l. Elegant. Certè testimonium ex Hilario ductum videtur omninò cogere, ut credamus in Gallia fuisse consuetudinem ut populus & Ecclesia caneret etiam antè Ambrosij tempora. Bellar. l. 1 de bonis operibus. c. 16. §. Fortasse.  France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Pannonia, Dalmatia, and many other Nations in the North and West: particularly manifested by the Latin Homilies and writings, made to the people of Africa by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine; and in France and Germany by the people praying and jointly saying, AMEN.  
Not to tell you of the now-Custome of the remote Christian Churches, such as are the Egyptians, Russians, Ethiopians, Armenians, and others; All which exercise their public Service in the vulgar and mother-tongues of their own so distinct and different Nations. For the which cause they can find no better entertainment with your Jesuits; than to admonish you that 
r Cer tum est (inquiunt Protestants) Ruthenos, Aegyptios, Aethiops, Armenos, & quosdam alios celebrare divina Officia in Lingua vulgari.— Respondemus, nos non moveri Barbarorum moribus. Salmeron. Ies. Com. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimò.  You are not to be moved with the example of such barbarous people. O jesuitical superciliousnes! to contemn them as Barbarous, in an example of praying in a known tongue: the contrary whereunto (as namely praying in an unknown tongue) the Apostle condemneth as 
* 1. Cor. 14. 11.  barbarousness it ●elfe.  
With the same modesty might you scoff at, and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians, commended by primitive Fathers for celebrating their Oblations, Prayers, and Psalms in their national tongues; so, that one repeating the words first, the whole people with joint voice and heart accorded in ●inging. Among whom are recorded the converted 
s De judaeis conversis, Ambros. in 1. Cor. 14. Aliquando Syrâ Linguâ, plerunque Hebraeâ in Oblationibus utebantur.  jews, the 
t Hier. ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae. Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syròque Sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant. Ad finem.  Syrians; and 
u Orig. con. Celsum. lib. 8. Graeci Graecè, Romani Romanâ, fingulique precentur linguâ suâ— Non enim est Deus maximus unus eorum, qui certam aliquam linguam sortiti, coetorarum ignari sunt.  All, as well Greeks as Romans, praying in their own tongue, and with harmonical consent singing of Psalms, in the public worship: as also the 
x Basil. ad Cler. Eccles. Caesarien. Quidam Psalmos causantur, & modos Psalmodiae— Vnum hoc numeris datur, ut quod canendum sit prius ordiatur, reliqui succinunt.— elucescente die pariter omnes veluti uno ore & cord confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt— Horum gratia si nos fugitis, fugietis simul Aegyptios, Thebaeos, Palaestinos, Arabes, Phoenicas, Syros, & ut semel dicam omnes apud quos vigiliae, precesque communesque Psalmodiae in pretio sunt. For the Sclavonians. See hereafter. 6. Challenge at (d)  Grecians, Egyptians, Thebaeans, Palestinians, Arabians, Phoenicians, and Syrians. This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers.  
Whether therefore the tongue we pray in be barbarous or learned, it is not respected of God, but whether it be known or unknown, is the point. In which respect we may usurp the Similitude which St. 
y Aug. de doctr. Christ. l 4. c. 11. Quid prodest, etc.  Augustine hath; What availeth a golden Key, if it cannot open that which should be opened? or what hur●eth a wooden Key, if it be able to open, seeing that we desire nothing, but that the thing shut may be opened? By this time you see your Novelty in your Romish practice.  
Behold in the next place the Iniquity and profaneness thereof, and how after the death of Pope Gregory the first, which was abou● 608. years after Christ, your Roman Church degenerated as much from the (then) Roman truth in this point, as she did from her Roman tongue and Language itself. We are here constrained to plead the whole cause, for the defence of a necessity of a known worship, in respect of God, of Man, and of Both.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE,  
Showing the Iniquity of Service in an unknown tongue. And first of the Injury done by the foresaid Roman Decree unto the souls of Men.  
THe former Decree of your Council, for unknown Service, how injurious it is unto man, we may learn by the Confessions of Jesuits and others, 
z Apostolus praecip it, ut Preces ad aedificationem fiant, quemadmodùm probatur Rom. 15.— Plus lucratur, quoad intellectum & affectum, qui non ignorat quae orat.— Qui non intelligit, non aedificatur, in quantum non intelligit in speciali, licet in generali intelligat.— Ad fructum devotionis conducibilius intelligendo orare. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 14. jubet Apostolus ut ad ae dificationem abundent: melius est orare ment, distinctè intelligente ea quae orat, quam confusè. Et ex hac doctrina habetur, melius esse ut publicè preces Ecclesiae nostrae, audiente populo, in lingua Clericis & populo communi dicantur, quam Latin●. Caietan. Cardin. in eum locum. 1. Cor. 14. Paulus vult omnes homines orate, etiam ment. Fa●er Stapulens. in eundem locum. Quid proficit populus non intelligendo ea quae orat? Lyran. in 1. Cor. 14 Né benedicens (Sacerdos) diceret, Ego quidem intelligo & gratias ago peregri●â linguâ: responde● Apostolus [Sed alter non aedificatur:] Id est, Indè nulla ae dificatio Ecclesiae, cujus inprimis ratio habenda erat: ità ut nolit ullas preces publicas in Ecclesia celebrari ignoto prorsus Sermone,— qui non sit Graecis Graecus, Hebraeis Hebraeus, Latinus Latinis, nam magna ex parte haec idiomata ab iis, qui sunt eiusdem linguae, intelliguntur. Salmeron. Ies. Com. sup. eum locum 1. Cor. 14. [which he confesseth of the Apostles times.]  granting that The Apostles in their times required a known Language, Greek in the Greek Churches, and Latin in the Latin Churches: because that first this made for the Edification and Consolation of Christians. Secondly, that Man gaineth more both in mind and affection, who knoweth what he prayeth. As for him that is Ignorant, you say, He is not edified, in as much as he knoweth not in particular, although in general he doth understand. Thirdly, that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification. Fourthly, that the known Service is fitter for Devotion: and thereupon some of you have furthermore Concluded, that It were better that the Service were used in a Language known both to the Clergy and People. And again, that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language. So your own Writers, as you may observe in the Marginals.  
Now what more extreme and intolerable Injury could you do to the souls of God's people, than by imposing a strange language upon them, thereby (according to your own Confessions) to deprive them, and that wittingly, of Edification, Consolation, and Devotion, the three chief Benefits that man's soul is capable off, in the service of God? Thus in respect of your Injury against Man.   

A THIRD CHALLENGE,  
Touching the Injury done, by the same Decree, against God himself.  
YEt all this notwithstanding, you are bend to cozen Christian people, with palpable Sophistry, by your 
a Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. De Canticis Spiritualibus tempore Primitivae Ecclesiae Tert. §. Porro consuevisse.— Quoniam igitur ista Cantica fiunt ad Populi consolationem, vult Apostolus, ut fiant linguâ quae intelligatur: ut Idiota, etc. Ibid. §. Quoniam— Praeterea tunc, quia Christiani erant pauci, omnes simul psallebant in Ecclesiâ & respondebant divinis officijs: at postea, crescente populo, divisa sunt magis officia, & solis Clericis relictum est, ut communes préces & laudes in Ecclesiâ peragant. Ibid. §. Respondeo negando.— Denique finis praecipuus illorum Canticorum erat instructio & consolatio populi,— & nisi linguâ nota facta fuissent— periisset praecipuus fructus ipsorum: At Divinorum officiorum nec est finis praecipuus instructio, vel consolatio populi, sed cultus Dei. Ibid. §. Denique finis.  Cardinal, who confesseth that the Psalms in the days of the Primitive-church, were sung jointly of the people, Because they were ordained for instruction & consolation of the people, as the chief end. But as for the Divine Service, The Principal end of it (saith he) is not the instruction and consolation of the people, but the worship of God. So he. Whom when we ask, why the people than did all join together both in Singing of Psalms, and Answering the Minister in Divine Service, and Prayer? He saith it was because of the Pauscitie of people, and rareness of the Assembly. Whereby it seemeth he meant to maintain Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes; First, As if Psalms, publicly sung in the Church to God's glory, were not Divine duties and service. Secondly, As if the Primitive Church, using both Psalms and other Prayers in a known tongue (as he confesseth) did not bold a necessity of the Common knowledge of both, for Instruction and Consolation. Thirdly, As if the Assemblies of Christians were of such a Paucity in the days of Tertullian; when those Psalms ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use. And fourthly, as if People now adays had not as much need of Instruction and Consolation, as they that lived in Primitive-times; yea, and more, especially such People, who being led blindfold by an Implicit Faith, have reason to crave Instruction; and having their Consciences tortured and perplexed with multiplicities of Ceremonial Laws, have as just cause also to desire Consolation.  
As for your objecting the Worship of God by unknown prayers; that may be sufficient, which your own Catechism (authorized by the Council of Trent) teacheth you; where answering to that question, why God, although he know our wants before we pray, yet will be solicited by our prayers? it 
b Cur Deus, cum sciat quibus indige●us, vult oratione nostrâ sollicitari? Vult nos ●itè petendo petere fidentius— ut magis ad amorem incendamur— ac ut saepiùs majori affecti laetitiâ ad cumamandum atque colendum incitemur ardentiùs. Catech. Trid. v●l Rom. part. 4. Cap. 2. pag. 386.  saith, that he doth this to the end, that Praying more confidently, we may be more inflamed with love towards God: and so being possessed with more joy, may be exercised to a ●ervent worship of God. So your public and general Roman Catechism.  
The case than is plain. From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation; from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion; from all these proceeds more filial Love and dutiful Worship of God. Which was long since shadowed (as 
c Exod. 15. [Can●emus Domino] Can●abat Moses & Miriam, nempè Moses, id est, pars intellectus, & Miriam, id est sensus purificatus: iustum enim est intelligibilite● & sensibiliter Deo hymnes dici, utrumque instrumentum concinnè pulsari, tàm intellectum quam sensum, in solius Dei salvatorislaudem, & actionem Gratiarum. Hactenùs Philo judaeus. Pulcherrimus hic Tractatus moralis. Pererius Ies. in Exo. 15. Disp. 2. §. Exercitus porrò.  Philo judaeus allegorizeth, witnessing your jesuit) by Moses and Miriam singing unto the Lord: Moses signifying the understanding part, and Miriam betokening the Affection; both notifying, that we are to sing Hymns both affectionately and understandingly unto God. Therefore, if you be men of Conscience, recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradox, Which (contrary to all anciently-professed Divinity, and express Scripture, saying, 
* 1. Cor. 14. 15.  I will pray with my spirit, I will pray with my understanding also) doth thrust man's Understanding out of God's worship, to the utter abolishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, his Reasonable worshipping of God; by making man (as Saint 
d Aug. Expos. 2. in Psal. 18. Merulae, Psi●taci, Corvi, Picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepe docentur ab hominibus sonare quod nesciunt: scienter verò cantare non avi, sed homini Divina voluntate concessum est.  Augustine noteth) no better than O●zells, Parrots, Ravens, and Magpies, all which learn to prate they know not what.   

THE FOURTH CHALLENGE,  Against the said Romish Decree, as jointly injurious both to God and Man, from the Text of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. 
IN the fourth place We are to speak of the Iniquity of your unknown language in Prayer, jointly against both God and Man; because that without the understanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man (being of discretion) to pray unto, or to praise God as he ought: and consequently to obtain any blessing by prayer from God, according to that Apostolical Doctrine, 1. Cor. 14. where he saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] How shall he say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? To which Argument of the Apostles, taken from the Impossibility, your 
e Dici● Apostolus [ut instruam] Expende vocem hanc, ●nstruam; quòd sit de p●aedicatione, non de Missae celebra●ione. Eckius Enchrid. Quaest Missa Latinè, §. Quod ad. & Bellar. Aliqui respondent, non agi●…ic de precibus. Lib 2. de verbo Dei c. 16 §. Ad hanc.  Eckius and some Others answer, that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching, and not of Praying. What, not of Praying, Eckius? May it not be said of this your great Doctor, and Antagonist to Luther, that this man could not see the River for water? for (as your 
f Imò sequitur [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quibus verbis Apostolus significat precari, etc. Bellar. ibid.  Cardinal confesseth) in the text itself the Apostle useth these three words, Pray, sing, and give thanks. Will you now seek an Evasion from Mr. 
g Master Breerley in his Liturgy of the Mass, Tract. 5. Sect. 4. ad finem.  Brereley Pr. collecting (as he saith) the Contrary in the Apostle, as affirming that not the whole vulgar, but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the unlearned to say Amen? Which Reason he may seem to have borrowed from your 
h Providet sapientèr Ecclesia, ut Minister vice totius populi respondeat: imò hoc est quod Apostolus ai●, cum subdit, Qui supplet locum Idiotae. Sixtus Se●…sBiblioth. lib. 6. Annot. 263. Hinc manifestè convincitur, fuisse tempore Apostoli Pauli unum, qui suppleretlocum populi. Ledesima Ies. de Scripture▪ nonlegend. cap. 26. 27. §. Praetercà ex. & Sa. Ies. Coment. in hunc locum.  Senensis, who saith that The Apostle by him [That occupieth the place of the unlearned] meant the Clerk of the Parish, and not the vulgar people.  
But this is thought of your Bellarmine, and others, to be but an unlearned Answer, because that In the days of the Apostle (saith 
i Tempore Apost lorum nullum fuisse pro Laicis constitutum, ex ●ustino constat: E● Graeca vox [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] none significat, secundùm usum Graecae li●guae, vice ●diotarum, sed unum esse ex Idiotis. Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, c. 16. §. Sed non videtur.— Ità est secundùm phrasin Graecam, ut sit sensus: unus ex Idiotis. Salmeron. Jes. in 1. Cor. 14. Disp. 2●. §. Illud etiam. And the English Rhemists in their Annot. on the same place.  he) There was not any such office ordained, as is the Clerk of the Parish: and if there had been any such, yet the Greek phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] would not admit of any such interpretation. So he.  
Lastly, it can be no less than an extreme Infatuation to appose (as 
k Satisfacit Sacerdos, cù●●preces etiam non intellectas absolvit: etiam meretur, modò in Dei laudes preces non intellectas peroret. Sic in Monasterijs professae, & Monachi non pauci orant, quae intellectu non modò non assequuntur. Sic enin● Pueri orant, & est beneplacitum Deo. Eckius Tom. 2. Hom. 3. in festo Rogat. pag. 90. Etiam pueri oran●, Ozanna, & preces eorum erant Christo g●atissimae. Salmer. Ies. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimo. So the Rhemists in Matth. 21. Verse 16. and in 1. Cor. 19 pag. 463.  do your jesuit Salmeron, Eckius, and the Rhemists) the example of Children; because the Children crying Hosanna, and not understanding their prayers, were notwithstanding (say they) accepted of Christ. Ergò the Priest, Monks, and Nuns, in praising God may be grateful to God, although they understand not that which they pray. So they. An Objection taken (as you see) from Children, or rather, as it might seem, made by Children, it is altogether so Childish. For the Apostle, as it were foreseeing that this might possibly be fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth, doth in the very same Chapter 1. Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it, saying; Brethren, be not children in understanding. For although, when a Child asketh his Father's blessing only with clapping his hands together, or uttering half syllables, it joyeth the Father, because his Child now expresseth his duty, according to the Capacity of a Child: yet if the same Child, after he is come to the perfect years of discretion, should perform that duty in no better manner than by childish babbling, would the Father hold this to be Reverence, and not rather plain mockery? So is the Case betwixt us and 
* 2. Cor. 8. 12.  God, who accepteth every one according to that which he hath, and not according to that which he hath not: A Child in the capacity of a Child, but a man according to to the apprehension of a man. In which consideration the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 13. 11. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, but being a man I put away childishness. Away therefore with this your more than Childish Objection.  
We return to the Impossibility of praying duly in an unknown tongue, which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes, the one taken from an Instrument of peace, Verse 7. He that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] How shall he know what is piped? that is, it is impossible for him to apply himself to the dance. The other from an Instrument of war, Verse 8. If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle? As if he would have said, It is impossible to know when to to march forward, or when to retreat. So it is said of unknown Prayer [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] How shall he that is ignorant of the language say Amen? that is to say (by the interpretation of your 
l Populus ignorae linguae quomodò respondebit, Amen? hoc est, animae praebebit assensum, cum more Babylonice confusionis qui dissident, nequaquàm sensu animisque conspirent. Acosta Ies. de Indorum salute cap. 6. p 37.  jesuit) How shall people, ignorant of the tongue, answer Amen? (that is) yield consent unto the Prayer, seeing that they, who descent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion, cannot consent in mind and affection. So he. Or, as your 
m Quomodò dicet, [Amen?] Cum quid boni dicas non intelligit, ni●i benedicas tantùm. Aquinas in hunc locum, 1. Cor. 14. I add Saunder. de visib. Monarch. ad Ann. 1563. [Si benedixeris spiricu] Quomodò dicat Amen? Significatur de precibus Ecclesiasticis, ●ateor, quas in spiritu, hoc est, in dono linguae peregrinae recitari nollet, ut in Latina Ecclesia Hebraeam, aut in Graeca Persicam: quià deëssent plerunque viri docti & periti illius linguae, qui populo interpretari possent. [Thus from the Apostle he granteth, that Prayers are not to be used, where the people have not the interpretation: although he say, that Deus honori●ic entiùs colitur perlinguam doctam, quam per indoctam & vulgarem. As though where there is no respect of persons with God, yet there should be respect of the Tongues.]  Aquinas; How shall he say, Amen, who understandeth not what good words thou speakest, but only knoweth that thou blessest? Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacrilege, to wit, by Robbing God of his due Honour, and Men of their spiritual graces and Comforts.  
To conclude. These Premises do prove, that among many thousands of your people, assembled at a Roman Mass, and being ignorant of their Service, not any such an one (a miserable Case!) can justly be held to be a true Worshipper of God, who requireth of his Worshippers the 
* Hos. 14. 2. & Heb. 13. 15.  Calves of their lips, and not (as now they make themselves) the lips of Calves.   

THE fifth CHALLENGE,  
Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. more copiously in confutation of your diverse Objections.  
IT were an easy matter to be superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument, by proving the truth of this Doctrine out of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers, if it were imaginable that any Reply could be made to that which is already said. But yet behold an 
n In his afórementioned writing to a Lady, etc.  Anonymus, having had notice of most of these points, hath form such Objections and Answers, as his prejudicated and purblind Conceit could reach unto. First, in answer to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming (out of the Rhemish Annotations) That the Apostle speaks not of the public and set prayers of the Church, but of extraordinary and spiritual exercises of Exhortations, and sudden Prayors. So he. Wherein the man contradicteth your own 
o Alij dicunt Apostolum loqui de divinis officijs, viz. Haymo, Primasius, P. Lombardus, D. Thomas, & alij quidam ex Latinis. Teste Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei● cap. 16.  Schoolmen, but especially the Apostle his direct saying, Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meet together etc. what more public than that Assembly of the whole Congregation? And (to suppose that they were extraordinary Prayers) what is more consectary and Consequent, than that if the Apostle note it for an Abuse, to practise such extraordinary Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue unknown, even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified (doubtless) the same Abuse practised in public and ordinary Service, being more notorious and Common, must needs be so much the more condemnable: as witness both Ancient Fathers, and your own Brethren, who have taught the use of a known Tongue, in all public and ordinary service of God, from this Text of Scripture, which (as you say) speaketh of Prayers extraordinary.  
Yea, but It is sufficient (saith he) that the vulgar people know, in general, although they understand not the Prayers in particular. Which again Contradicteth the Apostle, who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgar man to be able to give consent to the public Prayer, in saying Amen. And therefore requireth the Minister, Verse 7. as the Harper, to yield in particular a Distinction of tunes [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] and Verse 8. as a Trumpeter, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to give a certain known sound; that which your own Doctors have also confessed.  
A third Instance is taken out of Bellarmine, who saith that 
p Non reprehenditur oratio non intellecta, sed ●i anteponitur oratio quae intelligitur, ut patet Verse 17. [Tu quidem benè gratias agis, sed alter non aedificatur] Bellar. quo supra.  The Apostle reprehendeth not an unknown Prayer, but preferreth a known Prayer before the other, saying Verse 7. Thou, indeed, prayest well, but another is not edified. Flatly contradictory to the whole scope of the Apostle, throughout the Chapter, as your own 
* Salmeron. Ies. See above Challenge 2. at the let. (z.)  jesuit is forced to proclaim. The Apostle (saith he) would have the people to be edified, because then all things ought to have been done to the Edification and Consolation of the Assembly: and therefore he would not have any Public Prayer used among the Hebrews but in the Hebrew-language; nor among the Grecians but in Greek; nor yet among the Latins, but in the Latin tongue. The meaning than is [Thou indeed] namely, who art the Minister, and knowest the prayer, so far do●t well; but in respect of others, which cannot understand, Not well, because, They are not edified.  
His fourth Objection he wresteth out of the fourth Verse. [If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit.] So he. As though that strange Tongue, here spoken off, were not understood by him that prayed. Which contradicteth the Apostle, Verse 4. He that speaketh with the tongue doth edify himself: for never did any deny that he, who had the miraculous gift of Speech in a strange tongue, did understand himself, although sometimes he wanted the gift of interpreting it, for the understanding of all others. Therefore saith the Apostle, Verse 13. [He that speaketh with the tongue let him pray, that he may interpret it.] Fiftly, by the word [Spirit] 
q Id est, si orem▪ do●o linguae: nimirùm, quam non intelligam [Spiritus] id est Affectus meus orat, sed mens est sine fructu. Ergo dicit Apostolus, non Orationem sed mentem esse sine fructu. Bellar. quo sup. And this Answer M. Breeely borrowed from Bellar. Tract. upon the Mass, pag. 452.  your Cardinal would have understood the Affection, as if Affection without understanding did profit him that prayeth: which is fully contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, as witnesseth 
r Vox [Spiritus] à principio usque ad ●inem Donum Spiritus peculiare significat, quo impellebantur linguis lequi. Si Apostolus in hac voceadmitteret Homonymiam aliquam Graeci Patres nos de eo admonuissent. Salmeron. Ies. in eund. locum.  your Salmeron in plain terms; showing that the word, Spirit, throughout this whole Chapter, signifieth not the Affection, but the miraculous Spiritual gift of speaking in Strange tongues, as also the 
* Upon the same place both Ambrose, [Spiritu, id est, linguâ ignotâ] and Chrysostome also.  Fathers expound it.  
In the next place the aforesaid Anonymus contendeth by Reason, but such as others reached unto him. Father's say (saith he) the words of Consecration should be kept secret. True, to them that were not capable of this Sacrament, but never to the licenced Communicants; because that Christ, and his Apostles, yea, and the Universal Church primitive consecrated in an audible voice, and known language, as hath been confessed. Yet furthermore, The Church (saith he) used the said Hebrew word, Allelujah, unknown to the people. What then? know you not that in all Churches, of whatsoever language, is used also the Hebrew word, Amen? and if people do not learn one or two words of a strange tongue, it is not for that they are witless, but because they are wilful and careless.  
Their last Reason. Some languages (as for example that in Italy) were Roman and corrupted by invasion of Enemies of diverse languages, and in the end became Italian, etc. yet the public Service was not altered, but continued Roman as before. This Argument is à facto ad jus, all one with that Reasoning à Baculo ad angulum. Like as if some should Conclude, that because Stews are allowed at Rome, they are therefore justly licenced. But we demand, are men made for languages, or rather languages for men? if the first, than all men were bound to learn all languages. If the latter, then is that language to be used, which is known to serve best for the Edification and Consolation of God's people in his worship.   

A sixth CHALLENGE,  
Out of the Doctrine of Antiquity.  
ALthough it were preposterous to exact of us a proof, from Antiquity, of condemning the Service in a strange tongue, seeing (as hath been confessed) the Primitive practice is wholly for us; and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproof: yet shall we, for your better illumination, offer unto you some more express Suffrages of the ancient Fathers, after that we shall have satisfied your Objections, pretended to make for your Defence. Saint Augustine saith of the People, that their Safety consisteth not in the vigour of their understanding, but in their simplicity of believing. So indeed doth 
s Aug. de Bap. l. 6. c. 24. Multi irruunt in preces, etiam ab Haereticis compositas, & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non valentes decernere, utuntur cis, & plerunque precis vitium superat precantis affectus.— Non quià ista corrigenda non sint, ut populus ad id, quod planè intelligat, dicat Amen Idem de Catechizand. rudibus c. 9 Teste Cassandro in Liturg. pag. 100L.  Augustine forewarn the people, who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretics, yet might possibly be deluded with the obscurity of their Heretical Senses. The Difference is extreme. For Saint Augustine's people understood the language of those prayers, in the obscure and involved Sense whereof they were unwillingly ignorant. But your Popish people are wilfully ignorant both of the Words and Sense. The odds therefore is no less than this; they were simply, yours are sottishly ignorant, and Augustine wisheth that their Simplicity were corrected; you hold your People's blindness worthy to be commended.  
Secondly, Origen saith, that when Christians are exercised in reading of holy Scripture, albeit some words be not understood, yet is that reading profitable. This Sentence also is alleged for countenancing of 
t Origen Hom. ●0. in ●os●… Quae nos proferimus saepe non intelligimus, sed virtutes intelligunt. Ergo licet preces non intellectas usurpare. Ob. Bellar. l. 2. deverbo Dei cap. 16.  Prayer in an unknown tongue; notwithstanding that, in a man's Reading of Scripture, God is said to speak unto man: but in Praying, man is said to speak unto God. So that it may be both lawful and profitable to the Reader, to find some particular Scriptures, which God would have to excel the Capacity of the most learned, to humble them, to the admiration of his excellent wisdom, as the Fathers teach. Whereas contrarily an unknown Prayer, wittingly used, is both unprofitable and unlawful, as hath been copiously confessed by your own Divines, from the Doctrine of the Apostle.  
More Objections out of the Fathers you have not. We will try whether we can recompense your Nominalities (that we may so call your impertinent Objections) with Realities and soli● Proofs. Cast but your eyes upon the Marginals, consisting partly of the Relation of your own 
u johannes Billet in summa de divinis offlcijs; In primitiva Ecclesia (inquit) prohibitum erat, nè quis loqueretur linguis, nisi intelligerentur.— At nostris temporibus, ubi nullus aut rarus invenitur legens vel audience, qui intelligat, completum est quod à Propheta dicitur: Erit Sacerdos ut populus. Videtur potius esse tacendum quam psallendum. Innocent. 3. in Conc. gen. in lib. Decret. de office jud. Ordinar. Quoniam in pletisque partibus— permixti sunt populi diversarum linguarum—. Pontifices civitatum provideant virosidoneos, qui secundùm diversitatem linguarum divina illis officia celebrent.— Aen. Syl. Hist. Bohem. cap. 13. Cyrillo Romae Episcopo suppli●ante, ut lingua Sclavonicâ res divina fieret— essentque non pauci qui contradicerent, audita est vox, tanquàm è coelo, in haec verba missa, Omnis Spiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: indeque indultum Cyrillo. Hucusque ex Cassand. Lit. s●l. 101, 102.  Cassander, and partly of our 
x Conc. Aquisgranens. cap. 131. Psallentlum in Ecclesia Domino mens concordare debet cum voce, ut impleatur illud Apostoli, Psallam Spiritu, psallam & ment.  Collections, and you shall find, among the Fathers, 
y Ambros. in 1. Cor. 14. [Qui supplet locum Idiotae, quomodò dicet Amen ad benedictionem tuam, quià nescit quid dicis?] Imperitus n. nesciens quid dicitur, nescit finem orationis, & non respondet Amen. Verum, ut confirmetur benedictio: per hos n. qui respondent Amen, impletur confirmatio precis, ut omnia dicti veri testimonio conf●rmentur in mentibus Audientium.— [Sed alius non aedifica●ur.] Si igitur ad aedificandam Ecclesiam convenitis, ca debent dici, quae intelligant Audientes: nam quid prodest, ut quis lingua loquatur, quam solus scit? ideò tacere debet in Ecclesia, ut ij loquantur qui prosunt Audientibus.  Ambrose denying that He, who is the person ignorant of the Prayer, can give consent unto it, by saying Amen: and thereupon inferreth, that only Such things should be spoken in the public Congregation, which the Hearers understand. 
z Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 14. [Barbarus] Et ille mihi, & ego illi, non utique ob naturam vocis, sed ob imperitiam— Et qui non intelligit quid loquatur, sibi est Barbarus. [Qui locum tenetindocti.] Indoctum promiscuam pleb●m intelligit, monstratque non leue impedimentum esse, si non intelligat. [Omnia ad aedificationem.] Aedificare. n. Architecti est opus, & per omnia proximum juvare— Si n. aedificandi gratiâ non venis, quid necesse est omninò venisse?  Chrysostome noting a Man, Ignorant of the Prayer, to be no better than a Barbarian to himself, not in respect of the nature of the voice, but of his own ignorance; and declaring Prayers, in an unknown tongue, to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who requireth that All things be done to edification. 
a Isidor. de Eccles office l. 1. cap 10. Oportet, quando oratur, ut ab omnibus oretur.  Isiodore peremptorily affirming an [Oportet,] and duty, that All may be able to Pray in public places of prayer. Theophylact noting that 
b Theophylact. in 1. Cor. 14. [Tugra●ias bene agis, sed alius non aedificatur.] Proximiutilitate rejecta, inutiles erant huiusmodi gratiae.  The giving of thanks to God is unprofitable, where the edification of the people is neglected. Augustine, in his Comment upon the Psalms, often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them: and thereupon the 
c In the Preface of an unknown Author before the Prologue of S. Aug. upon the Psalms: Quo modo debitè potest Deo psallere, qui ignorat quid psallat?  Author of the Preface before his Comment (as it were tuning his note to Augustine's) doth deny that any can sing Psalms as he ought to God, who knoweth not what he singeth.  
And, lest that this might not suffice, we have added the 
* See above in the begi●…ing of the 6. Sect. letter (d.)  Edict of the Emperor I●stinian, commanding a loud voice in the Minister, that the people may understand his words. Next, a Canon of a Council, requiring a 
* See a little before at the letter (x.)  Concordance both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalms, as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture [I will pray with my spirit, and I will pray with my understanding.] Then, a Decree of one Pope, in his Council, that provision be made, where people of diverse Languages dwell in the same Cities, that their 
* Ibid. at the letter (u)  Service may be done according to their Different tongues. After, the Resolution of another Pope, to grant unto the 
* Ibid.  Sclavonians, at their conversion to the faith, that Divine Service might be used in their own tongue; moved thereunto, as by a voice from heaven, sounding out that Scripture; Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly, 
* Ibid.  a Prohibition in the Primitive Church, that None should speak in languages unknown to the people.  
When you have digested all these Premises, concerning the Equity and Necessity of known Prayers in the public and Divine Service, both in consideration of God's worship and Man's manifold profit, so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrollable testimonies, then guess (if you can) of what die the face of your Doctor Stapleton was, when he shamed not to call this our Practice of known prayers 
d Quod aute●… omnia vernacu●e fiunt in Ecclesis, planè profanum est. Stapleton. spec. pravit. Haeret. p. 580.  Profaneness? and to number it among Heretical pravities. As for your own People, who prefer an unknown worship, what can we say less than that all such Ignorants are but dumb worshippers, and because of their ignorance, in praying they know not what, they are to be sent to accompany Popinjays and jackdaws, accordingly as St. 
* See above, Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3.  Augustine formerly hath resembled them.    

The sixth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christ's Institution, [TAKE YE.]  
SECT. VIII.  
THus said Christ to his Disciples; by which words what is meant, your jesuit will express (to wit) that 
f Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat, verbum Dandi Tran●lationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipulorum significat. Salmer. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 18. p. 126. Videtur quòd Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam, aut patinam tradiderit propinquiori●su, etc. jansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131.  Because the Apostles took that which Christ gave, the word [GAVE] doth signify a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take. Here, you see, is Taking with hands; especially seeing that Christ, in giving the Cup, said, Drink you all; Math. 26. one delivering it to an other as it is said of the Paschall Cup, Luc. 22. 17. as it is 
* jansen. Concord. in eund. locum. Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas, singulis in manus de derit; & Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt: sic enim dixit; Accipite, dividite inter vos.  confessed.  

The contrary Canon in your (now) Roman Mass.  
Concerning this, It is to be noted (say 
g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit, ut ab isto modo olim licito, nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum, pro reverentia Eucharistiae, abstineant. Et rursus; Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpfit suam particulam, ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum, nempè, Caesar-augustanam: verùm ob sacram huius Mysterii singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit, nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent, sed à Sacerdo●e in os sumentis mitteretur. Salmeron. quo sup. Tract. 12. pag. 78, 79.  you) that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable, that Lay-people abstain from taking the Sacrament with their own hands: but that it be put into their mouths by the Priest; which is so ordained for a singular reverence. So you.   

CHALLENGE.  
WHat we may note of this your [Notandum] the Confessions of your own 
h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt; & hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres. Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit; Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus. Et ex Cypri. Serm. de lapsis, ob nonnulla exempla, quae producit, constat, Eucharistiam in manibus Communicantium Laicorum dari. Vt constat ex Conc. Toletano, cap. 14. & ex sexta Synodo in T●ullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea & argentea, in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam ut per ea communicent, sed proprijs manibus. Idém colligitur ex Epist. Cornel. Papae, quam refert Euseb. lib. 6. Hist. cap. 35, & ex Dionies. Al. x. ut refert Niceph. cap. 9 & ex verbis Ambrofij. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. in Tho. Disp. 49. Sect. 6. initio. Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazi. Morem fuisse, ut Christiani Eucharistiam, quam accipissent, ad os admoverent.— unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis, quandò non communicant, dùm Eucharistia ostenditur, manus tendant, quasi gestientes manibus sumere. Maldon. Ies. de Euch. §. Nova creatura, pag. 285.  Jesuits will show: first, that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church, for above 500 years, was, according to Christ's Institution, to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants. Secondly, that the same Order was observed at Rome (as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius.) Thirdly, that whereas Some had devised, for Reverence-sake, certain Silver vessels, by the which they received the Sacrament; yet two Counsels, the one at Toledo, and the other at Trullo, did forbid that fashion, and required that they should receive it with their hands. Hitherto from you selves.  
Vain, therefore, is your pretence of Reverence, in suffering the Priest only to receive it with his hands, as being more worthy in himself than all the rest of the people: when as our Highpriest Christ jesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples. Or else to deny this liberty unto the people, as if their Hands were less sanctified than their mouths.  
But you will say that it is in Reverence, lest that the body of Christ may (as you teach) light upon the ground, if any fragments of the Host should chance to fall. There can be no doubt, but that in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament Christians ought to use due Cautelousnes, that it may be done without miscarriage; yet must you give us leave to retort your pretence of Reverence upon yourselves, thus: Seeing that Christ himself Instituted, and his Apostles observed, and that the whole Church of Christ (for so many hundred years) thus practised the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand, without respect of such Reverence, they therefore were not of your opinion, to think every Crumme or piece of the Host, that falleth to the ground, to be really the Body of Christ.  
This Aberration we may call, in respect of others, but a small Transgression, if yet any Transgression may be called small, which is a wilful violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ, [Do this.]    

The seaventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the Sense of the next words, [EAT YE.]  
SECT. IX.  
AS in the third Transgression, we, by these words of Christ [He gave it to them,] spoken in the plural number, have proved from your own Confessions, a necessary Communion of the people in the public Celebration thereof, with the Priest, against your (now) Profession of private Masses, contrary to the ancient Custom and universal practice of the Church: so now out of these words [TAKE YE, EAT YE] we observe that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist, and not only Spectators thereof. An Abuse condemned by our Church of Eugland in her 25. Article saying, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon.  

The Contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass.  
But your Practice now is flat contrary, in your Church, by admitting people of all forts, not as the Lords Guests to Eat of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; but as Gazers, only to look on it, as upon a proper Sacrifice: telling the People that they, seeing the Priest eat and drink, 
i Synod. Trident. Sess. 22. c. 6. Adstantes si dices, spiritualiter communicant. In cujus (namely, the Priests) persona totus populus spirituall quadam sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaud entèr debet credere. Ecchius Enchirid. de Euch. c. 10. p. 114 and Acosta the Ies. See above Sect. 5. let. (g.)  Do spiritually eat and drink in the person of the Priest. And the only beholding of the Priest's Sacrifice, at the Elevation and Adoration thereof, is esteemed amongst you, at this day, the most solemn and saving worship, which any people can perform unto God.   

CHALLENGE.  
But Christ (you see) instituted this Sacrament only for Eaters. The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation; Let a man examine himself: and exhorting every one, being prepared, to Eat, saith, So let him eat. This (to use your own 
k Temporibus Dionysijs Areop. (ut patet ex cap. 3. Hier.) omnes invitabantur ad singula sacra, [venite, fratres, ad communionem.] Chrys. Orat. ad Mart. Philog. Quotidianum Sacrificium in cassum fit, nemo accedit. As witnesseth Card. Alan. l. 〈◊〉. de Euch. cap 30. pag. 648. Sciendum est iuxta antiquos Patres, quòd soli Communicantes divinis mysterijs interesse consueverant, unde ante oblationem iubebantur exire Catechum any & Poenitentes, sc. quià nodùm se praeparaverant ad communicandum. Cassand. Consult. Art. 24. p. 216, 217. And he further brings in Cochlaeus de Sacrific. Missae, witnessing the same: Quòd olim tam Sacerdotes quam Laici, quicunque Sacrificio Missae non intererant, peractâ communicatione cum Sacrificante communicabaut; sicut in Can. Apostolorum, & libris antiquis. Doctorum Ecclesiae perspicue cognoscitur. Cassander. Liturg. cap. 30. Nec propriè dici potest Communio, nisi plures de eodem Sacrificio participent. Haec Micrologus cap. 51 de orat. ad populum Teste Espenc. Tract. de privata Missa, fol 232. col. 2.  Confessions) was practised in ancient times, when as the people were thus generally invited; Come, Brethren, unto the Communion. When as ancient Fathers (as you have also acknowledged) suffered none but Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist. As for them that came unprepared, and as not intending to Communicate, they commanded them to be gone, and to be packing out of doors. To this purpose your own Relator telleth you, from other Authors, of the practice of Antiquity, and of other succeeding Churches, in not suffering any to be present, but such as did Communicate; and of removing and expelling them that did not.  
Nor can the Church of Rome justly take exception at this, seeing that in the Roman Church also, in the days of P. Greg. the first, which 
(l) Sciendum est, iuxta antiquos Patres, quòd soli Communicantes divinis officijs inter esse consueverant. Microlog. de Eccles. observat. Et in Liturg. Aethiop. Si communicare non vultis, discedite. In Liturg. Armen. Exeant toràs. Nic Cusan. Dico, inquit Dionies. Areop. quòd qui non parati erant ad susceptionem, expellebantur ex Ecclesia. Haec. Teste Cassandro Liturg. c. 26. p. 59  was 600. years after Christ) the office of the Deacon, at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist, was to cry aloud saying, 
m Diaconus clamabat, [Si quis non communicet, det locum.] Greg. Dial. c. 23. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] etc.  If any do not communicate, let him give place. Where we see the religious wisdom of that ancient Church of Rome, which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devour a public Sacrament, and to exclude a Communion: Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Gathering together, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Communion; as also of The Supper of the Lord. Yea and Calixtus, a Pope more ancient than Gregory, required that persons present should Communicate: 
n Calixtus P. ut habetur de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Peracta.— Peractâ Consecratione, omnes communicent,— Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta tenet Ecclesia.  Because (saith he) the Apostles had so ordained; and our Church of Rome observeth the same.  
But what have We said? have We called this Sacrament the Supper of our Lord? so (we thought) were we taught by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. before we heard your jesuit 
o Calvinistarum & Lutheranorum inscitia, Sacramentum hoc Coenam appellantium: atqui nullus in sacris literis locus est, ubi Coena vocatur. Vbi dicit D. Paulus, [jam non est Dominican Coenam manducare] nullo judicio adhibito existimant illum Eucharistiam Coenam appellare— Non viderunt homines coeci quòd Luc. 22. 20. & Paulus, vers. 25. scribit [Postquam coenavit] usitatam & communem coenam, ante hoc Sacramentum, Coenam vocant. Maldon. Ies. in Matth. 26. pag. 624.  Maldonate denying this, and bitterly inveighing against Protestants, terming them Blind men for want of judgement, for so calling it. But he must pardon us, if we (though we should suspect our own sight) yield to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times, as to men far more clear-sighted than that jesuit could be; who (as both your 
p Vetustissimi Patres, Apostolorum authoritatem secuti, coenae Christi nomine sacram Eucharistiam interdum vocârunt; quòd in illo novissimae coenae salutari mysterio à Christo Domino sit instituta. Catech. Rom. par. 2. p 171. Coena Dominica, ex Institutionis tempore, à D. Paulo dicitur. Lindan. Panop. l. 4 c. 37.  Roman Catechism with Lindan instructeth, and as your Cardinal 
q Constat Coenam Domini (sic enim patres consueverunt institutionem sacrae Eucharistiae appellare:— id●mque esse Coenam Dominicam manducare, quod Eucharistiam sumere, ut Aug. demonstrat) fuisse distinctam à Coena Paschali. Baron. An. 34 num. 45.  Baronius confesseth) following the authority of the Apostles, used to call the sacred Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, distinct from the Paschall Supper, which went before it: amongst whom you have 
r Dionies. Areop Hier. c. 3. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyprian. lib. instituit de Coena Dommi, Bern. Tract. habet de Coena Domini. Tert. lib. 2. cap. 4. ad uxorem; Convivium Dominicum. Hier. in 1. Cor. Caeterum Dominica Coena debet esse omnibus communis, quia ille omnibus, qui adorant, discipulis aequalitèr tradidit Sacramentum. Anselm. in 1. Cor. Dominica Coena omnibus Christianis debet esse communis. Baron. quo suprà.  Dionysius Areopagita, with Chrysostome, Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, Anselm, Bernard. Whereupon (with some of them) we enjoin a Necessity of a joint Communion with those that are present.  
Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controversy? thus then. Whosoever thou art (saith 
s Obsecro, si si quis ad convivium vocatus, & manus quidem laverit & accubuerit, paratusque & dispositus ad mensam fuerit, & tamen nihil ciborum gusta verit, nun inferet Convivatori contumeliam, à quo fuerat vocatus? Nonnè satiùs erit ei, quitalis est, omnino non comparuisse? ità tu quoque qui advenisti, & hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus reliquis, ex Eorum te numero esse, qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non cum indignis abscessisti. Quomodò cum manseris, de mensa ista non participas? indignus es igitur eâ communione, quae in precibus? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Chrysost. H●m. 3. in Epist. ad Ephes.  Chrysostome) that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand only looking on, and not eat, thou dost no less Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament, than a man invited to a Feast, who will not taste thereof, doth unto the Lord that invited him to be a Guest. So he. And to show that it cannot be sufficient to behold it only as a proper Sacrifice (as you pretend) the same 
t Audi Chrysost. Home 61. add pop. Antioch. & Hom. 3. ad Ephes. Frustrà hîc offertur hostia salutaris & quotidianum Sacrificium; in cassum Altari insistimus, cum nemo est qui participet, nullus cui communicetur.— Quid stas, si è numero, es poenitentium '— tu tamen hîc interim persistis impudens? at ex iis non es, sed inter eos, qui possint esse participes Espenc. de Missa privata, pag. 221. Iten Chrysost. Hom. 3. ad Ephes. p. 78. Edit. Savil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Father (as you know) saith against such Bystanders, Why do we wait at the Altar, offering (meaning 
* See hereafter in the sixth Book.  unproperly) a Sacrifice, when as there is none to communicate? And why dost thou, impudent fellow, stand here still, not being one of them that participate thereof? But enough.  
This than you perceive is a matter of no small importance, even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament, which is a Divine Banquet; being also enjoined upon the Catholic Church by that Command of Christ, [DO THIS.] Therefore the Command and Precept coming, maketh you Transgressor's for not- Eating; even as by the first Command given unto mankind of [Eat not] our first Parents became Transgressor's for Eating. So justly doth our 
* Exhortation before the Communion.  Church require, that Gazers, who comunicate not, should depart. We forbear to repeat that which we have formerly 
* See above Chap. 1. §. 2.  proved (to wit,) that you, by not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the Celebration this Sacrament, are condemned by the word Mass, whereof you have so long boasted, until that now your Glory is become your shame.    

The Eight Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, by a second Contradiction of the Sense of the former words [EAT YE.]  
SECT. X.  
THis is the last Act of Christ, concerning the use of the first Element, viz. [Bread] saying, EAT YE; even as he said of the other, [Drink ye.] and of both he gave this his joint Command [Do this.] Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed, as the only bodily outward end of this Sacrament, it doth exclude all other bodily Uses of man's invention. Accordingly our Church of England Article 25. saith, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about, but to be duly used.  

The contrary Canon of the Roman Mass.  
The holy Synod of Trent (saith your 
a Statuit sacrosancta Synodus Trident. Sess 13. c. 5. Divinum hoc Sacramentum publicè interdum proponendum, vel circumferendum esse per vias & loca publica cum solenni pompa & veneratione. Quae est laudabilis consuetudo. Suarez Ies. in Thom. 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 65. Sect. 1. p. 827.  jesuit) hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved, carried abroad, and publicly proposed to the people in Procession, with solemn Pomp and Worship. Which is a laudable Custom.   

CHALLENGE.  
WE do not dispute against all manner of Reservation of the Eucharist, for we acknowledge some to be ancient; but we inquire into the religious use and end of Reservation: which, we say, was not for any public Profession, or Adoration, but only for a Sacramental Eating thereof. And how unjustly you call this your Procession (only for public Adoration) Laudable, we are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your own Jesuits and others (out of Cyprian, and other Fathers) who, consulting first about Antiquity, grant that, after the Celebration of the Eucharist, anciently 
b Prisca consuetudo erat dandi Eucharistiam infantib', ut ex Cypr. & aliis constat: & si aliquae particulae superessent, mos erat ut puori impuberes, qui Ecclesiam frequentabant, accerserentur, ut eas consumerent. Suarez. Ies. quo suprà, Disp. 46. Sect. 6. p. 557. In Cone. Matisconensi advocantur innocentes parvuli, ut detur illis, si quid ex Sacramenti particulis consumendum est. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Quartò profert. Licet Graeci antiquitus pueris darent (ut de Consecrat. D. 2.) parvuli tamen Sacramentaliter sumere non possunt, quià non utuntur Sacramento, ut Sacramento, sed ut communicibo, propter carentiam discretionis Summa Angel. p. 148. Pueris exhibitae, sed (ut sic dicam) perfunctoriè, ne ut credo corrum perentur. Espensol. 2. de Euch. c. 12. Reliquias comburendas esse. Isych. in Levit. c. 8. §. Quomodo ergo.  The Remainders, which were left (lest they should corrupt and putrify) were usually either given to children under age (yet not to be received Sacramentally, but only to be consumed by them:) or were burnt in the fire, or else eaten reverently in the Vestry, called the 
* This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Clement will Bellarmine have to be Vas quoddam, a Vessel, wherein the Sacrament was reserved: for he thought that this would make for their Priest's Pixe, or Box. But he is learnedly confuted in this by Doctor Whittaker, Praelect. de Euch. p. 627 even out of Clement himself: who requireth that a Church should be built somewhat long, inform of a Ship, and to have on both sides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like a ship. And the LXX. in Esay 22. doerender it thus; that Esay was commanded to enter into [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] the word coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thalamus, or Domus. And in Clemens doth signify cubiculum Sacerdotum; wherein the Priests kept it for no other use than to Eat it.  Pastophorium. Which was likewise the Custom of Rome in the primitive age, as 
c Quòd si remanserint in crastinum, non serventur, sed cum timore & tremore in Sacrario consumantur. Clemens P. apud Gratian. de Consecra. D. 2.  Pope Clement witnesseth. And although in the times of extreme persecution Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist, and carry it home to their houses, yet it was (as you 
d Quondam, imminente persecutione, domum deportabant, & asservabant, cum opus esset sumpturi— Consuetudo post per Conc. Toletanum antiquata. Durant. de Ritib. l. 1. c. 16. num. 11.  grant) to no other end but that they might eat it: and this only in the time of Persecution: After which time the same Custom was abrogated. So you. How then can you call the Reservation of the Host, for public Procession, and not for Eating, Laudable, which hath been thus checked and gainsaid by so sincere Antiquity?  
Secondly, when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your own Roman Custom, you grant that it was not until a 
e Hist. Mediolan. Anno 1404. Circumferri coeptum, etc. quam Processionem tantâ laetitiâ & consensione, ac laetâ solennitate prosecuta est Latina Ecclesia. Nam de Graeca nihil mihi constat. Espenc. de Euch. c. 8 p. 47. [We may add, that there is no Extat of any such Circumgestation in the Greek Church.  Thousand four hundred years after Christ. And must it then be called a Laudable Custom, whereby (that we may so speak) beardless novelty doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquity?  
Thirdly, in discussing the end, which was destinated by our Saviour Christ, you further grant, that 
f Primarius finis servandi Eucharistiam semper fuit manducatio: servatur enim ad viaticum infirmorum. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Deinde. Sacramentum per se est dandum propter suum primarium effectum, & non aliâs. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 62. Sect. 4. §. Secunda Sent.  The primitive and principal end, prescribed by Christ, is for Sacramental eating: and that the Sacrament is to be given for this, as it's primary effect. And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostentation of not- Eating, and to call it a Laudable Custom, argueth what little Congruity there is between your Practice, and Christ's Institution. And how much less Laudable will this appear to be, when we consider the gross and intolerable Abuses of your Processions, which are displayed by your own Authors? Noting in them the very fooleries of the 
g Ità Romani factitabant, & aliae pleraeque Gentes, à quibus ad nos proculdubiò ritus hujusmodi manavit.— Nam Supplicationum nostrarum pompas solent ludicra quaedam praecedere, ubi effigies aliqua magnis malis de hiscens, dentibusque sonitum faciens, & aliae oblectationes judicrae, in quibus Prophetae repraesentantur, alati pueri, & chorus inducitur foeminarum: hic David 'em agit, ille Salomonem, alij Reginas fingunt, alij venatores ludunt, Simiam, & jumenta inducentes. Sacerdotum alij Divorum personas agunt, earum imagines aut reliquias ferentes. Polyd. Virgil. (in that Edition which is not castrated by the Romish Inquisitors) Lib. 6. Invent. p. 414, 415.  Roman Pagans, by your fond Pageants, where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints; others of Queens, accompanied with Bears and Apes, and many like profane and sportful Inventions, and other Abuses: which occasioned some of your own more devout Professors to wish that this your Custom were abrogated, 
h Videtur hic Circumgestationis usus etiam cum Eccclesiae lucro omitti posse, cum sic recens, & diu absque ea Circumgestatione Sacramento suus honos constiterit; plerunque non devotioni, sed pompae & ostentationi inservit. Itaque vir summi iudicij Albertus Crantziuslaudat Nic. Cusanum Legatum per Germaniam, quòd abusum eius, in nimis frequenti per singulas ferias Circumgestatione, sustulerit, & constituerit, quòd nisi infra tempus festi Sacramento dedicati, in publicum non deferetur: quia (inquit) eius Sacramentum institutum est ad usum, non ad ostentationem. Cassand. Consult. Art. 22. Tit. the Circumgestatione. pag. 174.  Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church, both because it is but an Innovation, and also for that it serveth mostwhat for ostentation and pomp, rather than pious Devotion. So they.  
Lastly, lest you may object (as else where) that a Negative Argument (as this, because Christ did not institute this Custom, therefore it may not be allowed) is of no effect; we add, that the Argument negative (if in any thing) then must it prevail in condemning that Practice, which maintaineth any new End, differing from that which was ordained by Christ. Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case: the one 
i Christus non distulit, he servari iussit in crastinum. Orig. Hom. 5. in Levit. Panis iste recipitur, non includitur. Cyprian. de coena Dom. col 382.  saying, Christ reserved it not till tomorrow: and the other; This bread is received, and not reserved, or put into a Box. Which Conclusion we may hold, in condemning of your public Carrying of the Host in the streets and Market-places, to the end only that it may be Adored, aswell as (of latter times) your Pope Pius Quartus (which your Congregation of 
k Sic sanctiss. Sacramentum ad infirmos deferendum est, ut illud sumant, non autem ut adoren● tantùm; sicubi fit in aliquibus locis, quod Pius Quartus prohibuit. Declaratio Rom. Cardinal. in Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 6. [Set forth by joh. Gallemart, Academiae Duac. Catechist. pag. 115.]  Cardinal's report) did forbid a new-upstart Custom of Carrying the Sacrament to sick people, that they might adore it, when as they were not able to eat it. All these Premises do infer, that your Custom of Circumgestation of the Sacrament, in public Procession, only for Adoration, cannot justly be called Laudable, except you mean thereby to have it termed a Laudable Novelty, and a Laudable profanation, and Transgression, against the Institution of Christ; as now from your own Confessions hath been plainly evicted: and as will be further manifested, when we are to speak of your 
* In the seventh Book.  Idolatrous Infatuation itself.    

The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.]  
SECT. XI.  
REmembrance is an act of Understanding, and therefore showeth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Understanding, saying, [DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.]  

The contrary Canon of the Roman Mass, in times past.  
Your jesuit Maldonate will be our Relater, ingenuously confessing, that in the days of 
l Augustini & Innocentij sententia erat, quae sexcentos Annos in Ecclesia viguit, Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse: quae ab Ecclesia iam reiecta, Conc. Trid. statuente, non solum non necessarium esse, sed nè quidem decere Eucharistiam Infantibus dari. Maldom. Ies. Com. in joh. 6. 53. p. 719.  Saint Augustine, and Pope Innocent the first, this opinion was of force in your Church, For six hundred years together, viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants. Which opinion (saith he) is now rejected by the Council of Trent, Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessary for Infants, but also that is Indecent to give it unto them. So he. Of this more in the Challenge.   

CHALLENGE.  
IS not now this your Churches Rejecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ? How then shall your Trent-fathers' free your forefather Pope Innocent, and your former Roman Church from this taxation? This they labour to do, but (alas their misery!) by collusion and cunning: for the same Synod of 
m Sancta Synodus docet, Parvulos, usu rationis carentes, nullâ obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae communionem— Neque ideò tamen damnanda est Antiquitas, si eum morem aliquando in quibusdam locis serv●runt, quià certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fecisse, sine controversia credendum est. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. cap. 4.  Trent resolveth the point thus; The holy Synod (say they) teacheth, that Children being void of the use of Reason, are not necessarily bound to the Sacramental receiving of the Eucharist. This we call a collusion; for by the same Reason, wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist, because they want reason, they should have concluded, that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants, even because they wanted Reason. Which the Council, doubtless, knew, but was desirous thus to cover her own shame, touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament unto Infants. In excuse whereof, your Council of Trent adjoineth, that the Church of Rome, in those days, was not condemnable; but why? Because (saith your 
* See the Testimony below at the letter (r.)  Council) Truly and without Controversy we ought to believe, that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants, as thinking it necessary to Salvation. Which Answer your own Doctors will prove to be a bold, and a notorious untruth, because (as your jesuit 
n Ecclesia tunc adducta fuit Eucharistiam Infantibus dare, argumento sumpto ex verbis Christi, [Nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, & biberitis sanguinem, nòn habebitis vitam in vobis] Maldon. Ies. disp. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Nono, p. 100L. Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos, nisi Eucharistiam perciperent, salvos esse non posse. Idem Com. in joh. 6. 63. p. 717.  showeth) They then believed that Infants baptised could not be saved, except they should participate of the Eucharist; taking their Argument from that Scripture of john 6. [Except you eat the flesh of the Son, etc.] and therefore held they it necessary to the salvation of Infants.  
That this was the belief of Pope Innocent, and of the Church of Rome under him, your Parisian Doctor 
o Innocent. 1. Rom. Pont. Epist. 93. ad Conc. Milevet. con. Pelag. respondebat, quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemijs, etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est: nisi 〈◊〉. manducaverint carnem filij hominis, non habebunt vitam in seme●ipsis; qui autem hanc els sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassare velle, cum praedicant nos habere, quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum. [Whence Espencaeus thus:] Mirum, ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae necessitate Baptismi & ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem; nisi idem, & ex eodem tùm loco, tùm Innocentij argumento & authoritate, adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August. Epist. 106. con. Pelag.— Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem, ubi de hac ipsâ re cum ageretur, hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum, nè Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur. Si autem cedunt Sedi Apostolicae, vel potius ipsi Magistro & Domino Apostolorum, qui dicit, non vitam habituros, nisi manducaverint & biberint, etc. Espen. de Adorat Euch. l. 2 c. 12 pag. 58. [Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of S. Augustine, and Ibid. pag. 59 he proveth that he did not retract this opinion.] Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra julianum libri, quo valentiorem habuit Aduersarium neminem; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est, ac proindè sententiam non retractâsse videtur: in quibus julianum obruit Maiorum praeiudicio, ab Innocent●o Rom. Pont. exorius, qui parvulos (ait) definivit, nisi mandacaverint carnem filij hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Espen. ibid. [And a little after he showeth the looseness of Aquinas his Solutions. Albeit, S. Augustine was not constant in this opinion, but (as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum, etc.) that although the Child do not participate, yet by Baptism he is made partaker of that which it signifieth.]  Espencaeus also proveth at large, out of the express writings of Pope Innocent. Yea, and your greatly approved Binius, in his Volumes of the Counsels, dedicated to Pope Paul the fifth, 
p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis Innocentij Papae ad Conc. Milevit. Epist 25. Illud vero, etc. Hinc Binius; Hinc constat Innocentij sententia, quae 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia (quamque Augustinus secutus) Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse. Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit, eam non solûm non necessariam Infantibus, sed nè quidem decere ut eis distribuatur— Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunclocum, [Nisi manducaveritis, etc.] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari. Sed decepti sunt, quòd vim argumenti, quo Pontifex utitur, non sunt assecuti. Ille n. ut Pelagium (qui docebat Baptismum infantibus, Parent fideli prognatis, peccatum originale non contrahentibus, necessarium non esse) convinceret, hanc Ratiocinatione est usus: Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio, ijsdem Baptismi sumptio magis est necessaria. At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem, probatur per verba johannis [Nisi manducaveritis] etc. Quae expositio Praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat. [De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum, Epist. 106. Col. 148. Edit. Basil 1543.] Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon: Ann. 1618. being omitted in his former-printed Volume, Anno 1606.  explaineth the same so exactly (See the Marginal Citation) that it will permit no Evasion. And so much the rather, because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege, for cause of Alteration, doth confirm this unto us: It is undocent (say they) to give the Eucharist unto Infants. This may persuade us that Innocent held it necessary, else would he not have practised, and patronised a thing so utterly undecent.  
We dispute therefore. If the Church of Rome, in the days of Pope Innocent the first, held it a doctrine of faith, in the behalf of Infants, that they ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the same Church of Rome, in her Council of Trent (whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be believed upon necessity of Salvation) did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary, no nor yet decent for Infants. Say now, did the Church of Rome not err in the days of Pope Innocent? then is she now in an error. Or doth she not now err herein? then did she formerly err, and consequently may err hereafter, in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation, which in itself is Superfluous and Undecent. Thus of the contrary custom of the Church of Rome, in elder times.   

The new contrary Opinion, concerning the Roman Mass, at this day.  
Even at this day also your jesuit will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be, that 
q Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces huius Sacramenti●, sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit, ad decentiam, & reverentiam, quae aliquali utilitati parvulorum praeferenda est. Suarez. Tom. 3. Dist. 61. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca.  Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.   

CHALLENGE.  
Whereunto we oppose the Authority of the 
r Conc. Carthag. 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis & mortuis dari prohibet, & consequenter pueris, qui utrique sunt divini illius cibi incapaces, ut quidam ratiocinantur: quià tales non possint accipere, nec comedere.— Et Lateranens. Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm, cum ad Annos discretionis pervenerint, Eucharistiam accipiant.— Quià verò propria & spiritualis manducatio & bibitio est, sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest, frustrà pueris Sacramentum & cum periculo porrigeretur— Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere, quia hoc possit trinus & quatrimus praestare: sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere, 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum, & discernere ab aliis cibis. Salmeron. Jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 12. in illa verba [Dedit Discipulis] pag. 7●.  Council of Carthage, and of that (which you call the) Council of Lateran, which denied, as you know, that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants, accounting them uncapable of divine and spiritual feeding: without which (say they) the corporal profiteth nothing. But we also summon, against the ●ormer Assertion, eight of your ancient 
s And of this opinion were Mayor, Petrus Soto, Paludanus, Alensis, Gabriel, Catharinus, Dom. de Soto.— Ratio eorum (saith the same Ies.) quià hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis: Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere, quod parvuli non possunt. Suarez. Ies. quosup. [And to the former Schoolmen, to make them even, we may add also Summa Angel: Tit. Eucharistia.]  Schoolmen, who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us. And we further (as it were, arresting you in the King's name) produce against you Christ his writ, the Sacred Scripture, whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principal Acts of Reason; one is before, and two are at the time of Receiving. The first is 
* 1. Cor. 11.  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Let a man examine himself, and so come, etc. The second [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] To discern the Lords body. The third is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] To remember the Lords death until his Coming again. All which Three, being acts of judgement, how they may agree unto Infants, being persons void of judgement, judge you. And remember, we pray you, that we speak of Sacrament all Eating, and not of that use 
* See above. Sect. 10.  before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament; which was for Consuming it, and not for Communicating thereof.     

CHAP. III.  

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass by the now Church of Rome, is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following (concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup) [HE LIKEWISE took THE CUP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINK YE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOU DO IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.]  
SECT. I.  
BY which Words [Like manner of Taking, and Giving, and Saying, Drink ye All of this] we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramental Rite of Drinking as of Eating; and hath tied his Church Catholic in an equal obligation for performance of both, in the administering of this Sacrament.  
This Cause will require a just Treatise, yet so, that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points, to the end that the extreme Insolency, Novelty, Folly, and Obstinacy of the Roman Church, in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon, may be plainly displayed; that every conscience of man, which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice, or transported with malice, must needs see and detest it. We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Mass.  

The contrary Canon of the Romish Church, in her Mass.  
She in her Council of Constance, decreed that 
a Christus sub utraque specie Discipulis administravit— Licet in primitiuâ Ecclesiâ sub●utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur,— tamen haec consuetudo, ut à Laicis sub specie panis tantùm reciperetur,— habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare. Conc. Constant. Sess. 13.  Although Christ, indeed, and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds; notwithstanding (say they) this Custom of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable. Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her 
b Ipsa Synodus, à Spiritu Sancto edocta, & ipsius Ecclesiae iudicium & consuetudinem secura, declarat & docet, nullo divino iure Laicos, & ●lericos non consecrantes, obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum: etsi Christas venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit, & Apostolis tradidit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. cap. 1.  Council of Trent, requiring that the former Custom and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laics, yea, and also by those Priests, who being present at Mass, do not the office of Consecrating. Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus: Both parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike.   

CHALLENGE.  
But we demand; what Conscience should move your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Council of Constance, which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same 
c Respondeo, Fuit reprobarum Conc. Constantiense à Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem, quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam. Bellar. l 1. de Conc. c. 7. §. Quintum.  Council of Constance in another Decree thereof, wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope, by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Council? and that (as the 
d Dixit Petro Christus [Cum frater in te peccaverit, si ●e non andia●, Dic Ecclesiae.] Ergo Ecclesiam Papae judicem constituit. Conc. Basil. apud Aenaeam Sylvium de gest. eiusdem Conc.  Council of Basil doth prove) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter, to whom he said, Tell the Church. We return to the State of the Question.   

The full State of the Question.  
All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists, or Lutherans, hold, that in the public and set celebration of the Eucharist, the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants, that are capable of both. The question, thus stated, will cut off a number of Impertinences, which your Obiectors busy themselves withal, as will appear in due places. We repeat it again [In public Assemblies of all prepared, and capable of the Communion.]  
The best Method, that I could choose, for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversy, is by way of Comparison: as, namely, First, by comparing the Institution of Christ, with the contrary Ordination and Institution of the Roman Church. Secondly, Christ his Example, with contrary Examples. Thirdly, the Apostles Practise, with the adverse Practice. Fourthly, the Primitive Custom of the Church Catholic, with the after-contrarie Custom; and the Latitude thereof, together with latitude of the other. Fiftly, the Reasons thereof with Reasons. Sixtly, the diverse manners of beginning of the one, as also the Dispositions of men therein, with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men, in continuing the other.  
The discussing of all which points will present unto your view diverse kinds of Oppositions. In the first is the Conflict of Religion with Sacrilege. In the second, a sovereign Presidence in Christ, with Contempt. In the third, of Faithfulness with Faithlesness. In the fourth, of Antiquity with Novelty. In the fifth, of Universality with Pa●city. In the sixth, of Wisdom, with Folly: as also of Charity with Injustice and Impiety. In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance; as likewise of Devotion with Profaneness: And all these marching and warring together, without any possibility of Reconciliation at all.    

The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary: proving the Precept of Christ, for the use of both kinds to all lawful Communicants.  
SECT. II.  
THere is one word twice used in the tenor of Christ his Institution; once concerning the Bread, [Hoc FACITE] DO THIS:] the second time touching the Cup, 
* 1. Cor. 11. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  [Hoc FACITE QVOTIESCUNQVE:] DO THIS AS OFTEN etc.] Both which whosoever should deny to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept, might be confuted by your own Jesuits, Doctors, Bishops, and Cardinals, among 
* See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margin.  whom we find your Barradas interpreting it, Praecipit: your Valentian, Praeceptum: your jansenius, Mandate: your Alan, Praeceptio: your Bellarmine, jubet; each one signifying a Command. But of what? this is our next Inquisition.  
The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration, and some to Distribution, Manducation, and Drinking. Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds, being with common consent acknowledged to be under that Command of [Hoc facite,] are the Taking Bread, and Blessing it, etc. The other touching Administration of the Cup, whereof it is said, [He took it, and gave it to his Disciples] whom after he had Commanded, saying [Drink you all of this:] he added the other Command set down by Saint Paul, saying unto them, [Do this as often as ye shall do it in remembrance of Me.] That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds. A Precept than it must needs be, But we are not ignorant of your Evasions.  

Your first Evasion.  
Although (say 
e Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist. c. 25 §. Tertium.  you) it be said to his Disciples [Drink you all, and, Do this] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests. And only to the Apostles; saith Master 
* M. Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. § 7. after the let. (y) and after (g.)  Brereley: And again, The Apostles did represent the Priests.   

CHALLENGE.  
WE answer that your own 
f Quorundam opinio, est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa uèrba [Hoc facite.] Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione immediate ea dixisse, antequàm Eucharistiam sub utraque specie dedit, vel pòst— Quodsi verba ista Christus post datam Eucharistiam illam dixit, manifestum est, illum non Sacerdotibus hinc dedisse: quod mihi ex literae decursu magis probatur. Alfon. de Castro con. Haeres. Tit. Eucharist. pag. 158.  Castro will not allow your Antecedent, but is persuaded rather (by the manifest Current of the Text) that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them. And although they were then Priests, yet we answer, that your Consequence (viz.) Ergò only Priests are enjoined to receive the Cup, will appear to be both fond in itself, and to your own selves pernicious. First, as fond, as if one should argue thus: It was at the first said only to the Apostles, Go and baptise all Nations: Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptise. Next pernicious, for say (We pray you) do the words, [Drink ye all of this] command all Priests to drink? then must this condemn the contrary 
* See above in this Chapter at the let. (b.)  Practice of your (now Church of Rome, which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present, but only to him that doth Consecrate: which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ, who administered the Cup unto all his Apostles, by your doctrine, Priests.  
Again, Do these words only command the Priest to receive the Cup? then likewise do you condemn your former Church of Rome, which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laics. Yea, and your Cardinal Alan 
g [Hoc facite.] Quod cum pertincat maximè ad potestatem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum & sacrificandum, tamen Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. refert quóque ad sumptionem sive Laicorum, sive Sacerdorum. Quod & Cyrillus facit in joh. l. 1●. c. 58. Et Basil. in Moral. Reg. 21. c. 〈◊〉. ut [Hoc facite] pertineat ad totam actionem, Eucharistiam à Christo factam, & tàm à Presbyteris quam à plebe posteà faciendam. Eodemque verbo imprimis potestas consecrandi & offerendi, deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quam aliis fidelibus detur, cum utrumque suo modo, licet prius exactius Sacrificium, quam sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae contineat. Alan. l. 2 de Eucha. cap. 37. p. 646.  doth not stick to tell you, out of the ancient Fathers, that the Command [Do this] declared by Saint Luke, is applied by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds, aswell of People as of Priest.  
And by virtue of the same Command of Christ, The Greek Church hath always observed the use of both kinds unto this day. So he, justifying our contrary Consequence; even as also your 
* Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare, iure divino: hoc Thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [Hoc facite in commemorationem mei] quae habent vim praecepti, non tantùm de celebrando (ait Scotus) sed etiam de administrando Sacramentum populo. Cosmus Phil. de office Sacerdot. Tom. 1. de Sacrif. Missae, lib. 2. c. 2.  Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth, and confirmeth the same by Aquinas, and Scotus, the two most eminent Doctors of your Church, holding that Laics are chargible to celebrate the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution, [Do this.]   

Your second Evasion.  
Next, although it were 
h Nec quicquam valetquod obijcitur [Similitèr & Calicem:] quià non dicit Similiter & Calicem dedit, sed solùm accepit. Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam.  (say you) said, [And in like manner Christ took the Cup] namely, as he took Bread: yet the word [Similitèr, Likewise] hath Relation to his Taking, not to his Giving.   

CHALLENGE.  
THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ, where these words of Saint 
* Luke 22. 20.  Luke, [Likewise he took the Cup] appear by Saint 
* Matth. 26. 27.  Matthew to have relation aswell to Christ's Giving, as to his Taking of the Cup, thus; [jesus taken the Cup and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, Drink you all of this] Yea and in Saint Luke the text objected is so clear, that it needeth no Comment: He took the Bread, and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, etc. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word, expressing Christ his Act, is not Taken, but Gave the Cup. And if any should seek a Comment upon these words, he could find none more direct than that of your learned Arias Montanus, and B. jansenius, [In like manner.] That (saith 
i Similiter & Calicem.] Id est, Qualia fecit circa panem, talia circa Calicem, Accepit, gratias egit, dividendum dedit, atque praecepit ut biberent ab co omnes: Quae omnia Lucas complexus est, dicens, [Similitèr & Calicem.] jansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag 905. [Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit, etc.] Id est, accepit, & porrexit omnibus, dicens, [Hic est Calix, etc.] Ari●… Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25.  they) as he did with the bread, so did he with the Cup, he took it, he gave thanks, he gave it unto them All to drink. All which Saint Luke comprised in these words; [In like manner He took the Cup.] So they.   

Your third Evasion.  
Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup, [Do this in remembrance of Me:] yet the words [Do this,] say 
k Pòst panis consecrationem absolutè ponitur [Hoc facite] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur, sed cum conditione, Hoc (inquit) facite quotiescunque bibetis, etc. Certè non sine causa Spiritus Sanctus modum loquendi mutavit, significans, non ut calix debeat dari necessariò, sed modum praescribens, ut id fiat ad memoriam Dominicae Passionis. Bellar. quo sup. cap. 25. §. jam.  you) are spoken absolutely of the Bread, and but Conditionally of the Cup, namely, [As often as you shall drink it.] And upon this Conceit do two Jesuits raise up their Insultation, 
l Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent Haeretici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem ●ergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas [Hoc facite] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis: post datum autem Calicem non repetivit, ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse, ut sub specie panis omnibus distriburetur: sub specie autem vini non item. Bellar. quo sup c. 25. §. Resp. Mirabilis. Singularis Dei providentia, ut intelligamus minimè expedire, ut singuli fideles sub utraque specie communicent. Valent. Ies. Tract. de Euch. c. 2. §. Et certè, p. 483.  saying; Behold here the wonderful providence of God, whereby is taken from Heretics all colour of excuse. So they, of us Protestants.   

CHALLENGE.  
TO this we answer, out of the Conclusions of your own Doctors, aswell of the new, as of the old Schools; your 
m Praecepit igitur Christus, in verbis Lucae, ut ipsâ sumptione commemoremus Passionem cius; & non tantùm ut quoties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revocaremus. Ac proindè praecepit, ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficii accepti, ex modo ipso praecipiendi. Praecepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum, quis hoc non videat? Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 113. cap. 2. At verò non est negandum, esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum, alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia. Soto in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12.  jesuit Vasquez, for the new, Concluding, that the words, [This do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me,] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament, in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ: so do they also command the Act and manner thereof, which is, by drinking of the Sacramental Cup. Which he holdeth to be so manifest a Truth, that he thinketh no man to be so blind, as not to discern it, saying, Who seeth not this? Accordingly he allegeth Soto for the old School, concluding that the words [Drink ye all of this, as often, etc.] Do simply command the act of Drinking: or else (saith he) the Church hath no ground, for the Priest that consecrateth, to celebrate in both kinds. And this Obligation Cardinal 
n Credimus eos rectè obligari, dùm militamus in hac vita, ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae, eo modo, quo perfectiùs significat Passionem: id est, sub utraque specie, etc. Card. Cusan. Epist. 2. ad Bohem. pag. 831.  Cusanus affirmeth to lie always upon the Church; Whereby your Master 
o [Who in his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, stadeth so much upon the no-Command of Christ for the use of both kinds, that he justifieth an ancient Roman Custom (as he calleth it) of the Priest himself receiving on Good Friday only under one kind.] Tract. 〈…〉 Sect. 4. pag. 407. And Tract. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421. [As often:] not signifying the necessity of Drinking.  Brereley may see, and acknowledge his double Error.  
And, indeed, the Evidence is so great, that although all Romish Universities should withstand it, we might herein appeal to common Sense: for Christ having first commanded his Disciples, saying, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Drink ye all of this;] this is the Act: and adding further, saying, [As often, or whensoever as ye shall drink it, do this in remembrance of me,] Which is the End so commanded; it doth equally imply command of the Act of Drinking, aswell as of the End. Now the Catholic Church did always hold, that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ even until his coming again (as saith the Apostle) by the Celebration of this Sacrament. And the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] As often, and when-soever ye receive, etc. (being indefinite, and assigning no certain days or times) giveth liberty to the Church to solemnize this Memorial at her convenient times; yet so, that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament, she do it according to the form of Christ his Institution, by Communicating in both kinds.  
If the Pope, sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals, delivering unto each of them a Ring, to put upon their thumbs, should say, Do this as often as you come before me, in testimony of my love: We demand, Are they not, as often as they come into the presence of that Pope, chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumb, by virtue of the Pope's Command, [Do this?] who seeth not this, that doth not wilfully blindfold and stupefy his wits? Shall we conclude? As your own Doctors infer from these words of Christ [Do this] that Laics, who be of years, are bound by the Law of God to communicate: By the same Text may we conclude, that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup.   

THE CHALLENGE, In General.  
Do this] are (as you have heard) words Commandatorie, and being spoken of both kinds, aswell for Consecration, as for Distribution, do oblige the Church of Christ to perform both kinds: so that it must needs follow, that the neglect of the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ. And so much the rather ought you to be persuaded hereof, because your choicest and most subtle Objecters, when, seeking to defend your Alteration, it became them to reason discreetly concerning this Sacrament (which the Fathers call [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] the Cup of Sobriety) yet do argue so intemperately, as though they had been over-taken with some other Cup: insomuch that they are confuted by their own learned fellows, by evident texts of the Evangelists, and by common sense; which giveth us just cause to turn their Wonderment against themselves, saying, Behold the providence of God thus plainly to confound the wisdom of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves, in their greatest subtleness. Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church.    

Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrary Example.  
SECT. III.  
Were it that we had no Precept of Christ to [Do this] but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution, this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually, excepting in such Circumstances, which only occasionally and accidentally happened therein, as 
* See above Sect. 2  hath been proved; and therefore not to dare to give a Nonobstante, against the Example of Christ, as your 
* See above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit. (a.)  Council of Constance hath done: and which 
p Rectè docent jurisconsulti, non exemplis sed legibus iudicandum.— Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumenta per locum sunt à simili (quae non tàm ad aliquid firmandum, quam ad id quod firmatur illustrandum à Dialecticis esse traduntur.) Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34.  your jesuit also teacheth, as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proof at all. Which Doctrine we are now to try by the judgement of Antiquity. 
q Cyprian. con. Aquarios Epist. 63. Admonitos nos scias, ut in Calais offerendo traditio observetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis, quam quod pro Nobis Dominus prior fecerit. [And somewhat after;] A divino Magisterio non recedamus.  Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij (Heretics that used only Water in the Chalice) by the Example of Christ his Institution, because Nothing is to be done of us, in celebrating of this Mystery, which was not done of Christ. So he.  
In the days of Pope julius, Anno 337. there arose many giddy spirits, which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacrament, when as some consecrated Milk instead of Wine: others sopped the bread in the Cup: a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto. These, and the like, that holy Pope did condemn, but how? by pretence of Custom only? no, but by the obligation of Christ his Example, and institution of this Sacrament, in these words following: 
r Julius P. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Ca Cum omne. Audivimus quosdam, Schismaticâ ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas institutiones, lac provino, in divinis officijs dedicare: alios intinctam Eucharistiam populo pro complemento communionis porrigere: quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacramento Dominici Calicis afferre: aliis verò pannum lineum, musto intinctum, per totum annum reservare, & in tempore Sacrificij partem eius aquâlavare, & sic offer. Quod cum sit Evangelicae & Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium, & consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. cum onim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret Discipulis, nulli lac, sed panem tantùm & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse. Legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, [Accepit Iesus Panem & Calicem, & benedicens dixit Discipulis suis.] Cesset igitur Lac in sacrificando offerri, quià manifestum & evidens veritatis exemplum illuxit, quià praeter Panem & Vinum aliud offerri non licet. Illud verò quod pro complemento Communionis, intinctam Eucharistiam tradunt populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi corpus suum Apostolis commendaret & sanguinem: scorsim enim panis, & seorsim Calicis commendatio memoratur.  Because these are contrary (saith he) to Evangelicall and Apostolical doctrine, and Ecclesiastical Custom, as is easily proved from the fountain of truth, from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance; for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples, he gave to none Milk, but Bread only, and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospel mention the sopping of bread, but of giving Bread apart, and the Cup also apart, etc. So Pope julius. Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together, in this Sacrament, are confuted by the Institution of Christ, who appointed Bread, saith 
s Artotyritae panem & caseum offerunt: qui excluduntur per hoc, quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane. Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 24. Art. 1.  your Aquinas. What can be more direct and absolute? yet dare your men object to the contrary.  

The Romish Objection answered.  
At Emmaus, Luke 24. Christ, meeting with certain Disciples, taking bread and blessing it, and thereby manifesting himself to them, is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights. Ergò, it may be lawful (saith your 
t Ex Luc. 24. 30. Vbi Christus apparens duobus Discipulis in Emmaus, & accumbens accepit panem, & benedixit, & dedit eyes: quo facto, aperti sunt oculi eorum, & evanuit ex oculis, etc. [Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus:] Ostendi●. hoc exemplum, quòd minimè existimandum fit, fuiffe imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. §. Rursus, So also Roffensis, and others.  Cardinal) to use but one kind. Because (saith 
* Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag 402.  Master Brereley) the Text showeth, that Christ vanished away, not leaving any time for Benediction, or Consecration of the Cup.   

CHALLENGE.  
THis Argument is still inculcated, almost, by every Romanist, in defence of the Romish Custom of but in one kind, notwithstanding it be twice rotten. First, in the Root and Antecedent: For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist, yet doth it not appear that he did now perfect it, in distributing either kind to his Disciples, Nor is this likely, saith your 
u Christum hanc Eucharistiam porrexisse, sententia est incerra, & non verisimilis. jansen. Concord. cap. 126. pa. ●070.  jansenius. And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof, because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example, to be imitated in the Church; which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your jesuit 
x Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Hoc ipso enim quod jussi sunt consecrare sub specie panis, consequenter intelligi debet eos jussos esse consecrare sub specie vini. Nam hoc exigit necessariò natura Sacrificij & Sacramenti: si enim una species absque altera conficiatur, sacrilegium committitur. Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolute dicitur, Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utramque speciem illis verbis [Hoc facire in commemorationem meam.] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem. Valent. Ies. de usu Eucharist. c. 3 §. Respondendum.  Valentia. As for example. The Council of Trent hath defined that the Priest, in Consecrating, is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds; Because this (saith your jesuit) both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact: but by what words of Command? namely (for so he saith) by these words, [Do this.] Accordingly your Objectour 
* Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 2. pag. 401.  Master Brereley (as if he had meant purposely to confute, and confound himself) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds, is because he is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. But Bread cannot represent Christ dead, without some sign of Blood.  
If then, because Christ ministered it not in both kinds in Emmaus, it shall be lawful for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament, it must as equally follow, that because he is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds, it may be lawful for your Church so to do; not only contrary to your now Roman Custom, but also (in the judgement of the Council of Trent) contrary to the Command of Christ, as 
* See above.  hath been confessed. Twice miserable therefore is the darkness of your Disputers, First, not to see the Inconsequence of this Objection: and next not to remember that common Principle, to wit, Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE.  
We conclude. You have seen by the testimonies of Cyprian, and Pope julius, that it was good Divinity, in their days, to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively; by rejecting such Acts, and accounting them as contrary to the Institution of Christ, which accord not with his Example, and which are not comprised within the Canon of Christ his [Hoc facite.] which kind of Reasoning, at this day, is ●issed at in your Romish Schools. What need many words? O tempora!    

Our third Comparison is, by conferring Apostolical Practice with contrary Practice.  
SECT. IV.  
SAint Paul having more special occasion to handle this point, than any other of the Apostles, may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest. He Catechising the Corinthians, concerning the true use of the Eucharist, recordeth the first Institution thus: 
* 1. Cor. 11. 23.  I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you, that the Lord jesus, etc. And, after his Recital of the Institution of Christ, he himself addeth [
* Ib. Verse 26.  As often as you eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, you show the Lords death until he come again. 
* Ib. Verse 28.  Let therefore a man examine himself, and so eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup.] From this we seek a Proof both of the Apostolical Practice, in the use of both kinds in this Sacrament; and of our duty in observing the same. But we may spare our pains of proving the use of both kinds in the Church of Corinth, because (as your 
a Antiqua Consuetudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia, sub utraque specio communicandi. In hac assertione nulla est Controversia. Tolet. Ies. in joh. 6. pag. 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum inficiari posse, Paulum hoc praecepisse Corinthijs.  Cardinal Tolet confesseth) There is no controversy thereof.  
As for the proof of our necessary Conformity, we have the same Reasons, wherewith the Apostle persuadeth thereunto, [That (saith he) which I have received of the Lord, I deliver unto you, that jesus, etc.] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice: which this coniunctive Particle of Eating [AND] Drinking; To Eat [AND] Drink, five times so coupled in this Epistle, do plainly declare.  
But you tell us, that in this place the Coniunctive [AND] is is put for a disiunctive Or, thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eat or Drink: notwithstanding, you yourselves have confessed that Christ spoke absolutely, and without Condition, of the Bread, Take, Eat, Do this. And again, 1. Cor. 11. 24. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And in like manner the cup.] It is an AND Coniunctive, questionless. But seeing it cannot be denied, that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctively, it is not likely or credible that the sense of his words should be discretive; because this had been, in words, to have contradicted his own practice. M. Breerly opposeth, viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement; also he saith v. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread, and drinketh this Cup unworthily, etc. So he. It is not to be denied but that [AND] is often used in Scripture for Or: but M. Brearly his notions, as commonly, so here also are too confused, by not distinguishing the diverse use of [AND] in Precepts, and Exhortations to an Act, in denunciation of judgement, in case of Transgression. As for example, The Precept is, Honour thy father and thy mother, (Exod. 20.) here [AND] must needs be copulative, because of the Obligation of precept of honouring both. But the denunciation against the Transgressor, if it stood (as M. Breerly objecteth, feigning a false Text contrary both to the Original, and vulgar Latin Translation) thus, He that shall strike his father, and mother shall die: the particle [AND] must needs be taken disiunctively for Or, (as indeed it is expressed in the Text) because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandment inferreth an obligation of guilt and judgement, as any man of sense may perceive.  
Against this, albeit so evident a Truth, your Doctors will have something to obect, or else it will go hard; even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. 42. where we read of the faithful assembled and Continuing together in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; because there is but mention only of one kind, which is Bread: whence they infer a no-necessity of using the Cup. So your 
b Act. 2. Ita describitur communicatio Eucharistiae [Erant enim perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum, & communicatione fractionis panis, & Orationibus.] Quò in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eucharistia. Apostoli igitur in utraque specie consecrabant: sed populis in una specie ministrabant. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. p. 64.  Cardinal Bellarmine. And to answer that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synecdoche, is an answer only imaginary and groundless, saith 
* Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag. 403.  Mr. Breerely. But are they yet to learn that which every man knoweth, and your own Jesuits have taught? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synecdoche of taking a part for the whole? Or could they not discern thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉. 46. where it is said, They broke bread through every house; Wherein (as your jesuit 
c Existimo de Eucharistia non esse Sermonem, quoniam de illo superius paulò Sermo habitus est. Lorin. Ies. in eund. loc. And Caietan. Card. Fiebat distributio panis— Ita quod accipiebant cibus erat. Comment in eund. loc.  Lorinus teacheth) there is not meant the Eucharist, but common food? Whereby you cannot but understand implied in their breaking of bread their mutual drinking together also. And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist, v. 42. [They continued together in breaking of Bread] you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall we say? was your spiritual appetite weaker than your corporal, in reading these two Texts, wherein is mentioned only Bread, that you could discern but half refection in the Eucharist, and an whole in their bodily repast? Besides, any man may guess what spirit it savoureth of, that (in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles) your Jesuits do resolve, that although the Apostles had constituted the custom of Receiving in both kinds, 
d Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum, cum tamen merè positivus sit, potuisset illum mutare, quià Ecclesia habet eundem spiritum, & eandem authoritatem cum Paulo. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. p. 277. Eod●m modo Vasquez jes. in 3. Thom. Disp. 215, 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifex poterit illud just is de causis abrogare; licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum.  Nevertheless (say they) the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof, having the same authority with S. Paul, may abrogate it upon just Cause. And yet hardly can you allege any Cause, for abrogation of that Practice, which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time.  

CHALLENGE.  
OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros! may we say; for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolical Practice, or Precept for both kinds, when your Obiectors are ready with the only names of Pope and Church of Rome to stop the mouths not only of us Heretics (as you call us) but even of S. Paul himself, and of the other Apostles, yea and of S. Peter too? By which Answer notwithstanding you may perceive how little S. Paul doth favour your cause, by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits: but more principally if you call to remembrance, that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, as it was grounded by St. Paul himself upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ. Thus, when we appeal unto the Apostles Tradition, you, by opposing, Think yourselves wiser than the Apostles: which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garb of old 
e cum ad eam Traditionem, quae ab Apostolis, provocamus eos, dicent se Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem. Iren. lib. 2. advers. Hi●res. cap. 2.  Heretics.    

Our fourth and fifth Comparisons are of Primitive Custom with the contrary Custom; in respect both of the Antiquity and Universality thereof.  
SECT. V.  
BEfore we shall say any thing ourselves of the Primitive Custom, in using both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament, and the extent thereof, both in the longitude of Continuance, and latitude of Universality, we are ready to hear how far your own Doctors will yield unto us, in both these points, touching the public use of both kinds. Harken but unto the Marginals, and you shall find your Jesuits, with others, uttering these voices: 
f Olim per multa secula sub utraque specie porrigibatur Laicis, ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus. Alfons. à Castro in hac ipsa controversia, pag. 158. Vsus utriusque specici à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit: in posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & occidentales illum retinuerunt. Graeci quoque hodiè & Orientales licitè & sanctè, quod ad ipsum ritum attinet, cum observant. Salmeron. Jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. pag. 308. Minimè negamus quin utraque species frequentissimè olim etiam administrata fuerit, utapparet ex Paulo, Athanasio, Cyprian. Hier. Leone, & Hist. Tripart, ex Greg. & passim ex aliis veterum Testimonijs: itemque ex D. Thoma, qui etiam suo tempore in aliquibus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat. Valent. Ies. de usu Euch. cap. 8. §. Alioqui. pag. 496. Ingenuè tamen & apertè confitemur, morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utraque specie, sicut hodiè fit apud Graecoes, & olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios, & in Africa. Dequo more loquitur Cyprian. Athanas Dionies. Etiam probatur ex Ecclesia Latina, atque in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministeriales & paterae ad differentiam calicum & paterarum, in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant. Salmeron quo sup. Tract. 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gregorius, & Sexcenta huiusmodi proferri possent.— Vsus utriusque speciei à Christo & Apostolis, & à Primitiva Ecclesia, qui illum usurpârunt, comprobatus fuit. In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuerunt: Graeci quoque hodiè. Salmeron. ib. Tract. 37. §. Deinde. Satis compertum est, universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo, in solenni praesertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramvis panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse. Cassand. Consult. pag. 166, 167. [And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name, his testimony is cited in Gratian among the Pope's Decrees. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis. Sanguis in ora fid elium funditur.]  We must confess, We do confess; yea, We do ingenuously confess a Custom of both kinds (aswell to the Laics as Priests) to have been in the Primitive Church most frequent and general: as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, among whom are Leo and Gregory (both) Popes of Rome; yea and universal also for a long time, continuing a thousand years in the Church of Rome, and in the Greek Church unto this day. So they. where we see both Antiquity and Universality thereof to the full, which it were easy for us to have shown Gradatim, descending down from the first Age unto the twelfth; but that when we have as much confessed as need be proved, it might be judged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiosity to labour any further. Nevertheless, if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age, he may satisfy himself in the 
g Bern. Serm. 3. de ramis palmarum, de Sacrament. corp. & sanguinis Dom.— Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm fingularem alimoniam ea primâ die (viz. Palmarum) exhibitam & commendatam, & mandatam deinceps frequentari. Algerus l. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo, qui corpus suum & sanguinem divisim consecravit & dedit. Vide etiam Rupertum de divin. office lib. 6. cap. 23.  Margin at the first sight.  

The Romish Objections, concerning Primitive Custom.  
Divers Objections are urged on your side, to abate something of the Universality of the Custom of Both kinds, which we defend; but if they shall not seek to decline the Question, and to rove about, as it were, at unset marks, their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vain. For our defence is only this, that in the public solemnisation and Celebration of this Sacrament, in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate, no one example can be shown in all Antiquity, throughout the Catholic Church of Christ, for the space of a thousand years, inhibiting either Priest, or Laic, from Communicating in both kinds, who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament. As for the examples which you usually object, they are of no force at all, being 
h Ob: Consuetudinem Eucharistiam domum deferendi, etc. Sol. [By reason of Persecution, and the paucity of Ministers: but afterwards abolished by the Church as was the ministration thereof to Infants.] Ob: [Communio olim Laicis data in poenam gravis delicti. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. [Sol. As if the punishment of the Laics Communion could signify Partaking in one kind.] which is confuted by Durant. lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 55. Nonnulli crediderunt Laicam Communionem appellatam, quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici, imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes communicant, nunc sub una specie. Quare verius est, Laicam communionem dictam, quia extra sacratiorem locum, ubi Sacrificium fit, ubi Sacerdos conficiens, tùm Ministri communicabant. And by Pamelius in Cyprian. Epist. 152. Laicum communicare, nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos. i e. extrâ cancellos— hoc est, extra chorum, ut hodie loquimur. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utraque & una esse videtur, quoniam utraque species concedebatur (nempe Laicis) sed in destinato loco, separato p●o Clericis. [And there were two punishments of Priests anciently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, privari Clericatus honore, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Excommunicari.] Ob: Ritus erat, ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie, die Parascevis, corpus sine specie sanguinis. Sol. [The word itself being in the Plural, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praesanctificata, Confuteth this Objection, and so do the Liturgies.]  proved to be either private, or illegitimate, or false, respectively. Hitherto of the Primitive Custom. Notwithstanding all this, will your Roman Church boast of her contrary Custom of aftertimes; telling us in her Counsels that her Custom of administering the Eucharist but in one kind is rightly observed, as a Custom which hath been Diutissimè observata, that is, of most long continuance: Many years by passed, saith 
i In Conc. Constant. de usu unius speciei. Cum huiusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & hactenús diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege. Eodem modo Conc. Basil. penè eisdem verbis: Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Consuetudo iucundissima effecerat. Gasp. Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p 220, 222, 223.  your Villalpandius: But most precisely your jesuit 
k Secundum certum est, Ecclesiam praesentem, & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos, Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicare consuevisse, ut docet S. Thomas in joh. his verbis. Secundùm antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpore, ità & sanguine: quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur, ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò & corpore & sanguine communicabant. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 35. §. Secundum certum. pag. 284.  Salmeron: It is certain (saith he) that the Church, for these three or two hundred years, hath used to communicate to the Laity under one kind. So they.   

CHALLENGE.  
NOw after that we have proved, out of your own Confessions, the length of the Custom of both kinds to have been in the Continuance above a thousand years, after the first Institution of this Sacrament, and for largeness thereof, in an universal consent thereunto, without any exception by any example ordinary, public, and legitimate; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrary custom not above the Compass of three hundred years, and yet to call it [Diutissima] A Custom of long continuance; What Tergiversation could be more shameless? But enough of this point. In the next place, because the same your Council hath told us, that your Contrary Custom was brought in [Rationabilitèr,] with good Reason, we are forthwith to discuss the Reasons thereof.    

Our sixth Comparison is of Reasons, for the Use of both kinds, collated with Reasons objected to the contrary.  
SECT. VI  
A Sacrament (according to the common definition) is a Visible sign of an invisible Grace; and so far is a Sign true and perfect, as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby: Signification being the very proper nature and end of a sign, as well in sacred, as in profane Rites. Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this matter, which we have in hand, both in respect of the thing signified (which is the Sacrament, or spiritual Object) as of the party Communicating, who is the Subject thereof.  

Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament, which must necessarily be in both kinds.  
The things Spiritual (as all Christians profess) are the Body and Blood of Christ, which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine; These two then are not two Sacraments, but one Sacrament, (as you know) which therefore ought to be performed in both, or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembering of the Sacrament of Christ. This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your own Schools. Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist, both as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. As you hold it to be a Sacrifice, you generaly teach that both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest, because they both belong to the Essence thereof. So your 
l Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti multilationem, neque partem dimidiam Laicis esse substractam, siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacrificium, sed ad essentiam Sacramenti quae. libet ex duobus sufficit.— Proinde Sacramentum sub specie panis est verum & integrum Sacramentum, quandò sumitur per modum unius refectionis. Bellar. Apol. con. Praefat. Monit. 〈◊〉. 102. And Alfons. à Castro de hac Controu. p. 157. Sacerdos hac lege devinctus est, ut quotiescunque celebret, nec panem sine vino, nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat: quoniam etsi integer Christus sub qualibet specie lateat, non tamen quaelibet species totum Christum significat, sed panis solam carnem significat, species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat, illiusque solius memoriam gerit.  Cardinal. Consult with your 
m Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum, sic cum dicitur una domus, unus homo. Est autem unum in perfectione, ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur. Aquin. par. 3. qu. 73. Art. 12 Ex parte Sacramenti convenit, ut utrumque sumatur sc. corpus & sanguis, quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti. Idem ibid. quaest 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei i. e. spectatâ Sacramenti dignitate, incumbit, qui illud etiam conficit: debet enim is, quandoquidem rem tam divinam facit, non utcunque facere. Itaque tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare, tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis, etiam quoad nationem individuam, constet. Valent. Ies. de usu Euch. c. 6. §. Etenim. pag. 492. Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam perilla verba [Hoc facite, etc. See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the Ies. is cited in 3: Thom. disp. 215.  Aquinas, your jesuits' Valentia, and Vasques, and they will say as much in behalf of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament; their reason is, Because both kinds, making but one Sacrament, aught to be celebrated perfectly, and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kinds by that command of Christ, saying, [Do this:] nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege. So they.  
If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kinds under the hand of the Priest, then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise, for distributing it in both kinds unto the people, to whom it is to be administered, in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily, both in his Body and Blood: but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouths of people, in the eating thereof, than it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest: and consequently the dismembering thereof, as you do, must necessarily condemn both Priest and People. A Consequence, which your figment of 
* See hereafter, Sect. 8.  concomitancy cannot possibly avoid.    

A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegious dismembering of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of Dr. Morton, from the Traducement of other your Priests and Jesuits.  
SECT. VII.  
THe Haereticall Manichees forbore the use of the Cup in this Sacrament, in an opinion, that wine was not created by God, but by some evil spirit; whom Pope Gelasius did therefore condemn by his public Decree: which heretical opinion (as once I 
n Appeal. lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140.  said) cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome, in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist. This saying 
o In his Answer to his Majesty.  M. Fisher the jesuit, of late, thought good to pervert to his own use, thus. The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us, that our receiving under the sole form of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees, we may (as D. Morton confesseth) reject as injurious, saying with him, that it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but the reason of their forbearance that was judged heretical. So he. But this man's march is but slow.  
M. Breerly, a Romish Priest, one well esteemed among you, for his 
(p) In his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, Tract. 4. §. 4. pag. 407.  exceeding labour and pains in defending the Romish Cause, to his power; by his many Books, almost in every particular, cometh on more roundly, as followeth: D. Morton himself (saith he) shall plead in our behalf, who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind, in an opinion that wine was not created by God, but by some evil spirit, and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretics: but the Romanists are not to be accused of this Heresy of the Manichees, in their not distributing of both elements of bread & wine. And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious, for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but their reason thereof which made them heretical, said he. So your Priest; yet what of all this? So clearly doth D. Morton (saith he) clear us from the foul and false imputation urged against us by D. Whitaker, who noted the Administration but in one kind, now used by the Romish Church, to have had its original from the Manichees: and so clearly doth he contradict both M. Whitaker & himself, in one place accusing us, in another excusing us, in one and the same Respect: of which foul fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himself, in stead of being Bishop of Litch field, he shall be unto me ever Magnus Apollo. Thus far M. Breerly. Alas! what will become of the Doctor, being, as you see, thus fiercely assaulted by two at once, one a jesuit, the other a Romish Priest, both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous?  

CHALLENGE.  
IT is now about twenty years since the said Doctor (in Confutation of a Book of Master Brereleys, entitled an Apology) published a Treatise, called the Protestants Appeal, wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brereleyes' Ignorances', Falsities, and Absurdities: who ever since hath had Master Parson's itch, (as he himself called his own humour) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch, to be meddling with the same Doctor. Yet the only Exception, which hath since come to this Doctor's ears from your side, is this now objected point, concerning the Manichees: whereupon you have heard them both so urgently, and boastingly insist, and not so only, but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdom, to his reproach. Will you be so kind, as but to hear an Answer, and then either wonder at, or hiss, or applaud, or him, or them, as you shall find just Cause.  
Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees, one was their Act and Practice, in dismembering the Sacrament, by not communicating in both kinds: the other was their Opinion, which they held, for so doing; which was, as you have heard, an heretical Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devil. Concerning this heretical opinion, no Protestant (said 
q Protestants Appeal, lib. 2. Chapter 4. Sect. 3.  Doctor Morton) doth charge the Church of Rome: but as for the Act of not- Communicating in both kinds, 
r In the same Appeal, lib. 4. Chapter 22. Sect. 10.  he called it Sacrilegious, and concluded the Church of Rome, in this respect, to be as guilty of dismembering the Sacrament, as were the Manichees. And both these he hath done by the Authority of Pope 
s Comperimꝰ quòd quidam, sumptâ tan●ummodò corporis sacri portione, à Calice sacri cruoris abstineant: qui proculdubiò (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quià divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sinè grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gelas. apud Gratia●. de Consecrat. cap. Comperimu●. D. 2.  Gelasius, who decreed, in condemning the Manichees, First against their Opinion, saying, Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi, etc. (That is) They are entangled in a kind of Superstition. Then, for the Act of refusing the Cup, Because (saith he) the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege, therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving. So Gelasius.  
Seeing then Doctor Morton, and all Protestants, clear the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresy of the Manichees, in respect of their opinion, and yet condemn them of the Manichean Sacrilege, in respect of the Act of dismembering the Sacrament; with what spectacles (think you) did your Priest and jesuit read that Answer of Doctor Morton, to collect from thence, either your Church's justification from a foul fault of Sacrilege, or else the Doctors foul Contradiction to himself, and that clearly forsooth, in the same respect? who themselves are now found to have been so subtly witless, as not to discern Heresy from Sacrilege; an opinion from a fact; or a no-imputation of that, whereof neither Doctor Whitaker, nor any other Protestant ever accused them, from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope himself. Take unto you a Similitude. A man being apprehended in the company of Traitors, upon suspicion of Felony, is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felony only; if one should say of him, that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason, but of Felony, were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking, or a full justification of the party spoken of?  
You are by this time (we think) ashamed of your Proctors, and of their scornful insultation upon the Doctor, in the ridiculous terms of Rabbin, and magnus Apollo: who willingly forbeareth, upon this Advantage, to recompense them with like scurrility, being desirous to be only Great in that, which is called Magna est Veritas, & praevalet.  
By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answer both of Master Fisher, and of your Cardinal, saying, that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees; which is so transparent a falsehood, as any one that hath but a glimpse of Reason may see through it, by the sentence it ●elfe, as hath been proved.    

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spiritual Refection, represented by this Sacrament.  
SECT. VIII.  
ANother Object, represented in this Sacrament, is the food of man's soul, in his faithful receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, which because it is a perfect spiritual Refection, Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking, wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance: and therefore are both necessarily to be used, by law of Analogy between the outward sign and the thing signified thereby. Two of your 
a Name in alterutra specie sive panis sive vini significatur sufficienter refectio animae. Bellar. l. 4. de Eucharist. c. 22. §. Vtraque p. 639. Est etiam in specie qualibet tota significatio refectionis spiritualis— quià unam & eandem refectionis gratiam spiritualem significat cibus & potus. Valent. quo sup. de legit. usu Euch. p. 491.  Jesuits (from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer) seek to persuade their Readers, that the soul's refection spiritual is sufficiently signified in either kind, whether in Bread, or Wine. But be it known unto you, that either all these have forgotten their Catechism, authorized by the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope, or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching, that 
b Optimo iure institutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent: primò enim ut Passio Domini, in qua sanguis à corpore divi●us est, magis referatur— Deindè, maximè consentaneum suit, ut quoniam Sacramento, ad alendam animam, utendum nobis erat, tanquam cibus & potus instituetetur, ex qui●us perfectum corporis alimentum constare, perspicuum est. Catechis. Rom. part. 2. de ●uch. num 29.  This Sacrament was instituted so; that two several Consecrations should be used, one of Bread, and the other of the Cup; to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented, wherein his Blood was separated from his Body, and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soul, it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking; in both which the perfect nourishment of man's natural life doth consist.  
Aquinas, and your jesuit Valentia with others are as express in this point, as they were in the former; who although they (as we also) hold that whole Christ is received in either kind, (for Christ is not divided) yet do they 
c Hoc Sacramentum ordiratur ad spir●tualem refectionem, quae conformatur corporali. Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est almentum si●cum, & potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et etiam ad integritatem hu●us Sacramenti duo concurrunt, scilicet, spiricualis cibus, & spiritualis potus, s●cundum illud, joh. 6. [Caro mea verè est cibus.]— Ergò hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialitèr, sed unum formalitèr & perfectiuè. Aquin. par. 3. qu. 73. Art. 2. Etsi negandum non est quin eius refectionis spiritualis vis & commoditas clarius utraque resimul, scilicet cibo & potu, atque adeo utraque specie significetur: ideo enim hoc Sacramentum, quod attinet quidem ad relationem individualem, perfectius est in utraque simu● specie, quam in altera. Greg. de Valent. Ies. de usu Sacran. Euch. c. 6. §. Secundun p. 491. Hoc est convenientius u●ui ●uius Sacramenti, ut seorsim exhibeatur fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum, & sanguis in potum. Aquinas quo sup. quaest. 76. Art. 2.  maintain that This Sacrament, as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking, so doth it by both kinds, more perfectly express our spiritual nourishment by Christ: and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithful severally, as for Meat, and for Drink. So they. For although, in the Spiritual Receiving, Eating and Drinking are both one, even as the appetite of the Soul in hungering and thirsting is the same; as where it is written, Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc. yet in this Sacramental communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise, as you know. 
d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cum corpore, & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine, nec sanguis sub specie panis bibitur, nec corpus sub specie vini editur: quià ●icut nec corpus bibitur, ità nec sanguis comeditur. Durand. Rational. lib. 4. cap. 41. pag. 326  The blood of Christ is not drank in the form of Bread, nor is his Body eaten as meat in the form of Wine, because the Body cannot be said to be drank, nor the blood to be eaten. So your Durand, and so afterwards your 
* See hereafter Sect. 10.  jansenius.  
Wherefore you, in withholding the Cup from the People, do violate the Testament of Christ, who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a complete and a full Refection spiritual, which is sufficient to condemn your Abuse, whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum, ordained by Christ for their use. Concerning this second, 
e Answer to his Majesty.  Master Fisher (one of the society of Jesuits) was taught to Answer, that the Full causality (as he said) and working of spiritual Effects of the soul cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind; because of Christ his assistance. So he. We should ask whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentiful Grace are not to be esteemed spiritual Effects, for the good of the Soul, which are 
f Secundum Alexand●um de Hales— Maior fructus ex perceptione utriusque speci●i habetur. Salmeron. Ies. Tom 9 Tract. 37. §. Neque benè. pag. 303. Per accidens autem non est dubium quin usus utriusque specici possit esse fructuosior, eò quod potest majorem devotionem commoverein percipiente. Vndè fiat, ut propter majorem dispositionem consequatur ille verlorem gratiam ex Sacramento. Valent. Ies. ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens.  confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds; and why not rather than by one? For consider (we pray you) that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concur with his own Ordinance, and therefore much rather where the form of a Sacrament ordained, and instituted by himself, is observed, then where it is (as of you) so notoriously perverted, and contemned. Yet because you may think we rest upon either our own, or yet of other your Doctor's judgement in this Defence, we shall produce to this purpose, the consonant Doctrine of ancient Fathers.   

Our third proof is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers, for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in both kinds.  
SECT. IX.  
FOr the proof of the necessary use of both kinds, in the solemn and public dispensation of this Sacrament, the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced, but your own Authors will ease us of that labour, by relating and 
g Satis compertum est, universalem Christi Eccl●siam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem autem seti Romanam mille amplius à Christo annis, in solenni praese● tim & ordinaria huius Sacramenti dispensatione, utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse— atque uti●à facerent, inductos fuisse primo Instituto exemploque Christi, qui hoc Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis, fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus, praebuit: tum quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculiarem quandam virtut●m & gratiam hoc vinisymbolo significatam esse credebant: tumm ob rationes mysti●as huius Instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passionis Christi in oblatione corporis, & sanguinis effusione, iuxta illud Pauli, [Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc, & Calicem Domini biberitis, morrem Domini annunciatis donec venerit.] Item ad significand●m integram refectionem sive nutritionem, quae ●ibo & potu constat, quomodò Christus inquit, [Caro mea verus est cibus, & sanguis meus verus est po●us.] Item ad design●ndam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae, ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur. Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse, corporis & animae, ut utramque redimeret. Cassand. Consult. Art. 2●. pag. 166, 167.— Christus licet totus sub una specie, tamen administrari ●oluit sub duplici, primò, ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet, ut utramque redimeret: panis enim ad corpus refertur, vinum ad animal.— Simo in altera tantùm sumer●tur,— tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur. Pet. Lombard●…. Dist. 11. Hic Calix pa●i cunctis conditione sit traditus. Theoph in 1. Cor. 1●. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos, quaedam populus comedebat, nec poterat populus participare illis, quorum Sacerdos particeps erat: nunc autem omnibus un●m corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis, quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus, qui aderant, aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta. Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos secimus, si non ad poculum Domini admittimus? Cyprian. Epist. 54. ad Cornel. Epis●. Rom. de pace lapsis da da. Etiam Lumbardus lib. 4. dist. 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor 11 Valet ad tuitionem corporis & animae quod percipimus, quià caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur.  confessing as much in effect, as we did intend to prove, viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custom in both kinds, First, by the Example and Institution of Christ. Secondly, by some particular Grace, which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly, for the Representation, that it had to the Passion of Christ; distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood. Fourthly, to resemble the Redemption, which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body, and by his Blood in the soul. Fif●ly, To express by these Symbols the perfect spiritual Nourishments we have by his Body and Blood. Sixtly, To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People, as well as to Priests. Seventhly, that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate souls to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdom, when the time should be. Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the 
h ●raeci dicunt esse necessario sub utraque specie panisscilicet, & vini communicandum, adeo quidem, ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit, peccare dicatur, quod (ut aiu●t) contra Christi praeceptum agate▪ qu● sub utraque specie communicare praecepit. Prat●ol Elench. Haeret lib. 7. tit. Graeci.  Greek Church, in obeying the Canon of Christ, and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also, by receiving in both kinds; and that otherwise we transgress against the Institution of Christ.  
All these Testimonies of primitive Fathers, under the Confession, of your own Doctors, are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, for proof of an obligation of precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever, for the preservation of the perfect form of Christ's Ordinance in the administering of the Sacrament in both kinds. Upon this Evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Master Brereley to account for his bold Assumption, saying that 
* Liturg. Tract 4 § 9 p. 425. at Eightly.  No Doctor (speaking of ancient Fathers) can be produced either expressly, or else by necessary Consequence, affirming the necessity of the Laics receiving under both kinds: Yourselves perceiving now not only One, but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One, but many Necessity's inferring the same. And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion, affirming in his fifth Answer, that The Authorities objected, for the necessity of both kinds, speak not of a Sacramental, but only of a spiritual Receiving with the mouth of their hearts. When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands?  
Having thus finished our Assumption, we shall more expeditely satisfy such your Reasons, or rather Pretences, which you bring to disguise your sacrilegious Abuse.   

The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution, by the public use of but One kind.  
SECT. X.  
WE hear the Council of Trent pretending (as they say) Just reasons of altering the primitive Custom and use of both kinds, but naming none, which we may well think was because they deserved not the mention: surely, such they were, that your jesuit had rather that you should believe them, then try and examine them; It being your part (as 
i Porrò causas, quae Ecclesiam moverunt, ut consuetudinem communicandi sub altera probaret, atque etiam pro lege observandam esse decerneret, non tàm nostrum est discutere aut inquirere, quam ipsi Decreto simplicitèr obtemperare, existimaréque omninò eas fuisse just as, ut rectissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est. Greg. Valent. Ies. de legit. usu Sacra. Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò, p. 499.  he saith) Rather to think them inst, than to discuss them. But we are not bound to your Rules of blind Obedience. God will have us to use the sight, which he hath given us, lest, If the blind leading the blind, both fall into the Ditch. And whether the Reasons, which are given by your Doctors, be not blind Seducements, we are now to try. Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases, some Instances are common to all other Church's Christian, and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome.  

The first kind of Romish Pretences, from extraordinary Cases.  
The first Pretence is thus alleged; 
k Ob inopiam vini, cujus in plerisque Christianitatis partibus magna penuria. Valent. ibid. & Salmeron Jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. §. Ad quintum, pag. 279. And Roffens. in like manner. Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this: Movit Ecclesiam uniformitas, ut concordia populi Christiani in Sacramento hoc percipiendo, quod est Sacramentum pacis & unitatis, propter eos, apud quos vinum inveniri non potest: ut sunt aliquae provinciae boreales, ubi vinum non invenitur, qui existimarent se Christo curae non fuisse, aut non ità ut alias provincias, quandò Sacramentum instituit. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28.  Many Northern Countries are destitute of Wine, and therefore one kind is to be used for Concord and Vniformity-sake. Will you be answered from yourselves? Aquinas, making the same Objection of want of Wine, and Wheat in foreign Countries, 
l Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum, tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest, quantum sufficit ad usum huius Sacramenti. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transferri. Idem ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2.  Resolveth, that Notwithstanding Wheat and Wine may be transported easily to all parts. Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsam, used in your Consecration, and yet it is far more scarce than Wine or Wheat. Yet what Northern Country almost can you name, that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons, even unto r●ot, and can they not as well have it in moderate measure, for a sacred Rite?  
But what talk you of Uniformity and Concord, in this Case of Alteration, (which are your two next Pretences) wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greek, and all other Christian Churches in the World? Or if this were a necessary Cause, why did not your Church allow the use of both kinds to the Church of Bohemia, but twice raised a fierce war against them? for which your jesuit 
m Bis Principes Germaniae ad Bohemos (quòd Communionem sub utr●que specie communicarent) debellandos arma sumpsere, hortatore Cardinale luliano S. Angeli, Apo. stolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèr & rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro: quanquàm bellum non satis feliciter successit. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 35. pag. 284.  Salmeron seemeth to be full sorry; marry it was, because that war had not his wished success. Is their Concord in Hostility? Again, because you thirdly pretend Uniformity also, why then do your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally, and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one? or how is it that you allow a ●…priuiledge to 
* See a little after at (p.)  Popes, Cardinals, Monks, and noble Personages, to receive in both kinds, and deny this liberty to others? Is there likewise Uniformity in Disparity?  
Your fourth Pretence is because diverse are 
n Multi sunt Abstemij, qui vinum non ferunt. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 28.  Abstemious, and have an Antipathy against Wine, and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up again. If the particular reason, which 
o Dicendum, quod vinum modicè sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere. Aquin. par. 3 quest. 74. Art. 1.  Aquinas giveth, saying, That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt, may not satisfy, yet this being also a Cause accidental, and extraordinary, you ought to be regulated by this general Rule, That extraordinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Laws and Customs. For, that Command of Christ to his Apostles, Go preach to every Creature of man, stood good in the general, albeit many men happened to be deaf. Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of fit years that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to everyone that asketh; which precept was not therefore alterable, because of multitudes of many that were dumb. Finally, to close up with you, he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheer up his Guests, doth not prescribe, that, because some men's stomaches are queasy, and not able to endure Wine, or else some meats; therefore all others should be kept from fasting from all meats and Drinks: and the Eucharist (you know) is called by Saint Paul, The supper of the Lord, and by ancient Fathers, an holy 
* See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9 in the Chall.  Banquet.   

The second kind of Romish Pretences is of such, which might have been common to other Churches.  
The other Causes abovementioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ, wherein the use of both kinds was (notwithstanding) preserved and continued; except that you will say, no Northern Nations were Christians in those times: and that no stomaches of Christians were disaffected to wine, in loathing it, etc. But two other Pretences you have, which you think to be of more special force, to forbid the use of this Sacrament in both kinds; One is Because (saith your 
m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta & approbata consensu Gentium & Populorum. Bellar. quosup.  Cardinal) Such is the now-received and approved custom of Nations and People. So he. But first to argue, that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kinds, because she had approved the contrary Custom, is a mere Nugacitie and Tautology; and as much as to say, She would forbid it, because she would forbid it. Secondly, saying, that the Use of but One kind had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People, is a flat falsity, because (as hath been confessed) The Greek Church (not to mention Aethiopians, Egyptians, Armenians, and Others) have always held the Contrary Custom. Lastly, to justify your Church's Innovation, in consenting to the humour of People of later times, what can you censure it less than a gross and absurd Indulgence?  
The other Motive, which the 
n Movet Ecclesiam, & quidem vehementèr Irreverentia & profanationes tanti Sacramenti, quae vix evitari possent in tanta fidelium multitudine, si omnibus daretur sub utraque specie. Bellar. ibid.  Cardinal calleth a Vehement presumption, and which all your Obiectors most earnestly urge, is the Cause of Irreverence, lest the blood might be split, especially in such a multitude of faithful Communicants: and also lest any particle of the Host fall to the ground, saith Master 
* Liturg. tract. 4. §. 6.  Brereley.  
We have but four Answers to this mighty Objection. First, that this was not held a Reason to Christ, or his Apostles, or to the Church of Christ for many ages, when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable. Secondly, that The Casual spilling of the Cup, saith your 
o Vtriusque specici usum illicitum esse atque sacrilegium ait.— falsum est, quòd usui Calicis annexum sit peccatum vel sacrilegiu, propter periculum effusionis: nam si haberet adiunctum peccatum, neque Christus Dominus, neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia, nee Orientales modo, nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense, neque denique Sacerdotes celebrantes eo ut erentur ritu Salmeron jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. §. Deinde, p. 308.  Salmeron, is no sin, else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup: nor would the Apostles, or primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East, in their communicating; nor yet the Priest in consecrating, have used it. So he. We might add, by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also, left (as your Priest said) any particle thereof should fall to the ground. Furthermore, for the avoiding of Spilling, you (as your Cardinal Alan 
p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistu lae argenteae & aureae velut canales, calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae, ut per eas sine effusione hauri●i posset ●anguis è chalice, quarum in Ordinario Rom. fit mentio. Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur, ubi ministri Cardinals, aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie, posteriorem speciem fistulâ haurientes. sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo, sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium, Canonicorum, & Monachorum Conventibus. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. cap 47. p. 495.  relateth) have provided Pipes of silver, which are used by Popes, Cardinal's Monks, and some other Illustrious lay-Personages. Surely, there being no respect of persons with God (as said S. Peter) we think that he, who will be S. Peter's Successor should have taken out with S. Peter that lesson of Christ, of loving the whole flock of Christ, aswell Lambs as Sheep; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himself alone & his Grandes, for receiving this part of the Sacrament, and to neglect all other Christians, albeit never so true members of Christ. For this we all know, that 
q 1. Cor. 11. Itaque fratres mei, cum conven●ritis, invicem expectate.] Dominus ex aequo Tibi & pauperimensam proprij corporis, & poculum sanguinis t●adidit. Teste Salmeron. Ies Tom. 14. Disp. 19 pag. 153.  Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poor as the Rich, according to the Apostles Doctrine, by your own construction, answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers. And that the pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ, we may learn from ancient Histories, which evidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often been the Dam and Nurse of manifold Superstitions.  
As for example. The Heretics called Discalceati, in pretence 
(*) See §. 9  of more humility, thought that they ought to go barefoot. The 
(*) See above. Secto 8. (g)  Encratitae, in pretence of more sanctitity, abhorred marriage. The 
r Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant, sobrietatis conservandae causâ vinum vitantes. Alfons. à Castro cont. Haeres. Tit. Eucharistia, Haer. 6.  Aquarij, in pretence of more sobriety, used water in this Sacrament. The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist, because they thought it was created by an evil Spirit. And yet were these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious. Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees, for all their Superstitions, than that of Reverence? whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorough with so many Vae's, for annulling of the Precepts of God, by their Traditions, under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity.  
In brief. It was the opinion of Reverence that made S. Peter to contradict our Lords command, when he said, Thou shalt never wash my feet: yet how dangerous it had been for Peter to have persisted in opposition, the Reply of our Saviour doth declare. If I wash not thy feet (saith Christ) thou hast no part with me, etc. Upon which Text S. 
s Discamus Christum, prout vult, venerari, honorato namque iucundissi●us est honour, non quem nos putamus; nam & eum Petrus honorare putabar, cum sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit: sed non erat honour, quem agebat, sed contrarium. Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Tom. 5.  Chrysost. readeth unto you this Lecture. Let us therefore learn (saith he) to honour and reverence Christ, as he would, and not as we think meet. And sure we are, that he would that same which he commanded, saying, [Do this.] Therefore our next Difference, between our defence and yours, is no other than obedient Reverence, and reverend, or rather irreligious Disobedience.  
As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a 
t Si sic tanta esset dignitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi, quanta Clericorum? Gerson. Tract. de utraque specie.  Greater dignity of Priests than of Laics; it is too fantastical for the singularity; too harsh for the novelty; and too graceless for the impiety thereof: seeing that Christ, who gave his Body and Blood an equal price of Redemption for all sorts, would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administered to People, as Priests; as you have heard the Fathers themselves profess.   

The three Romish Pretences, which are more peculiar to their own Church, in two points.  
First, because 
a Movit Ecclesiam, ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum, quòd videret ab Haereticis, & ex errore oppugnari. Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cum corpore in specie panis: undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem, qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitantian. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 28. § Secundò.  Heretics (saith Bellarmine, and meaning Protestants) do not believe concomitancy, that is to say, that the blood of Christ is received under the form of bread: but for this concomitancy the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kind. So he. And this point of concomitancy is that which 
b In his Book dedicated to K. james.  M. Fisher, and 
c In his Liturg. of the Mass pag. 396.  M. Breerly most laboured for, or rather laboured upon. And albeit your Roman 
d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin, qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri. Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50.  Catechism judgeth this the principal Cause of inducing your Church to prefer one kind: yet we (whom you call Heretics) believe that the devout Communicant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified, in the inward act of the Soul: and only deny, that the whole is received Sacramentally, in this outward act, under one only part of this Sacrament, which is the present question.  
And in this we say no more than your Bishop jansenius judged reasonable, who hath rightly argued, saying, 
e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio: manducatio rectè dicitur, quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi: sed quomodò bibitio, cum nihil sumatur per modum potus? non n. diceremus eum & manducare & bibere, qui panem tinctum vino sume●et, quamvis sumat quod famem tollat & sitim. Proindè, secundùm horum sententiam vider●tu● omninò dicendum— cum dicitur manducare, & bibere, non ratione actus exterioris, qui manducationis tantum speciem habet: sed ratione actus interioris, nempe, ratione fidei. Jansen. Concord. in Evang. pag. 457.  It doth not easily appear how the outward receiving of Christ, under the form of Bread, should be called Drinking, but only Eating, being received after the manner of meats, as that is called Drinking only, which is received after the manner of Drink. Drinking therefore and Eating are distinguished by Christ, in the outward Act. So he, even as your own 
* See more expressly in the testimony of Durand above, Sect. 8.  Durand before him had truly concluded, with whom M. 
2 See Book 2. Cap. 2. §. 4.  Breerly will bear a part.  
Therefore your concomitancy (if we respect the Sacramental manner of Receiving) is but a Chimaera, and as great a Solecism as to say, that the Body and Bones of Christ are drank, and his Blood eaten: contrary to the Sacramental representation, in Receiving Bread and Wine, as hath been proved.  
Next, when we ask you why only your Church will not reform and regulate her Custom, according to the Institution of Christ, and the long practice of the primitive Church? you answer plainly, and without Circumlocution, that the Reason is, Lest that your Church might seem to have erred in her alteration of the ancient Custom. And this your 
f Secunda ratio, quià qui Concomitantiam negant, ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem: quià nimirum existimant iure divino esse praeceptum; & proptereà totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter errâsse. Bellar. qu● sup. §. Secundo.  Cardinal Bellarmine and the jesuit 
g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia, quod ipsa praxi contrariâ refu●at corum haeresin, qui utramque speciem iure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt. Quae ratio iure optimo inter coetera considerata est in Conc. Constant. contra Bohemos; & in Conc. Trident. contra recentiores Sectarios. Greg. de Valent. Ies. Tract. de usu Eucharist. cap. 10. §. Deindè, p. 499.  Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants, who held the necessity of public Communion in both kinds. Which Reason your own Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed (as in a manner) the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use, 
h Ego existimo, Patres, non solùm nullam legitimam causam esse, sed neque fingi posse, cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant: neque pa●i ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem.— Inprimis, quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit, ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus, cui m●ritò nobis obtemperandum est, quià nihil agit sine magna ratione, neque in huiusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest. Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis (Patres) suspicari multis in mentem veniet, aut vos illam temerè nulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque, aut susceptam cum ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nullâ vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere, quo nihil fieri potest gravitate vestrâ, aut huius amplissimi ordinis maiestate indignius. Gaspar Cardillo Villalpand: Orat. apud▪ Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219, 221, 222.  Lest that the Church (saith he) may seem to have erred. What can more savour of an Heretical and Antichristian spirit, than this pretence doth? For an Heretic will not seem to have erred, and Antichrist will profess himself one that cannot err: which Character of not personal erring was never assumed of any particular Church, excepting only the latter Church of Rome.  
Our Assumption. But the Church of Rome (which will seem that she cannot possibly err in her not administering the Cup unto Laics) is known to have erred 600. years together in the abuse of the same Sacrament, by administering it (in an opinion of necessity) unto Infants, as hath been plentifully 
* See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 11.  witnessed by eminent Doctors in your own Church. Hence therefore ariseth another difference, between the profession of our Custom and yours, which is, between Christ and Antichrist. All this while you do not perceive but that your opinion of concomitancy will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, whereof 
* In the third Book.  hereafter.    

The seaventh Comparison is between the manner of Institution, and manner of Alteration thereof.  
SECT. XI.  
THe beginning of the Institution in both kinds is known and acknowledged to have been authorized by him, who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament, even Christ our Lord, by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples, at his last Supper: But your Custom of only one kind, How (we beseech you) came it into your Church? tell us. 
i Nullâ praeceptorum vi, sed consensu quodam tacito tàm populi quam Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consue●udo. Ro●●ens. con. Cap. Babyl. Trac. de utraque Specie, f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum, alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato, quam populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen Praesulibus, irrepsisse: populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à calice abstinebat. Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis, aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant: quae abstinentia à calice cum tempore▪ Constantiensis Conc. ferè per Europam universalis esset, non erat damnanda, sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. Tract. de Com. sub. utraque specie, pag. 359. Credere par est, ex communi fidelium populor●m & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam: quandò autem primum inceperit, mihi non constat. Alf. de Castro l. 6. Tit: Eucharistia, haer. ult.  It came not in by any precept, but crept in by little and little, by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops. So your Bishop Roffensis, and your jesuit Costerus, and Friar Castro. This confessed unknown manner of Alteration of this your Custom, as it doth utterly refute your common Objection, viz. That every Doctrine and Custom must be judged ancient and Catholic, the beginning whereof is not known; so doth it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush, who durst make the same objection in this very Case, in defence of the use of but One kind, to prove it to have been from the beginning, because No first know beginning of our Catholic practice (
* Liturg Tract 4 § 9 at the end thereof.  saith he) can be instanced. And yet behold here no certain beginning of this Romish Custom; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custom, which formerly for a thousand years was held a Catholic Custom.  
Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistress of Churches, trow you, to suffer her Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature? what other difference can this make between our Custom and yours, but that which is between divine Ordinance & popular negligence; or as between a public Professor, & a Thee●ish Creeper? Heresy is certainly a disease, but wot you what? the 
* 2. Tim 2. 15.  Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer, or Gangrene, which is a disease Creeping by little and little, from joint to joint, until it have eaten up the vital parts; such a Cancer was this your Custom, if you shall stand to your own former Confessions.   

Our last Comparison is between the Contrary dispositions of Professors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in rejecting both kinds.  
SECT. XII.  
THe Comparison, between the diverse dispositions of Professors, none will be more willing to show than your jesuit 
l Quod verò attinet ad tempora, triplicem in coetu Christiano statum, Nic. de Cusano Card. expendit; ferventis nimirùm, calidae & frigentis. Initio n. fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens, & tunc data est illi utraque species, ut sanguinem Domini bibens, sanguinem suum pro illo libenter effunderet.— In sequenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida, licet non ità fervens, & tunc non dabatur bina species, sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus, ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententijs Concilijsq colligi potest. Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae, & in ea tantùm altera species, panis sc. sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur. Salm. Ies. To. 9 Tract. 34. §. Quod verò, p. 277.  Salmeron, who will have you out of Cardinal Cusanus to observe three States of the Church. The first is in her Fervency; The second in her Warmness; The third in her Coldness. In the first state of her Fervency, when the Christians affected Martyrdom for the Gospel of Christ, then did the People (saith he) communicate in both kinds. In the second state, which was in her Warmness (though not so hot boiling as before) They then used to dip the Host into the Chalice, and so were made jointly partakers of both, in one. But in the third state of Coldness, the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kind. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
IF now Truth may be judged by the different dispositions of Professors, then may this former Confession witness for us that there is as much difference between the Primitive and the now Romish Custom, as there is between lively Fervency, and senseless Numbness and Coldness, that is to say, Godly zeal, and Godless indevotion and negligence: yet a negligence not only approved (which is impious) but (that which is the height of impiety) even applauded also by your Priests, among whom the 
m Vt nobis locupletissimi testes, atque omni exeptione maiores retulerunt, in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Rom. Pontificibus, non solùm (Reverendi Patres) calicem vitae non cupiunt, aut petere audent, etc. Gasp. Card. Villalp. opud Act. Conc. Trid. p. 222. §. Accedit.  abovesaid Gaspar Cardillo in the Council of Trent, with exultation told their Fatherhoods (as being a matter of great joy) that they who are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in Germany, do not so much as desire the Cup of life. So he.    

A GENERAL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Mass.  
SECT. XIII.  
IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Uncharitableness, the intolerable Arrogancy, the vile Perjury, the extreme Madness, and Folly, together with a note of plain Blasphemy of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Roman Custom of forbidding the Cup to faithful Communicants. For what Uncharitableness can be more odious, than when they cannot but confess, that there is more spiritual grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds, do notwithstanding boast, even in the open Council of Trent, of some of their Professors, who in obedience to the Church of Rome, do not only (
* See the next testimony above.  their own words) not desire the Cup of life, but also dare not so much as desire it. Which Vaunt, we think, besides the Impiety thereof, inferreth a note of profane Tyranny.  
Secondly, when we compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity, they answer, 
n Tertio loco obijciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam, antiquitatem, atque potestatem; aiunt enim, Ecclesiam primitivam, quae antiquior & scientiâ atquè vitae sanctitate praestantior erat, utráque specie usam fu●sse: nostra igitur illam imitari debet, praesertim cum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in eiusmodi legibus positivis siuè abrogandis siuè dispensandis. Respondemus, non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae maiore charitate, ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit, nihilominus, tamen interdum contingit minus sapientem in aliquo meliùs sapere, quam al●●m absolutè sapientiorem. Saepe etiam accidit, minùs p●●fectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem, quem melior non vitat. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 38. §. Tertio loco, p. 320.  Although the primitive Church (say they) did exceed ours in Zeal, Wisdom, and Charity, nevertheless it falleth out sometimes, that the wiser may in some things be less wise than another. Which answer, if we consider the many Reasons, which you have heard the Fathers give, for the use of both kinds, and their consonant practice thereof, what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fathers? and indeed (as the saying is) To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Jesuits made to the Practice of the Apostles, saying that your Church, having the same spirit, hath the same power to alter the Custom, whereas we have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custom was the Institution of Christ. But that which the Roman Church allegeth is merely a pretence of Plenitude of her own Authority; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit. And can there be a more intolerable Arrogancy than is this, which this Roman spirit bewrayeth in both these?  
Thirdly, upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolical and primitive Antiquity, in this Cause, we find that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjury also; For in the Form of Oath, for the profession of the Romish Faith, every Priest and Ecclesiastic is sworn 
o Forma juramenti, per Bullam Pij quarti. Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto,— Ego spond eo, & juro, etc.  To admit of all Apostolical & Ecclesiastical Traditions; as also to hold what the 
p Coetera omnia à Concilio Tr●dent. declarata & confirmata firmissimè ●eneo. Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclefiar u●…do, etc.  Council of Trent hath decreed: But this Custom of administration of both kinds, as hath been acknowledged, was an Apostolical Custom, and from them also remained in an Ecclesiastical profession and practice throughout a thousand years' space; which your Church of Rome, notwithstanding, in her Council of Trent, (whereunto likewise you are sworn) hath altered and perverted: which doth evidently involve your Priests, and Jesuits in a notorious, and unavoidable Perjury.  
Fourthly, As for the note of Foolishness, what more mad folly can there be seen in any, than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custom, for satisfaction of all others, and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves? so that both the Objections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified, and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your own Doctors, or by the Common Principles and Tenants of your Church, or else by the absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers; diverse of them being no less gross, then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Roman Church, for less than three hundred years, and to prefer it before the confessed Universal primitive Custom of above the Compass of a Thousand years' continuance before the other.  
Fiftly, the last is the note of Blasphemy; for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve; and what greater contempt can there be, than contrary to Christ his [Do this] (concerning both kinds) to profess that Sacrilegious dismembering of the holy Sacrament, which Gelasius the Pope himself had anciently condemned? or if this be not Blasphemous enough, then, supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in both kinds, upon divine right, yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable (as saith your jesuit 
q Licet Gabriel, & quidam alij sentiant divini juris esse, ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet, nihilominùs ' tamen opinantur authoritate Rom. Pontificis fieri posse, ut in una tantùm specie sacrificet, viz. in consecratione panis fine vino, quià putant multa esse juris divini, quae remittere & relaxare Pótifex queat ob publicam aliquam & gravem necessitatem: ut videmus votum, iusiurandum, matrimonium ratum, non consummatum, authoritate Pontificis relaxari & dissolvi. Et ità in hac quaestione prima puto probabilius & verius esse (ut dixi) iuris esse divini, ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet. Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile, authoritate Pontificiâ, ob publicam & urgentem necessitatem, praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse. Sed▪ quià nunquàm est relaxatum, ego confilium darem ut nunquam relaxaretur. Azorius Ies. Tom. 1. Instit, Moral. lib. 10. cap. 19 §. Tertium pag. 857.  Azorius) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith. But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with, 1 (saith he) would give my Counsel that it never may be. O jesuit! thus to deal with Christ his Command. If he or any other jesuit had made as bold with the Pope, as this doth with Christ himself, saying unto him; Any of your Decrees (holy Father) may be dispensed with by any jesuit of our Society: yet because no jesuit hath taken upon him hitherto so much, my counsel is that none of your Decrees be ever dispensed withal. The Pope, we suppose, albeit he would thank this man for his counsel, for not Doing so; yet doubtless, would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition, for his judgement, to think it lawful so to do: namely, to leave it to the discretion of every jesuit, to dispense with his Papal Decrees. And notwithstanding the Jesuits [Suppose] we may depose, that your Romish licence, for but one kind, is a dispensing, or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ.  
We are already wearied with citing of the manifold, vild, odious, and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors, for this your Cause; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted, lest we might seem to contemn the wit and zeal of your jesuit Salmeron, against the use of this Sacrament in both kinds. The use of both kinds (saith 
r Dispensandus non est utriusque, speciei usus Haereticis, quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus: nec Catholicis, quià debent distingui ab Haereticis, qui communicant sub duab. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. §. His pofitis, p. 411.  he) is not to be allowed to Catholics; because they must be distinguished from Heretics: nor to Heretics, because bread is not to be given unto Dogs. Now blessed be God that we are esteemed as Heretics and Dogs, to be distinguished from them, in this and other so many commanded Acts; wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers, from the Apostles of Christ, and from Christ himself.   

An Appeal unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome, against the late Romish Popes and Church; in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution.  
SECT. XIV.  
THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were (as all the world will say) in authority of Command, in sincerity of judgement equal, and in integrity of life Superior unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church, in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist, to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ, and of the Apostles. So, you have heard, 
a P. Calixtus. See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9  Pope Calixtus (An. Christi, 218.) requireth all persons present at the Mass to Communicate. For which reason it was (we think) that Pope 
b P. Greg. Ibid. at (b.)  Gregory (Anno 600.) commanded every one present at the Mass; and not purposing to Communicate, to Depart. There is an History related by Aeneas Silvius (after, Pope Pius the Second) which showeth the reason why another 
c See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall. 5. (a.)  Pope of Rome, with his Consistory, yielded a liberty to the Sclavonians, to have Divine Service in their national Language; and reporteth that it was thorough the sound of that voice (which is written in the Psalms) Let every tongue praise the Lord. 
d P. julius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  Pope julius (Anno 336.) was much busied in repressing the sopping of bread in the Chalice, and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time: and the reason, which he gave was this; Because (quoth he) these Customs are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolical Doctrine: and our Church of Rome doth the same. Where he addeth, concerning the manner of Communicating, 
e Ibid.  We read (saith he) that both the Bread and Cup, were distinctly and severally delivered. As if he had meant, with the same breath, to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament, but in one of Both: And who can say but that Gregory and Leo, both Popes, 
f See above Chap. 3. Sect 4.  observing the same use of Christ, had the same Resolution? Sure we are that Pope 
g P. Gelasius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 4.  Gelasius (Anno 494.) called the Abuse, in dismembering of this Sacrament, by receiving but in one kind, A Grand Sacrilege.  
We read of a Council held at Toledo in Spain, under Pope Sergius, styled 
h Synod. Tolet. 16— Conc. Generale, sub Sergio Papa. Baron, ad An. 693 This Council, cap. 6. saith, Quoniam quid Turrian non panes m●ndos atque integros, sed crustulam & particulam offerunt— quod nequaquàm in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedi●se panem, etc. Apud Binium Tom. 3. And this being, by Baronius, a General Council, could not conclude without the Pope's consent, in your judgements.  general, (Anno 693.) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps. But with what reason were they reprehended? Because (saith the Council) that fashion i● not ●ound in the sacred Story of the Evangelists. All those ancient Popes, who held the Example of Christ, in his Institution and Apostolical Customs, to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points, concerning the ministration of this Sacrament, being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices; it must follow, that those former Pope's being admitted for judges, whom all Christians acknowledged to have been Apostolical in their Resolutions, the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostatical.  
Now, from the former Actual, we proceed to the Doctrinal points.     

THE SECOND BOOK,  Concerning the first Doctrinal Point, which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution; [THIS IS MY BODY: THIS IS MY BLOOD.] LUKE 22. 
The Doctrinal and Dogmatic points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution; [This is my Body; etc.] 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions: such as are Transubstantiation, Corporal Presence, and the rest.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Exposition of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY.] The State of the Question in General.  
BEcause (as 
a In scripturâ explicandâ haeresis est manifesta, sicut figurata propriè accipere, ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad Tropicam locutionem detorquere: nam in verbis [Eunuchi sunt qui se castrant propter regnum coelorum etc.] August. and to the same purpose also, lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ.  Saint Augustine saith of points of faith) It is as manifest an Heresy, in the interpretation of Scriptures, to take figurative speechees properly, as to take proper speeches figuratively (And such is the CAVEAT, which 
b— Hoc cavendum, nisi in manifestum Haereseos scopulum impingere velimus. Salmeron. Jes. Tom. 1. Proleg. 12. pag. 227.  Salmeron the jesuit giveth you) it will concern both You and Us (as we will avoid the brand of Heresy) to search exactly into the true sense of these words of Christ; especially seeing we are herein to deal with the Inscription of the Seal of our Lord JESUS, even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. In the which Disquisition, besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers, we shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your own Romish Authors.  
And what Necessity there is to inquire into the true sense of these words, will best appear in the after-Examination of the diverse 
* See before Book, 3, 4, 5, 6.  Consequences of your own Sense, to wit, your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporal, and 
c Gratian. Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo, carnem eius & sanguinem materialiter significamus. De Consecrat. dist. 2. C. Quià morte.  Material Presence, Propitiatory Sacrifice, and proper Adoration: All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former words of Christ. The issue than will be this, that if the words be certainly true, in a Proper and literal sense, than we are to yield to you the whole Cause: But if it be necessarily Figurative, than the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy, the whole Structure and Fabric, which you erect thereupon, must needs ruin and vanish. But yet know withal, that we do not so maintain a figurative Sense of Christ his Speech, concerning his Body, as to exclude the Truth of his Body, or yet the truly-Receiving thereof; as the Third and Fourth Books following will declare.  

That a Figurative sense of Christ his Speech [THIS IS MY BODY, etc.] is evinced out of the words themselves; from the Principles of the Romish Schools.  
SECT. I.  
THere are two words, which may be unto us as two keys, to unlock the questioned sense of Christ's words, viz. the pronoun, [THIS] and the Verb [IS.] We begin with the former.  

The State of the Question, about the word [THIS.]  
When we shall fully understand by your Church (which 
a Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata, & à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt.  holdeth a Proper and literal Signification) what the Pronoune [THIS] doth demonstrate, then shall We truly infer an infallible proof of our figurative sense.  
All Opinions concerning the Thing, which the word [THIS] in the diverse opinions of Authors, pointeth at, may be reduced to Three heads; namely, to signify either This Bread, or This Body of Christ, or else some Third Thing different from them both. Tell you us, first, what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants? Lutherans and all Calvinists (saith your 
b Lutherani & omnes Calvinistae pronomen [Hoc] pro pane positum esse dicunt, quià panem Christus in manu acceperat, & dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum.] Maldon. Ies. in Matth. 26. §. Hoc omnes— Lutherus in verba Evangelistae. Habent hunc sensum; Hic panis est corpus meum.  jesuit) think that the Pronoune [THIS] pointeth out Bread. But your Roman Doctors are at odds among themselves, and divided into two principal Opinions. Some of them refer the word [THIS] to Christ's Body, Some to a Third thing, which you call Individuum vagum. In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions; and after to confirm our own.    

That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors, of great learning, (referring the word [THIS] properly to Christ his Body) perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech, by the Concessions of Romish Doctors.  
SECT. II.  
DIvers of your Romish Divines of special note, as well Jesuits as others, interpret the word [This] to note the Body of Christ, as it is present in this Sacrament, at the pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech [Hoc est corpus meum:] Because they are words 
* See below, let. (k. n. o.) etc.  Practical, (say they) that is, working that which they signify (namely) The Body of Christ. And this sense they call Most clear: and, in their judgements, there can be no better than this. So your 
c [Hoc] designat corpus, ut est intermino prolationis: & hic est sensus luculentissimus. Stapleton. Prompt. Cath. serm. Heb. sacra. upon these words, [Hoc est corpus meum.]  Stapleton, 
d [Hoc] nihil aliud quam corpus Christi demonstrat. Sand. de visib. Monarch. Ad annum 1549 p. 629.  Sanders, together with 
e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in fine propositionis; nec est Tautologia, quemadmodum neque in illo, [Hic est hlius dilectus.] Barrad. Ies. de Inst. Euch C. 4.  Barradius, 
f Vtique pronomen [Hoc] quod attributi locum tenet, necessariò spectat, [Hoc est, inquit Christus, corpus meum] id est opus, quod ego panem accipiens, & benedicens, operor, & conficio, corpus meum est. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 9 pag. 120. §. Ad hoc. [Of which last clause of Salmeron. Hoc, id est, Hoc opus, I say only that Opus erat Salmeroni medico.]  Salmeron, 
g Chavaus. Ies. Comment. in formam iuramenti fidei, Inscriptio libri est, Professio verae fidei, §. 49. pag. 468.  Chavausius; these last three being Jesuits; to whom you may add 
h In his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, pag. 138. Tract. 2. Sect. 3.  Master Brereley his Answer, saying that these words, Most evidently relate to Christ's Body. As evidently (saith also your jesuit 
i Malloun his late Reply against Doctor Usher, pag. 204.  Malloun) as one pointing at his Book, should say, This is my Book.  

CHALLENGE.  
ARe not these Opinators in number many; in name for the most part, of great esteem; their Assertion, in their own opinion, full of assurance; and delivered to their Hearers, as the only Catholic Resolution? And yet behold one, whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs, your Cardinal 
k Argumentum eorum, qui volunt Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrare Corpus, est absurdum, quod in huius modi propositionibus, quae significant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur, Pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrate quod est, sed quod erit. Et ponunt Exempla, ut si quis dum pingit lineam, aut circulum dicat, Haec est linea, hic est Circulus. Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini, joh. 15. Hoc est praeceptum meum.— Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere, propter duas causas. Primò quià etsi Pronomen demonstrativum demonstrer rem futuram, quandò nihil est praesens, quod demonstretur (ut in exemplis allatis) tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat, dum pronomen effert, valdè absurdum videtur dicere, pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit panem, & illum porrigens, ait, [Accipite, Edite, H. E. C. M.] Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem. Neque Obstat quod propositio non significat, nisi in sine totius prolationis: Nam etsi ità est de propositione, quae est ratio quaedam, tamen Demonstrativa Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur coeterae voces; Et sane in illis verbis [Bibite ex hoc omnes] valdè durum est, non demonstrari id quod erat, sed id tantùm quod futurum erat: Secundò si Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrat solùm Corpus, verba speculativa erunt, non practica. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 11. §. Nota secundò.  Bellarmine, who, speaking of the same opinion of referring the word [This] to the Body of Christ, doth in flat terms call it ABSURD: but not without good and solid reason, and that according to the Principles of Romish Schools; to wit, because before the last syllable of the last word [Me-um] be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present: and the word [This] cannot demonstrate a thing Absent, and therefore can it not be said, This body is my body. A Reason pregnant enough in itself, and ratified by your public Roman 
l Huius vocis [Hoc] ea visest, ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstret. Catech. Conc. Trid. Decret. & inssu Pij Quinti Pontificis Edit. ut in frontispitio libri c●…r.  Catechism, authorised by the then Pope, and Council of Trent; yet notwithstanding your forenamed Irish jesuit, hearing this Argument objected by Protestants, raileth down right, calling it Accursed, as judged by the Church Heretical, and indeed Abominable. So he, who with Others, if they were of fit years, might be thought to deserve the rod, for forgetting their General Catechism, and for defending an Exposition, which even in common sense may be pronounced, in your Cardinal's own phrase, very Absurd; else show us, if you can, but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion.   

Similitudes objected, for defence of their former Exposition, and confuted by their own fellows.  
The Similitudes which are urged, to illustrate your former Practical and operative sense, are of these kinds, to wit; Even as if one (say 
m Bellar. See above at let. (k.)  They) in drawing a Line, or a Circle, should say in the making thereof, This is a Line, or, This is a Circle: or as if the Smith (say 
n Haec locutio, [Hoc est corpus meum] habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in Corpus Christi, ut an Thomas.— Pro simili, quod rudi intellectui satisfacere valeat, dari potest, ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans, dicat, Hic est Clavus— Clavus non est cum profertur oratio, sed fieri inter proferendun, & esse per prolationem verb orun. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. [ex aliorum opinion,] & jansenius Concerd. cap. 130.— ut faber clavum, etc.  Others) in making of a Nail, should say, This is a Nail; So by Christ his saying [This is my Body] it was made presently the Body of Christ, at the very pronunciation of the last word of this Sentence, [This is my Body.] But most conceitedly your jesuit Malloune, and that not without scurrility, 
o Master Malloune in his late Reply, p. 105. This is a Kirtle for my wife, etc.  As a Tailor making a Kirtle, and saying (we shall change only his last word) This is a Kirtle for my Mistress CONUBINA. So they.   

CHALLENGE.  
THese kind of Subtleties are frequent in the mouths of most Romish Priests, as often as they are compelled to show what is demonstrated by the pronoun, This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles, Lines, and Nails, are no better than juggling, and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose, and fond devises forged in the brains of idle Sophisters, and uttered by your Circulary Priests, your own Authors are ready to manifest for these Examples of the Painter's touching a Line, or a Circle (as your 
a Bellar. See above at let. (k.)  Bellarmine showeth) making and saying, This is a Circle; Is no true Proposition, until the Circle be made. And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper, using the present Tense, Is, for the future, Shall be. So he. In like manner your jesuit 
b Profectò propositio non est vera, nisi postquàm factus est Circulus: Sed oratio accipitur pro verà, quia ●…d quod futurum est, accipitur pro iam facto, per Tropun, non iuxtà Proprietatem sermonis: in quem sensum Christus plerunque praesens pro futuro usurpavit: ut Math. 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum dicipulis me●s, id est, confestian facio Pascha Salmeron. Ies. ●om. 9 Tran. 13. §. Secunda.— Si [est] proptie accipiatur, pro existere, durum est ut uniat subiectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore, quià falsa esser propositio, non solùm in orationibus speculativis, & significativis, sed etiam in practicis & factivis: ut si quis volens facere Circulum, rogatus quid est Hoc, respondeatque, Hic est Circulus; Profectò propositio non est statim vera, etc. Salm. Ib. p. 83  Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÒ and full asseveration, that the speech of him, who in drawing a Circle doth say, This is a Circle, cannot without a Trope or Figure, be judged true. So he.  
And furthermore, who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signify not the Being of a thing; but the Making thereof, and bringing of it unto being? For although the Painter be so nimble, in drawing a Circle, that his hand may go before his tongue; yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working, by the agility of the hand, but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue, so that the Truth thereof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable; It is impossible but the Priest, in uttering distinctly these words, [Hoc est corpus meum,] must say, This is, before he come to the last syllable of me-um: and consequently in his sense notify This to be Christ's Body, before (according to his own judgement) the Body of Christ can have there any being at all.  
By this is discovered the notable vertigo and dizziness of your jesuit Maldonate; He, to prove that the pronoun, This, doth relate to Christ's Body, standeth upon the like Operative speculation; God (saith 
c Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem sinxit rectè ver éque dicere potuisset, sumpto in manus limo, Hic est Homo. Et cum ex costa mulierem fabricavit, sumptâ costâ dicere potuit; Haec est mulier, quamuis cum pronunciasset Pronomen [Haec] nondùm fuisset mulier, ac significasset cum ità locutus fuisset, limunnon esse hominem, & costam mulierem; sed limum in hominem, costam in mulierem converti. Sic cum Christus dicit, [Hoc est corpus meum,] significat panem mutari in corpus suum. Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae, cum aquam in vinum, etc. Maldon. Ies Matth. 26. Ità cum Christus dicit, accepto pane [Hoc est corpus meum] quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset, sed futurum erat, illud eo pronomine demonstrat, nec significat panem, quem acceperat, esse corpus suum, sed mutari in corpus suum. Idemin Matth. 26. pag. 635.  he) in creating man of the slime of the earth, might have truly said thereof, This is man: Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man, might have rightly said; This is Woman: or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee, might have said, (showing the water) This is wine. So he. When, notwithstanding, he is enforced in every one to alter the Verb, Is, thus; Slime is changed into Man: Rib is converted into Woman: Water is made Wine, as he himself confesseth; expounding the words [This is my Body] thus, Not that it was then his Body (saith he) which as yet it was not, but was about to be: nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body, but to be changed into his Body. So he. As if any thing could be said properly, to be that, which as yet it Is not. Hitherto of your first Interpretation.    

That the second Romish Exposition, referring the Pronoune [THIS] to demonstrate a Third thing, called Individuum vagum, or Indeterminate substance, perverteth the sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY:] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors.  
SECT. III.  
A Third thing, differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ, which Romish Sophisters have lately invented, is that which they call Individuum vagum; by which is meant, a substance confusedly taken; as when one (to use your own e example) having an Herb in his hand shall say, This herb groweth in my garden: in which speech the word; Herb, which is demonstrated by the pronoun, This, is not taken determinately, for that singular Herb in his hand, (for that doth not now grow in his garden) but is taken vagè and confusedly, for the common Species, nature, or kind of that herb. And this opinion is defended by 
a,b Sententia haec est, P●onomine illo designari aliquid commune Substantiae panis & corporis Christi; Commune (inquam) non secundum Rem, (illud enim nullum esse potest) sed secundum rationem seu denominationem viz. sub ratione contenti sub his accidentibus continetur corpus meum. Ità Guitmundus (where he reckons up 15. other School men:) ubi Pronomen [Hoc] substantiuè sumitur, & demonstrat in confuso Ens, siuè substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus— ut cum quis dicat, Haec herba nascitur in horto meo: illud Pronomen [Haec] non significat hanc numero herbam, sed herbam huic similem. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. in Thom. disp 58. §. 7. p 7●5▪ Secundùm rationem Substantiae tùm communem tùm Individuam vagam. Greg. de Valent. l. 1. de Present. corp. Chr (〈◊〉). §. Respondemus. p. 377. Quià Sacramenta significant quod efficiunt, & non efficitur in hoc Sacramento ut corpus Christi sit corpus Christi, quià ità semper suit, nec ut panis sit corpus Christi, id enim fieri nequit, sed efficitur ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi, sub quibus anteà etat panis: [Hoc] non demonstrat panem, vel corpus, sed contentum sub speciebus. Bell. l 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. Est igitur.  Bellarmine, with other Jesuits, and Doctors of your Church, (ᵇ Sixteen in number) as the only sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point, touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ, concerning the pronoun, THIS.  

CHALLENGE.  
Which Subtlety is notwithstanding discussed, disclosed, and exploded by your learned 
c Archiepisc. Caesar. siuè Christopherus de Capite fontium. var. Trac. Demonstrando corpus in genere, nescio quid— dictum velis, cum non Individua in Generibus suis, sed Genera in individuis demonstrentur, & Pronominis natura est sola singularia demonstrare— Ideò si generi addas Pronomen [Hoc] demonstras non in genere sed in Individuo rem ipsam,— Conceptus communis non latet sub speciebus, nec in manibus portari potest.— Propositio vera dicitur ex eo, quod res est vera, velnon est vera: ergò non verborum dispositio consideranda venit— Rapiunt isti à rerum consideratione lectorem, ut non res ipsas, sed intelligibiles formas loquendi contempletur.— Quibus dixerim, revertiminiad iudicium, o viri, & duas has tantum res Corpus sc. & panem considerate, quarum alterum tantùm demonstrari necesse est. Quià Pronomen vice nominis Proprij positum prosolo singulari sumi potest, cum Scriptura duarum tantùm substantiarum, quae demonstrari hîc queant, meminerit, viz. Panis, & Corporis, nescio cur fingunt Tertiam aliquam, quae nec panis sit, nec corpus. In quo magnam vim Scripturae faciunt, infarcientesilli ex suo cerebro tertiam illam rem, cujus nullam habent mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio esset fal●a, Archiep. Caesar. quo supra p. 12. Si enim Christus ità loqueretur de pane, ante illius Transubstantiationem, mentiretur— Non enim haec dici possunt de Pan● consecrando, quod sit corpus Christi. Ibid. p. 17. Solam illam substantiam singularem demonstrabat, quae erat in Christi manibus, quae erat aut panis, aut corpus ejus: Tertiam igitur quaerere vanissimus labor est, & absurditate plenus. Thus far that Archbishop.  Archbishop of Caesarea, and your jesuit 
d Vulgata opinio est, illud pronomen [Hoc] neque demonstrare corpus Christi; neque panem, sed accipi vagè, pro eo quod continetur sub accidentibus, quod prius est panis, deinde corpus Christi. Quae sententia non videtur mihi probabilis esse, quià etsi vocabula solent aliquandò habere vagam & indefinitam significationem, tamen aliud est loqui de significatione verbi, aliud de acceptione, quam Dialectici vocant suppositionem. Illa quae dicuntur Individua vaga significationem habent vagam, & indeterminatam, sed suppositionem habent semper certam, & determinatam: nam etsi hoc Pronomen [Hic, haec, hoc,] quantum in se est, non magis significat hunc hominem, quam illum, tamen cum ponitur in propositione (ut hic homo disputat) non potest accipi nisi determinatè pro hoc homine. Ergo necesse est ut illud Pronomen [Hoc] accipiatur determinatè, autpro pane, aut pro corpore Christi— Nulla res potest esse nisi determinate aut haec aut illa; Ergò non possunt haec Pronomina, si substantiuè accipiantur, nisi pro hac vel illâ re determinata accipi. Maldon. Ies. de Sacram. Euch. Tom. 1. §. Tertius error, pag. 216. 217.  Maldonate, as an Opinion both false and full of Absurdities. 1. Because whensoever the pronoun [This] is used in Speech, as, This man disputeth, it is always in proper sense, as determinately taken. 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand, but that was no vagrant, but a singular determinate Substance. And it is gross, to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand. Which seemed to your 
e Mr. Harding in his answer to the 24. Article, saying; Learn you what they mean, and if their meaning be naught, handle you them as you list; you shall not offend us any whit.  Mr. Harding so uncouth and fond an opinion, that he utterly refuseth to defend the Authors thereof.  
This, and much more have they written to the discovering and discarding of this idle figment, wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion, of Individuum vagum, may return to their wits again, and cease to offer such violence to this holy Scripture [This is my Body.] So They. And worthily, for these two words, Individuum, and Vagum, spoken of Hoc, be terms as Contradictory, as to call the same thing, singular-common, or determinate-confused. As for example, Quidam homo, A certain man is in Logic Individuum vagum; as when Christ said, A certain man went from Jerusalem to Hiericho, etc. None of the Disciples hearing this could thereupon point him out, saying; This man: or know thereby who, or what he was.  
We, for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point, will instance in your own Example, for your Individuum vagum. The Herb, which a man holdeth in his hand, saying, This herb groweth in my Garden, how can you say it is true in the proper sense? for if you take it determinately, the same Herb numero is not in the man's garden, because it is in his hand, and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum. And if you speak of it in a confused Notion, no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand, it being the function of the brain, and not of the hand, to apprehend mental Notions, or Generals; and so it is not Individuum at all.  
But the Text saith of Christ his hand, [He took bread, etc.] THIS, which Christ, in so saying, pointed out with his finger, saith your 
a [Hoc est corpus meum.] Hoc quod Christus digito demonstrabat, cumilla verba protulit. Sand. de visib. Monarch. l. 7. ad Annum. 1547.  Sanders; but a man will have much ado to point out an Individuum vagum (such as is an invisible, or a confused Notion) with a visible finger. We would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor, 
b Pe●rus Picherellus de Missâ. cap. 3.  Individui vagi commentum Authori Sco●o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relinquo; but that something else is to be added.  
Another may be your Cardinal his own Assertion, which he once made as a snare to catch himself in; for in your 
c Cum antè Consecrationem dicimus in Litutgiâ [suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam] certè Pronomen [Hanc] demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus tenemus, id autem est panis. Bel. l. 1 de Missâ, c. 27. §. Prima propositio.  Romish Mass, the Priest having the Host in his hand, prayeth thus; Receive, holy father, This immaculate Host. If you shall ask him what, in this prayer, the pronoun This doth demonstrate, he telleth you readily and asseverantly saying; Certainly it demonstrateth unto sense that which the Priest hath in his hand, which is Bread. So he. Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounc [This] to Bread in the speech of Christ, as it hath in the prayer of the Priest, none of you (we think) shall ever be able to show.  
Lastly, we challenge you to show within the space of a Thousand three hundreth years after Christ, out of all the Ancient Fathers, any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune [Hoc, This] to betoken any Individuum vagum, or Common Substance; or else to confess that this your doctrine is new, extravagant, and Adulterate. Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one, as to say, This, that is, that which is contained under the form of Bread, because this is like as when one showing his purse, shall say, This is money, meaning that which is in his purse; which is a known figure Metonymia. Yet were it granted that [Hoc] betokened an Individuum vagum, as (to use your own Similitude) when one saith of an herb in his hand, This herb groweth in my garden; so Christ should have said of bread in his hand; This, (that is the like kind of bread) is my Body: yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper, or not figurative, because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat- Bread; than it could be of that bread of wheat then in his hand, as Christ himself hath taught us, and as we are to prove unto you. For speaking of his Body, he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the grain of wheat, joh. 12. 24. not This grain; yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grain, as This grain of wheat: whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson in the sixth Section following. And now this so open and extreme civil war among yourselves, in confuting your own Expositions, will further and confirm peace among us in that one Exposition, which we are in the next place to defend, as followeth.   

The Third Proposition, which is (according to the judgement of Protestants) that there is a Tropical and unproper sense, in the Pronoune [THIS.]  
We reason first Hypothetically; If the pronoun This demonstrate Bread, than the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively. But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread. Our Conclusion will be; Therefore the words of Christ, necessarily, are to be taken figuratively. All this will be proved, confirmed, and avouched by Reason's Authorities, and Confessions, which will admit no Contradiction. We begin at our proof of the Consequence of the Proposition.    

That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ; or Wine his Blood, without a Figure.  
SECT. IV.  
THe common Dictate of natural Reason, imprinted by God in man's heart, is a Maxim, and hath in it an universal Verity, which neither man nor Devil can gainsay, and is Confessed by yourselves, viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur; That is, nothing can be properly and literally affirmed jointly of another thing, which is of a different nature, viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egg is a Stone, or (to take your own 
d Dispatatum de disparato non praedicatur, valet ●gitur argumentum: Si hoc est lac, non est ferrum: ita etiam valebit, si hoc est est corpusnon est panis; cum repugnet, unam naturam de alterâ diversâ dici, ut hominem esse equum citra tropum, vel Metaphoram. Salm. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 16. §. Primum igitur. p. 109.  example) we cannot call A man an horse, without a Trope or Figure, because their natures are repugnant. So Salmeron. And this he holdeth necessary. Or thus: 
e Nè ipse quidem Deus, qui est summa veritas, un quam efficiet, ut hae propositiones, uxor Lot est Sal, aqua est vinum, asinus est homo, in sensu composito sint verae. Archiep. Caesar. d●●ens. 〈◊〉. de Real. Praes. cap. 58.  God, who is perfect Truth, will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time, viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt, or Water is Wine, or an Ass a man. So your Archbishop. Yea, to come nearer to the point: 
f Obseruandum, cum dicitur vinum es● sanguis, docetur esse sanguinem per similitudinem, reipsa autem & propriè est vinum. Et cum dicitur sanguis est vinum, intelligitur vinum esse per similitudinem: nec enim reipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinum sanguis, aut sanguis vinum, cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se, & termini ut vocant disparati. Bel. l. 2. de Euch. c. 9 §. Observand.  We cannot say that this wine is blood, or that this blood is wine, but by a Similitude or Representation, because they differ in nature. So Bellarmine; Adding furthermore that it is 
g Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio, in qua subiectum supponitur propane, praedicatum pro corpore Christi: Panis enim & corpus res diversissimae sunt. Bellar▪ l. 〈◊〉. de. Euch. c. 19 § Primum.  Impossible the Proposition should be true, wherein the Subject is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ. And, Bread and Christ's body (saith your 
h Eodem tempore panis triticeus, & corpus Christi esse non possunt, quia disparata sunt. Sand. de visi●. Monarch. ad Annum. 1549. [To object De Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deus est homo, were vain, because that is spoken by reason of ●he Hypostatical Union whereby Accidit Deo ut sit homo, per hypostaticam unionem, non per mutationem, which Unity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocal. And we also mean, Disparata absoluta, not Relata, for thus the same man is father and son.]  Sanders) cannot be properly affirmed one of another.  
And indeed it is as Impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh, as a body of flesh to be bread; which is grounded upon our first Maxim, which your jesuit Salmeron expresseth thus. 
i Quoties verbum [Est] res diversarum naturarum, quae à Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit, & copulat, ibi necessariò ad figuram & Tropum recurramus. Salm. Ies. Tom 9 Tract. 10. p. 138.  As often as the Verb [EST, IS,] joineth things of diverse natures together, we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure. Will you be content that your Gloss, as the tongue of your Church, may have the last word? Then harken to it: 
k Sipanis est corpus Christi, ergo aliquid quod non es● natum ex virgine est corpus Christ●: & ità animatum est inanimatum. Gloss. Decret. de Consecrat. dist. 〈◊〉. can. Quia.  If bread be Christ's body, than something is Christ's body, which is not borne of the Virgin Mary; and then also the same body must be said to be living, and not living both at once. So your Gloss, confessing hereby an Impossibility of this Predication, Bread is Christ's Body, in a proper and literal sense. Our Proposition then standeth firm and infallible; our Assumption will be found as true.   

That the Pronoune [THIS] doth as verily notify Bread in the words of Christ, as if he had expressly said, This Bread is my Body; proved first by Scripture.  
SECT. V.  
THe Text of the Evangelist, Luc. 22. is light sufficient in itself; [jesus taken bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, Eat, THIS, (namely, which they took; and they took THIS, which he Gave; and he gave THIS, which he Broke; and he Broke THIS, which he Blessed; and blessed THIS, which he himself took; and THIS, which he took, was Bread, [jesus taken Bread. We appeal to your own Consciences, who never hitherto could say, that in all these sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he took, till the last word pronounced by the Priest, which is Meum; nor yet can you deny, but that he took that, which was properly, and substantially Bread. At the writing of this Sorites, we light upon an Answer from one Mr. 
l M. Malloune in his late Reply. p. 200. His Sorites; That which the Governor of the feast in Cana of Galilee tasted, was the same which the Ministers brought him: that which they brought him was the same that others drew out: that which others drew out, was the same which others before them poured into the Pots; but that which others poured into the Pots was water: Therefore that which the Governor of the feast tasted was water. So he. [None is so witless but will easily, from the light of the Text, tell him, that the water was changed into wine, before the Governor of the feast tasted thereof: whereas, in the tenure ●f Christ his speech, you yourselves could never point out any former change at all, before the last syllable, Meum]  Maloune, encountering it with another, but a false Sorites invented by himself, to the discountenancing of this true one; only we entreat you, that at the reading thereof, you will not laugh at his foolery. See the Margin.  

Your Grammatical Objection is Childish.  
Cardinal 
m Si [Hoc] accipitur substantiuè, tùm sensus erit, [Hoc] i. e. Haec res, quod si de Pane dieatur, absurdissima propositio erit, non enim potest dici Hoc de Re quae cernitur, & apertè cognoscitur, nisi sit generis neutrius illa— Nemo enim demonstrans de Patre suo, diceret, Hoc est Pater meus. Bellar. lib 1. de Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò.  Bellarmine your chief Master, and also your Schoolfellow 
n Although the word Bread had not been expressed, yet being present in Christ's hand, and pointed unto, Hoc could not be taken substantively no more than one should say of his Father, Hoc est Pater meus. M. Breerlye's Liturgy. p. 137.  M. Breerly, as if they would put Protestant's to School, tell them that [Hoc] taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis, it being a Thing then seen and known, and not being of the neuter gender: no more than for a man to say, De Patre, Hoc est Pater meus. A strange thing, that great Clerks, when they take upon them to teach others their Grammar, should be so far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence, (if ever they learned it) which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life, whether seen or not seen. In which respect there might be a difference between, Hoc de Patre, and Hoc de Pane: for although Priscian would cry out, if he heard one saying, Hoc lana, or Hoc lapis, wherein [Hoc] is taken adiectively: yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightness and heaviness of Wool, and of Stone, one showing the Wool in his hand should say, Hoc est leve; the other pointing at the Stone should say, Hoc est grave, will any think that Priscian would be offended, for [Hoc] in Latin, more than others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Exod. 8. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Pet. 2. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gen. 213.  Greek, taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Not to trouble you with that in your 
* Summa Angelica. tit. Eucharist. quest. 23. Propofitio esset magis propria, si demonstr●ndo Cibum diceretur [Hoc est Corpus meum.]  Summa Angelica, wherein [Hoc] neutrally taken, is made to agree with Cibus.  
And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning, yet will you not think that they whom you call Catholics could be so deceived; who (as your jesuit witnesseth) 
p Dicent Calvinistae, Pronomen illud Graecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Latinum Hoc Substantiva esse: quod & multi Catholici dixerunt, ideò opus non esse ut genere conveniat, sed posse esse, Hoc quod vobis do, est corpus meum. Teste Maldon. Com. in Máth. 26. pag. 633.  were Many, that taught that [Hoc] in the words of Christ, put substantively, may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis, in [This] meaning [This] which I give you. Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashness? then must we now put you unto it.  
In your own vulgar Latin Translation, it is said of Evah the the wife of Adam, 
q Salmer. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 16. §. Nec rursus.— Adam de Euâ ex costâ eius desumptâ, Hoc nun● os ex ossibus meis. Gen. 2. 13.  Hoc est os, Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers, so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants, wherewith they must as necessarily buffe● their own Mother-Church, by which the same Translation is made Authentic; and wound their own Consciences, being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations? Away then with these Puerilities, especially now being busied in a matter of so great importance, wherein consisteth the foundation of all the main Controversies concerning the Roman Mass. For, if the Pronoune [This] have Relation to Bread, there needs no further dispute about the figurative sense of Christ's speech.  
We return to the School of Christ, the holy Scripture, to consult (about Christ's meaning) with his Disciple Saint Paul, where he professeth to deliver nothing, concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, but that which he had 
* 1. Cor. 11. 23.  Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound unto us the words of Christ, delivered by Three Evangelists, and to tell what he gave unto them, and what he called his Body: and he telleth us plainly, saying; 
* 1. Cor. 10. 16.  The bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? alluding to those words of the Evangelists, He broke it, and that was Bread. And that you may know that this was Catholic Doctrine in the days of Antiquity, we adjoin the next Proposition.    

That it was Bread and Wine, which Christ called his Body and Blood; in the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. VI  
FOr proof hereof, behold a Torrent of Ancient 
r 1. Iraener●s; Accipiens panem, Corpus suum esse confitebatur. Lib. 4. cap. 57 2. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat. Lib. adversus judaeos, Cap. quod incipit, Itaque. 3. Origen. Nec materia panis est, sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comedenti. In Matth. 15. 4. Hieron. Nos audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, esse corpus Servatoris. Epist. ad Hebdib. Quaest. 2. 5. Ambros. Panem fractum tradidit discipulis s●…s, dicers; Accipite, Hoc, etc. Lib. 4. de Sacrament. cap. 5. 6. August. judas manducavi● Panem Domini, etc. Tract. 59 in Io●. 7. Cyril. Hier. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Mystag. 4. pag. 528. 8. Cyril. Alex. Come Christusipses sic affirmat, ac dicat de Pane, Hoc est Corpus meum, etc. Cat●chis. 4. Id●m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— joh▪ 2▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.] 9 Theodoret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●ial. 1. cap. 8. 10. Gaudent. Brixiens. Cum panem consecratum discipulis por●…g: ●at, si● ait, Hoc est Corpus meum. Tract. de ratione Sacra. 11. Cyprian. Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus. Epist. 63. 12. Clemens Alexand. Benedixit vinum, cum dixit, Accipite. Paedag. lib. 2 cap. 3. 13. Isidor. Panis, quia confirmat corpus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur. Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 18.  Fathers pressing upon you; Iraeneus, Tertullian, Origen, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyrill of Hiernsalem, Cyrill of Alexandria, Theodoret, Gaudentius, Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore; Thirteen to the dozen, whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom, and Tenure of speech. The first noting Christ to have confessed bread to have been his Body. The second, Christ to have called bread his Body. The third, that Christ's speech was spoken of bread. The fourth, that That which he broke, was bread. The fifth, that It was bread which he broke. The sixth, that It was bread of the Lord, and not bread the Lord. The seventh, that the words [My Body] were spoken of the bread. The eight, that Christ saith, of the bread [This is my Body.] And the same Father, as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of your minds, illustrateth the matter thus: So (saith he) did Christ call his Body Bread, as elsewhere he calleth his flesh a Grain of Wheat; [Except the Grain of Wheat die, it bringeth forth no fruit.] The ninth, that Christ gave to the bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the Consecrated bread [This is my Body.] The eleventh, that It was Wine which he called his blood. The twelfth, that He blessed Wine, when he said drink. And the last; The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ. All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers (sufficient Grammarians we trow) teaching the Pronoune [This] to demonstrate Bread, do as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition, to prove the speech Figurative, as any Protestant in the world could do, if he were permitted to plead his own Cause.  

CHALLENGE.  
WE will try what a Syllogism will do, that, after your Posall in Grammar, we may encounter you with Logic.  
The Mayor. No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh, without a figure. (This Proposition hath had the Universal consent of all Schools, by virtue of that Maxim of Maxims, 
* See above §. 4.  Disparatum de Disparato, etc.)  
The Minor. But in these words, [This is my Body,] the Pronoune [This] doth demonstrate Bread. (This hath been the general Exposition of Fathers.)  
The Conclusion. Therefore the words of Christ, [This is my Body] are to be taken figuratively. (Except you will contradict, both the General confession of your own Schools, and Universal consent of Ancient Fathers.)    

That it was Bread, which Christ called his Body, is proved manifestly from your own Romish Positions and Principles.  
SECT. VII.  
YOur first Position is this; The word [This] must either point out Bread, or the Body of Christ, or that Third common Substance, which you call Individuum vagum. But to refer the word [This] unto the Body of Christ, is (as hath been 
s See above §. 2.  confessed) Absurd. And that the word [This] should signify your Individuum vagum, is an Exposition fall of Absurdities, as hath been also 
t See above §. 3.  acknowledged. It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune [This] pointeth out precisely, Bread.  
A second Principle you have, to wit; That these words [This is my Body] are words of Consecration, and Operative, so that by [This] is meant that which is Consecrated, and (as your Council 
u Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi.  of Trent speaketh) changed into the Body of Christ. But, by the Decree of the same Council, not the Body of Christ, nor any Third thing, but Bread only was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ. Ergo the Pronoune [THIS] hath only Relation to the Bread.  

CHALLENGE.  
A New Syllogism would be had, to put the matter out of question.  
Maior. No Sense, which is Impossible, can be given properly to the words of Christ. [This is my Body.] (This needeth no proof.)  
Minor. But to call Bread Christ's Body, properly, is a Sense Impossible. (This hath been your own constant 
* See above §. 4.  profession.)  
Conclusion. Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ. How can you avoid the necessity of this Consequence? All arising from the nature of Predication, in this Proposition, wherein the Subject is Bread, the Copula, Is; and Predicate, Body of Christ. Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate, as to say, This bread in my hand is Christ's Body; or of Bread undeterminate (which you call vagum) as to say, This kind of bread is the Body of Christ, it demonstrately showeth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries, in this case, than their own Consciences, which will appear as fully in that which followeth.     

CHAP. II.  
The Second key in Christ's Words [Hoc est Corpus meum: This is my Body,] opening the Figurative Sense thereof, is the Verb [EST, IS.]  
FOr that [Est] in these words hath the same sense, as, Signifieth; as if Christ had said expressly of the Bread, This signifieth my Body: and accordingly of the Wine, This signifieth my Blood, may be proved by three Propositions infringible.  

Our first Proposition.  
The Verb [EST] being joined with a thing that is a Sign, is always figurative, and the very same with this word, SIGNIFIETH.  
SECT. I.  
FOr although the Verb (Est) be indeed so absolutely simple, in its own nature, that it cannot be resolved into any other word (as all other Verbs may be in like Case) yet doth it (albeit accidentally) necessarily infer a figurative Sense, and is as much as Signifieth, or Representeth, whensoever it joineth the Sign and the Thing signified together. As for Example, A man pointing at a sign hanging before an Inn, and saying, This is S. George on horseback, the Verb Is can infer no other Sense than Signifieth. Why? even because the thing, whereof it speaketh, is a Sign signifying Saint George. And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholic Divinity a Sign of Christ's Body. Therefore the Verb [Is] can have no other sense than [Signifieth.]   

The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches, whether Artificial, Politic, or Mystical.  
SECT. II.  
YOur own jesuits, and common Experience itself will verify this Truth. First, in things Artificial, as 
a Meronymia, tropus est in Scriptures frequentissimus, quâ continens pro contento, & contrà signatum pro signo usurpari solet; ut ostensâ imagine Herculis, dicimus, Hic est Hercules. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 proleg. 12. Can. 15.  To say of the Picture of Hercules, This is Hercules, is a figure. Secondly, In things Politic, as when a 
b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato, seu Re testatâ. Barrad. Ies. Iust. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.  Legacy, given by Will and Testament, is called the man's Will. So they. And indeed what is more Common, than for a man to say of his Testament, This is my Will? Of his name subscribed, This is my hand? And of the wax sealed, This is my Seal? When as his Will (properly taken) is in his heart, his hand is affixed to his Arm, And his seal may be in his pocket. Thirdly, In Mystical and Divine Rites; as in Sacrifice, even among the Heathen, according to that Example out of Homer, which is notable. The greeks and Troyans', when they entered into a league, which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs, upon which both sides were to take their Oaths, this their Act is thus expressed 
c Salm. Jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 15. § Malè etiam. [Idem prius habuit noster Beza in Luc. 22. 20.] — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, They brought with them two Lambs, their faithful Oaths. Where Lambs, the ritual signs of their faithful Swearing, are called Oaths. An Example (I say) even among the Heathen, which is as appo e to our purpose, and opposite against your defence, as can be.   

Our Second Proposition, answerable to the first.  
All the like Sacramental Speeches, in Scripture, are figuratively understood.  
SECT. III.  
IN all such like Sacramental Speeches, both in the old and new Testament, wherein the Sign is coupled with the Thing signified, the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative, and the Verb [Est] hath no other force than Signifieth. This Truth is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your own Jesuits, and others, who come fraught with Examples. First, concerning the old Testament, Noting that the Sacrifice of the 
d Pascha significat transitum, quià Angelus transivit domos Israëlitarum: haec ratio nominis redditur, cum dicitur, [Transibit enim Dominus cum viderit sanguinem in utroque post.] jansen. Epis. Concord. in Matth. 26. [It was therefore more than boldness in Bellarmine, l. 1. de ●…uch. cap. 11. §. Quaedam to say; Agnus erat propriè Transitus, Agnus being in the Predicament of Substance: and Transitus in the Predicament of Action.  Paschall Lamb, being but a sign, was called the Passeover, or passing over. Secondly, that 
e Petra hoc in loco dicitur spiritualis, ex qua Deus eduxit per miraculum a quam, qui à signum fuit è latere Christi profluentis sanguinis & aquae. Salmeron Ies. in 1. Cor. 10. [Petra autem erat Christus.] Id est, Petra significabat Christum: ubi signum appellat nomine rei significatae. Perer. Ies. Com. in Dan. 2. p. 85. [Petraerat Christus.] Erat autem Christus Petra, certissima scilicet significatione. Aria's Mont. in 1. Cor. 10 & Pinta Ies. in ●s. 51.  The Rock, being but a sign of Christ, was called Christ. Thirdly, that 
f Circumcisio foedus dicitur, & signum foederis, Bellar. lib. 〈◊〉. de Euch, c. 11. §. Secundò.  Circumcision, being but a sign of the Covenant, was called the Covenant. So likewise in the new Testament, both concerning 
g Christus cum Nicodemo spiritualiter intelligendus. Maldon. Ies. in eum locum joh 3.  Baptism, which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus (being but a sign of Regeneration) is called Regeneration: And 
h Sepul●i lumus, Rom. 6. 4. id est, Christum sepultum repraesentamus. Tolet. Jes. in eum locum.  Baptising, which (being a Sign of the Burial of Christ) in the speech of Saint Paul, is called Burial.  
Finally, that the most proper Interpretation of the Verb [Est, Is,] in such like speeches, importeth no more, than [Significat,] your jesuit 
i Quòd verò in illis Orationibus [Petra erat Christus; semenerat verbum Dei, Ego sum Ostium] verbum substantivum sit interpretandum pro significat, aut figurat; non ei id accidit ex naturâ suâ, aut per se, sed quoniam Petra illa aliter cum Christo coniungi non potest, quam per signum— Ind sit, ut parvireferat siuè dicas, Petra erat signum Christi, vel significabat Christum. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 16. §. Primum igitur, p. 118.  Salmeron will testify for us: In these speeches (saith he) The seed is the Word, I am the Door, The Rock was Christ; the Verb [Is, and WASPE] must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH, or figureth; not of its own nature, but because the word Rock cannot be otherwise joined with Christ, than by a figure or sign. So he. Even as Master 
k [Petra erat Christus.] Soletità exponi, Petra significabat Christum, id non ita accidit quòd verbum [Est] pro significat, ex se collocetur, sed quoniam [Petra] illa aliter cum Christo cohaerere, quam per similitudinem, & signum non potest. Sand. de Visib. Monar. ad Annum 1550. p. 141.  Sanders also is compelled to confess in a like Case.  

CHALLENGE.  
THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture, in all like Sacramental Speeches: which Exposition, by Analogy of Scriptures, was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be. The Truth whereof arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament, which as well the whole Catholic Church, as your Romish, hath defined to be a visible Sign. But no visible Sign can be joined to any thing signified thereby, in like Predication, without a Figure, as hath been both copiously proved and confessed.    

Our third Proposition, viz.  
Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ, even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament; by your own Confessions.  
SECT. IV.  
FIrst, your jesuits' (who otherwise shame not to call Protestants, in scorn, Tropists, because they defend a Tropical and Figurative sense in the speech of Christ) are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, Lest that otherwise (as Maldonate and Suarez 
l Si propriè loqui velimus, falsae sunt istae Propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur à nobis, corpus Christi teritur, corpus Christi devoratur, corpus Christi frangitur, quia ipsi modi, qui significantur his verbis, non conveniunt corpori Christi; Sacramentalis locuti● esset, si corpus Christi dicer●tur frangi, aut dentibus teri: haec enim non possint, nisi Sacramento tenus intelligi, quia non propriè corpus Christi frangitur, sed Sacramentum. Mald. Ies. de Sacram. in gener. Tom. 1. §. Quapropter p. 144. & Com. in Matth. 26. Frangi cum dicitur, est Metaphorica locutio, quià fractiò propriè significat divisionem, & discontinuationem partium, quam constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. dis. 47. Sect. 4. §. Exempla tertiae. pag. 577.  confess) the Speeches of Christ should be false: (as for example) When the body of Christ is said to be broken, or eaten, if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora. So they. And so in the words following, [Body given for you] that is, which shall be offered for you on the Cross. So your jesuit 
m Corpus quod pro vobis datur,] id est, quod offeretur pro vobis in Cruse mactatum. Valent. Ies. l. 1. de Missa. c. 3. §. Igitur. [Of the word Eat literally false, so your Jesuits. See Book 5. C. 4. §. 2.]  Valentia. Next, [The blood is shed for you] Matth. 26. It is not denied (saith your jesuit 
n Graecus Textus [Effunditur:] Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae, eam dicere jam esse, quae futurasit, ut hîc [Effunditur] quià paulò post in Crace effundendus. Salmer. Ies. in 1. Cor. 11. p. 154.  Salmeron) but that it is the manner of Scripture, to speak of a thing, as now done, which is after to be done: as in this place, [Is shed] because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Cross. Which is the figure Enallage. Again, [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood.] Harken to your 
o Hic Calix est Novum Testamentum] Non potest accipi in proprio sensu, sed in eo quem clariora verba Matthaei & Marci indicant, & exigunt. Siuê enim Calix fumatur pro poculo potorio, fiuè Synecdochicè pro sanguine in poculo contento, non potest consistere ut in iis verbis sit propria locutio,— Nemo enim dixerit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse Testamentum Novum, cum incertum sit, an adhuc extet illud poculum; at Novum Testamentum est aeternum: sed nec●sanguis in Calais contentus potest esse novum Testamentum, quià lex Evangelica in Epist. ad Hebr. dicitur Novum Testamentum, & apud Matthaeum & Marcum, sanguis dicitur Novi Testamenti. At unicum est Novum Testamentum: Ergo non est Novum Testamentum. jansen. Conc. in cum locum, pag. 910.  Bishop; These words cannot be taken properly, whether the Cup be taken for the vessel used for drinking, which was a temporal thing, and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ, which is eternal: or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup (which is the figure Synecdoche) for, it being the blood of the new Testament, could not properly be the Testament itself. Yea, your jesuit Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure; 
p Subest in his duplex Meronymia: 1. quia continens ponitur pro contento, id est, poculum sive Calix provino, eò quòd vinum in ipso continetur. 2. est, eò quòd contentum in poculo foedus vel Testam entum dicitur Novum, cum sit eius symbolum propter species— Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelicâ, quae veteri legi opponitur, vel utrem Testamento legatam testatamuè significet. Quemadmodum Haeres dicere solet, Hic fundus est testamentum patris mei, id est, port●o haereditatis à patre meo legata; in quem sensum loquitur A postolus ad Hebr. jefus est sponsor melioris testamenti, id est, haereditatis. Salm. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract 15. §. Tertio p. 98.  A double figure (saith he) the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup: and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted, and given by the Testament. With whom your jesuit 
q Testamentum sumitur prolegato Metonymicè. continens testamentum sumitur pro contento legato, seu haereditate, quae testamento continetur. Barrad. l. 3. de Euch. c. 5. p. 79. Tom. 4.  Barradius doth consent.  
Hereunto may be added that in the sixth of john, where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten, his flesh, in the same Chapter he calleth his flesh, which is to be eaten of the Faithful, bread: which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure. And yet again, the Apostle speaking of the Mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, assembled at the holy Communion, to participate of this Sacrament, saith of them, 
* 1. Cor. 10. 17.  We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. But why? Even as one bread consisteth of many corns, so doth one Church of Christ of many faithful persons, saith your 
r Sicut unus panis ex multis granis, etc. Aquinas in eum locum.  Aquinas.  
We may not forget what your jansenius said of 
* See above Book 〈◊〉. cap. 3. §. 8.  Drinking; To whom Master 
* Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 8.  Brereley is ready to yield his assent, saying; If we should attend to the Propriety of speech, neither is his blood properly drunk out of the Chalice, but only the form of Wine, seeing the blood hath the same manner of Existing, as under the form of bread, to wit, not divided, nor separated from the body, but included in the veins, and then in the body. Do you not hear? Christ's Blood is not properly drunk; if not properly, then figuratively; as figuratively as if one, swallowing the body of Christ, should be said to drink his Body. We ask Master Brereley, what then is that which is properly drunk out of the Chalice? and he saith, only the form of Wine, that is to say, a mere Accident. Hardly can it be said that a man properly drinketh the Air, which he breatheth, although it be a Substance; And are you brought to believe mere Formalities, to be truly Potable? But to the point.  

CHALLENGE.  
REpeat now the Premises; One figure in the word [Bread:] another in [Eat:] a third in [Given:] a fourth in [Shed:] a fifth in [Cupid:] a sixth in [Testament:] so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution; beside other-more of the same equivalency touching the Body of Christ, both natural, joh. 6. and also mystical, which is his Church, 1. Cor. 10. It can be no less than a matter of great astonishment to us, to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacy to condemn Protestants for holding the Sacramental speeches of Christ to be figurative, calling them Tropists; when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer than Six Tropes in Christ his words, as you have heard. Of your Cardinal his Objection, from the word 
s See hereafter. Book 6. Chap. 1. §. 2.  Shed hereafter.    

That the figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the judgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome.  
SECT. V.  
YOur old and public Romish Gloss saith plainly; 
t Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè representat Christi carnem, dicitur Corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo more, sed non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio: ut sit sensus, vocatur Corpus Christi, id est, significatur. Gloss. Decret. de Consecrat. dist. 〈◊〉. Can. Hoc est.  This heavenly Sacrament, because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystical Sense, to wit, it is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifieth his Body. So your Gloss, which you may not deny to be the gloss or Tongue of your whole Church, because it hath been confirmed by the same Authority of Pope 
u Gregorius XIII. Papa. In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law.  Gregory the thirteenth, wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have been Authorised.  

CHALLENGE.  
IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod, and should conspire together, as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ [This is my body,] I suppose that a more exact, perspicuous, copious, and ponderous Proof could not be defined, then hitherto hath been evinced from your own Confessions; grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons, as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures.    

That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is agreeable to the judgement of Ancient Fathers, of the Greek Church.  
SECT. VI  
YOu will needs defend your literal Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers, and we appeal to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers. The 
x Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae lunt apud nostros figurae, Sacramenta, Signa; & haec om●…a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepère. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 30 pag. 383.— Dionies. c. 1. Eccle. Hier. Theod. Dial 1. Macarius Hom. 27. Nazianzen Orat. in Gorgon. vocant Eucharistiam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post recitationem horum verborum, [Hoc est corpus meum.] Teste Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. §. Sed— Dionies. Ep. 9 ad Titum, loquens de sacris Signis & tropicis locutionibus, dicit Christum jesum in Parabolis per typicae mensae apparatum deifica mysteria tradere. Eodem modo Greg. Nazi. orat. 11. vocat Antitypum pretiosi corporis & sanguinis Domini. Euseb. lib. 8. Demonstrat. in fine: Christus discipulos hortatur, ut sui ipsius corporis imaginem repraesentent: Teste Suarez. Tom. 3. in Thom. Quest. 74. disp. 46. §. 4. pag. 547. & 552. Theod. dial. 1. cap. 8. Scis quòd Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luc. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Ipseigitur Salvator noster 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paul● post interrogando docet; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [Origen. etiam in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis, Symbolicum Corpus.]  Greek generally calling the Elements of bread and wine in this Sacrament; Some, Types, Antitypes, and Symbols (that is) Figures and Signs: Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropical or Figurative; and his Table Typical: Some saying that Christ would have his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body. And one as expressly as any Protestant can speak (even Theodoret by name) that Christ here gave to the Sign the name of his Body, as elsewhere he gave to his Body the name of the Sign. You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signs and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greek Fathers, which we take to be a convincing Argument, until you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto. To this purpose you, leaving the principal Objections, fasten only upon certain Crotchets, and thereupon you bestir yourselves.  

THE FIRST CHALLENGE,  
Against the first Romish Answer, touching the word Type and Antitype, used by the Greek Fathers.  
THree kinds of Answers have been applied, as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty; but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of wax, such as every of your Answers will appear to be. The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signs, but for Examples, is at the first hearing rejected by your 
y Prima solutio; Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro signo, sed pro Exemplari, etc. sed haec opinio facilè reijci potest, quià vox ea nunquam sumitur pro exemplary. Bel. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 15.  Cardinal, and others.  
The Second, alleged out of Damascen, and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sense; namely, that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes; but not after Consecration. So they. And if so, then indeed we should have no cause to oppose. But this Answer is proved to be apparently false by your 
z Alterasolutio est aliorum, Panem & Vinum Antitypon dici, sed ante Consecrationem non postea; it à respondit olim joh. Damasc. l. 4. de ●ide c. 14. Et Epi. in 7. Syn. Art. 6. Tom. 3. sed invenimus apud Basilium Eucharistiam dici Antitypon corporis post recitationem istorum verborum, [H. E. C. M.]— Tamen Theod. apertissimè eam sic vocat. Dial. 1. & Macar. Egypt. Hom. 27. imo Dion. Areop. Eccl. Hier. c. 1. Naz. orat. in Gorgon. Bell. ibid.— Etiam Clemens in Constit. Billius Com▪ ad Eliam Cret●nsem, in Orat. 11. Nazianz. Hanc interpretationem (Damasceni) refellunt Bessar●on Card. & Turrian. Durant. de Rit. l. 2. c. 39  Cardinal and others out of the express Testimonies of these Greek Fathers, viz. Dio●ysius Areopagita, Clemens, justine, Macarius, Basil, and Nazianzen. The third Answer is your Cardinals own, yet but faintly urged, with a 
a Foratassis Basilius & alij Graeci Patres non vocant typum aut figuram, sed Antitypa, quia Antitypa non sunt quaelibet figurae, sed illa tantumm, quae nihil fere differunt à veritate. Bel. Ibid. quo supra.  Peradventure they called them Antitypes, but not Types after Consecration: and he is encountered by your 
b Negari non potest quin nonnunquam nomen Typi inveniatur in Patribus, ut ex Hieronymo paulò ante notavi. Idem reperitur apud Chrysost. Hom. 16. ad Hebr. & Bilius apud Nazian. Annot. in or at. undecimam, in fine. Quare probabile valdè existimo vocem Antitypi in eadem significatione usurpari hoc loco, quo Typi, seu figurae. Suarez Ies. quo sup. p. 554.  Suarez and Billius, acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification. This our Objection how strong it is, may be seen by your much, but vain struggling. Your quaintest device is yet behind.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE,  
Against the last, and most peremptory Romish Pretence, making Christ in this Sacrament to figure, and to represent himself, as a King in a Stage-play.  
THe Solution, which seemeth to your Disputers most persuasive, is thus set down by your Cardinal, and your jesuit Suarez, viz. 
c Solutio, Eucharistiam etiam post Consecrationem dici posse Antitypum corporis & sanguinis Domini, non solùm quia species panis & vini sunt figurae corporis & sanguinis Domini ibi river a existentium, sed etiam quià corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus, signa sunt ejusdem corporis & sanguinis, ut fuerunt in-Cruce, repraesentant enim passioné Christi: & ideò fortassis Basilius & alij Patres non vocant Eucharistiam figuram aut typum, sed Antitypum etc.— It à si Rex aliquis, gravissimo bello confecto, idem ipsum bellum ad oblectamentum populo in scen â praesens seipsum bellantem representare vellet. Bell. l. 2. de Euch cap. 15. Antitypa corporis & Sanguinis Christi dicuntur, quià corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt subillis speciebus panis & vini in Eucharistia, signa sunt corporis passi, & sanguinis effusi in Cruse. Suarez. quo supra pag. 554. Graeci Patres cum passim vocant Sacramenta Antitypa,— nihil aliud sibi volunt quam habere Sacramenta maximam similitudinem cum iis rebus, quarum sunt Sacramenta. Billar. lib. 1. de Sacram. in genere cap. 9  The Greek Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, because the same Body and Blood of Christ, as they are in this Sacrament under the form of Bread and Wine, are signs of the same his Body and Blood, as they were on the Cross. Like as a King, who having gotten a victory in battle, should represent himself in a Stage-Play, as in a fight. So They. But without any Sentence of any Father, for countenancing so egregious a figment; so far were those Greek Fathers from urging that counterfeit Testimony, which passeth under the name of S. Augustine, as if he had said; The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh: and inferring from hence, that The Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is a Sign of itself as it was upon the Cross.  
And they are no small Babes, who vent out this proof; by name 
d Billius come. in Nazianz. orat. 11. Audiamus quid Augustinus dicit in Prosperi sententijs; Caro inquit, ●ius est, quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus; sanguis, quem sub specie vini potamus; Caro, viz. carnis, & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis; carne & sanguine utroque invisibili, & intelligibili, & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile, plenum gratiae, & divinae Maiestatis. Gardiner. Episc. Winton. Augustini verba, ut litera sonat, intelligit. Item Claudius' Saints Repetit, & allegari ai●, ut corpus Christi ostendatur, quatenus in Sacramento est, seipsum significare, ut erat in cruse, suique Sacramentum esse & figuram, & figuram esse passionis suae; Eandem sententiam apertissimè tuetur Ro●fcns. & johan. Hessell. Haec Billius.  Billius, Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Claudius' Saints (one of name in the Council of Trent) Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Hessell. But how prove They this? Out of any of the works of Augustine? No, where then? We are required to seek it in Prosper; where again 
e Trithemius. Ex sententijs Augustini, versibus hexametris & pentametris mixtum opus prosa pulcherrimum quod prenotare voluit, Epigramma, sic incipit, Dum Sacris, etc. [But of the other Entitled, Sententiarum ex operibus Augustini, beginning thus, Innocentia, ●ee maketh no mention; yea, and even in this (as it is now set out among the works of Prosper) printed Coloniae Agrippinae. An. 1609. apud Arnoldum Crithium, It is not to be ●ound.]  it is not to be found. Whither next? forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard, and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian; we say, Gratian, whose books have been lately reproved, and condemned by one of your 
f Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Tarracon. De emendatione Gratiani.  Archbishops, for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers. And when all is done, if either 
g Lombardus. Attend his diligenter, quia Tropo quodam u●itur hic Augustinus, quo solent res significantes re●um sortirivocabula, quas significant; Visibilis species panis vocatur nomine Carnis, & species vini sanguinis, etc. Lib. 4. distinct. 10. Apud Billium qu● supra.  Peter-Lombard or 
h Gratian. Caro, i. e. species Carnis, sub quo latet corpus Christi,— Est Sacramentum Carnis Christi, & sanguis, i. e. species vini, sub qua later sanguis Christi, est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi. De Consecrat. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est quod. in Glossa.  Gratian, who are the Relators, may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coined Sentence, they will say that the word Flesh, there specified, is taken for the Shape of flesh; and the word Blood, for the outward form of Blood; which spoileth your Play quite: wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward forms and shape in this Sacrament, and not the outward forms and shape themselves, to be the Sign of the same Body on the Cross. So easy it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent.  
We return to your Cardinal, and to Suarez, who invented the Similitude of the Stage-Play for their Answer, which is indeed rather a Childish Playing, then Theological reasoning; yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience; as this your Cardinal must needs have done, who 
i See above at (c.)  confessing that the Greek Fathers did therefore call Sacraments, Antitypes, because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent; yet now adventureth to say, that the Body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is a Sign of the same Body of Christ, as it was upon the Cross; notwithstanding the Body of Christ, as it is in the Sacrament, (according to your own faith) is so 
k Christi corpus, ut est in hoc Sacramento, nullo oculo humano, vel intellectu Angelico videri potest. Suarez. Ies Tom. 3. Disp. 53. Art. 7. § 4. & 〈◊〉. Sub ●…gulis utriusque speciei partibus Christus totus est, & integer continetur. Council▪ Trident. S●…. 18. cap. 3.  Invisible, that it cannot be seen of Angels; so Indivisible, that it cannot be parted or divided; and so Unbloody, that there is not the least tincture of blood to be discerned therein.  
Wherefore to persuade your Disciples, that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible, Indivisible, and Unbloody Body of Christ, as in this Sacrament, was or could be the Sign of his visible, torn, crucified and bloody Body upon the Cross, and so to note an Antitype, which is (as you call it) the 
l See above at (c)  Greatest Similitude, is all one, as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude: which yet is the more intolerable, because it is against the Confessed 
m Billius. Eucharistiae Sacramentum d●citur Antitypon, & Typus, seu Symbolum, ●atione Specierum panis & vini, quae in oculorum sensum cadunt: & haec est communis ratio, quae à Theologis ●fferri solet. Haec ille Com. in Naz. orat. 11.  Common opinion of your own Divines, who have taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype, because of the forms of Bread and Wine. So your Billius. Ma● you not now discern the notable perverseness of your Disputers, and that they devised this Stage-Play, ad faciendum Populum, to please and delude their Readers? thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant; whereof we shall be occasioned to say more in the 
* Book 6. c. 5. §. 7.  sixth Book.    

That the only Objection out of the Greek Fathers, concerning the Pronoune [HOC] in the Testimony of Epiphanius, advantageth not the Romish Cause.  
SECT. VII.  
COmpare but Epiphanius his own 
a Epiphanius in Ancorate. Videmus quod accepit Salvator in manus, veluti Evangelista habet, quod surrexit à Coena, & accepit haec, & cum gratias egisset, dixit; Hoc meum est, & hoc: & videmus quod non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, non Invisibili deitati, non lineamet is membroram, hoc enim rotundae formae est & insensibile quantum ad potentiam, & voluit per gratiam dicere, hoc meum est, & hoc: & nemo non fidem habet sermoni, qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum, excidit à gratia & salute, Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 20.  words, your Cardinal's 
b Cum docere vellet Epiphan. hominem ve●è factum ad imaginem Dei, licet non facile appareat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum & hominem, cum Deus incorporalis sit, immensus; & dicit multa esse eiusmodi quae aliud sunt, aliud videntur, ponit exemplum de Eucharistia, quae verè est corpus Christi, & tamen nihil minus est, quam quod appareat exterius, cum sit rotundum & insensibile, & proindè valdè dissimile corpori Christi. Hic sanc locus omninò convincit, nam quod dicit, oportet credere ipsum esse verum, excludit Tropos, praesertim cum addat, excider● à Salute qui non credit: quod etiam ad dit credendum esse, licet sensus repugnent, apertissime testatur, non eum loqui de significatione, sed de reipsa. [words to be observed in the Greek are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [The last words show that Insensible is taken according to power, that is actively]  Objection, and our Answer, and then make your own determination, as you shall think good. Man is said to be made after the Image of God. Epiphanius, not able to define what this Image consisted in, whether it be man's soul, or mind, or virtue; notwithstanding resolveth that ᶜ All men have the image of God in them, but yet not according to nature, (namely, that substantial nature which is in God) because God is Incomprehensible and infinite, etc. This is the main point which Epiphanius will now illustrate; but how? By something (saith your Cardinal) which seemeth to be that which it is not: And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist, wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention, he said of the one [HOC] This is mine, viz. Body; and of the other, This is mine, viz. Blood: hereby understanding (saith your Obiector) The Eucharist, which is truly the Body of Christ, although it seem not to be so, outwardly, being of a round figure, and Insensible, and therefore far unlike to be the Body of Christ. So he. who, thinking he hath overcome, doth raise up his jon, and Triumph, saying; This argument is throughly convincent, because Epiphanius addeth, He who believeth not the words of Christ, doth fall from Salvation: adding further, that they are to be believed, although our senses gainsay it.  
You have heard the Objection, which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent, you will give us licence to make a full Answer. First, by HOC ET HOC, THIS AND THIS (by the Interpretation of Epiphanius) are meant, The things which the Evangelist did mention; and the Evangelist mentioned (as you know) Bread [He took Bread, He took the Cup:] meaning Wine in the Cup, namely, according to the 
* See above, Chap. 1 § 6.  former general Consent of the Fathers, HOC signified Bread, in one part of the Eucharist, and Wine in the other; But Bread neither in the Substance, nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Body without a Trope, as hath been 
* See above, Chap. 1. §. 4.  Confessed: which is our first confutation of your Cardinal, who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's speech of [HOC.] Secondly, THIS, in the words of Christ, hath neither equality of Proportion, nor yet similitude of form or figure. (being round) with the body of Christ, as Epiphanius willeth us to observe. Which confuteth the Assumption of your Cardinal, affirming that Epiphanius sought in the Eucharist a similitude of a Thing, which seemed to be that which it is not; Albeit Epiphanius expressly showeth, that there is no outward similitude between This and This spoken of, that is to say Bread and Wine, and that which is called, Mine, and Mine, namely, The Body and Blood of Christ. Thirdly, This spoken of by Christ (in the judgement of Epiphanius) as it is Round in figure, so is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Insensible; but not passively, as not perceivable by sense, (for then it could not be said to be Round, which with other outward Accidents are sensible to yourselves,) but actively Insensible, as not having power sensibly to perceive: which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread (as you see it doth) confirmeth unto us the Tropical speech of Christ, in calling Bread his Body; and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause. Fourthly, the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus; That which is said to be after the Image of God, is such, which hath a substantial being, yet so that it be like, but not the same in nature: And so is Bread, having a Sacramental Analogy to Christ's Body, the first as the substantial meat of man's Body, and the other as the supersubstantial food of Man's Soul.  
Which Conclusion, namely, that Bread, as the sign of Christ's Body, is not the same in nature with Christ's Body, doth dash out the brains of the Monster Transubstantiation; by the which, Bread (as your Tridentine Faith teacheth) is wholly changed into the substantial nature of Christ's Body. As if you would have Epiphanius to have said, The Image of God in man, is God in nature. Thus do you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed, but against your Romish Doctrine, of Error; and against your Cardinal, of a foul falsity, who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein, although it be repugnant to our Senses: which word no man of Sense can find in Epiphanius. He saith, indeed, that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech; which say we none but an Infidel can deny, because Christ being Truth itself, therefore all the words of Christ, whether spoken Literally or Tropically, they are still the Truth of Christ.   

That the same Greek Fathers have expressly unfolded their meanings, touching a Figurative Sense.  
SECT. VIII.  
THe judgement of a whole Council of Greek Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the judgement of that Church; They in Constantinople at Trullo, alluding to these words of Christ, [This is my Body] saying, Let nothing be offered, but the Body and Blood of Christ, that is (say 
n In sanctis nihil plus quam corpus & sanguis Christi offeratur, ut ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis & vinum, aquâ mixtum. Concil. Constant. apud Binium [which Canon was made against the Aquarij (those who would use no wine) Can. 32.]  They) Bread and Wine, etc. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Council, you would have conceived they had been uttered by some Heretic, as your Charity useth to call us Protestants. Neither may the Authority of this Council be rejected by you, as unlawful in the point of the Sacrament, both because it is objected by yourselves, to prove it an unbloody Sacrifice (whereunto you are 
* See hereafter in the sixth Book, C. 5. §. 9  answered) as also for that your Binius, in opposing against some things in this Council, yet never took any Exception against this Canon.  
We may not let pass another Testimony used by the Ancient Father 
o See above, §. 6. (x.)  Theodoret, namely, That Christ called the Bread his Body, as he called his Body Bread, Matth. 12. saying thereof, Except the grain of wheat die, etc. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Sign the name of his Body, and in the other, He gave to his Body the name of the Sign. So he. As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speak. And you cannot deny, but that when Christ called his Body Bread, it was an improper and figurative speech. And therefore, if you will believe Theodoret, you are compellable to confess, that Christ, in calling Bread his Body, meant it not in a proper and literal sense. Hitherto of the Greek Fathers.   

That the same Figurative sense of Christ's words is avouched by the Latin Fathers.  
SECT. IX.  
SOme of the Latin Fathers (we confess) seem in some places to deny all Figurative sense, but this they do even by a figure called 
* As is afterwards many where's discovered.  Hyperbole, that is, only in the excess of Speech, thereby to abstract the minds of sensual men from fixing their thoughts upon external Rites, and to raise them up to a Sacramental and Spiritual Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ. But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers, they clearly and exactly teach a figurative sense in the words of Christ, to wit, 
p Tertull. contra Martion. l. 4. Id est, figura corporis. p. 291.  Tertullian, [This is my Body:] That is a figure thereof. 
q Cyprian. S●rm de Vnct. Et significantia, & significata ijsdem vocabulis censerentur.  Cyprian, Things signifying and signified are called by the same word. 
r Hier. lib. 1. contra jovin. Typus sanguinis.  Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood. 
s Gelasius contra Eutych. Quod in eius imagine profitemur. Apud Bibliothec. Patrun Tom. 5. p. 475.  Gelasius. Bread the image of his Body. 
t Ambros. de Init. Mist. c. 9 Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur— & 1. Cor. 11. mysterium esse typum sanguinis.  Ambrose. After consecration Christ his Body is signified. 
u August. l. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 16. Figurativa locutio. Idem contra Adamant. Manich. cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere [Hoc est corpus meum] cum signum daret corporis sui. Idem Tom. 2. Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum, quas repraesentant, plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt; Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi, & Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, Sanguis Christi, it à Sacramentum fidei fides est.— Sicut de ipso baptismo ait, Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi, non dicit, sepulturam significamus, sed prorsus ait consepulti sumus. Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi eiusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. [And Interpreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum, He saith, Respondetur, Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum.]  Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Us instar multorum: To eat the flesh of Christ (saith he) is a figurative speech. Again. In the banquet, Christ gave to his Disciples the sign of his Body. And yet again, Christ doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a sign of his Body. Lastly (unanswerably) proving other Sacraments to agree with this, in this point, and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest; Sacraments (saith he) for the very Similitude and likeness, which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments, do often take the names of those things, which they do signify; as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body (saith he) is after a certain manner called the Body of Christ. But how? He addeth (as if he had meant to stop the mouths of all Opposites,) As it is said by the Apostle of Baptism [we are buried by Baptism into the death of Christ] He saith not, we signify his burial, but absolutely saith, [We are buried:] therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Sign of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby. So he, even the same He who will be found like himself in the following passages of this Book, especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body, which Augustine will 
* Afterwards Chap. 3. §. 6.  Challenge to be figuratively meant.  
We shall take our farewell of the Latin Fathers, in the Testimony of Bishop 
x Isid. Hispalen: Panis, quem frangimus corpus Christi est, qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus, etc. Vinum autem sanguis eius est, & hoc est quod scriptum est, Ego sum vitis vera: Sed panis, quia confirmat corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur, vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne, ideò ad sanguinem Christi refertur.— Haec autem sunt visibilia, sanctificata tamen per Spiritum Sanctum, in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. l. 1. de office c. 18.  Isidore, who will give you his own Reason, why Christ called Bread his Body: Bread (saith he) because it strengtheneth the body, is therefore called the body of Christ, and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood: but these two, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. So he: and so say we. Accordingly Tertullian; but (lest any may Cavil, as some do, at his sentence above-cited) we add his other sentence, wherein he 
y Tert. advers. Martion. l. 3. p. 180 ●er. 11. [Venite, mittamus lignum in panem eius.] Vtique in corpus, sic enim Deus in Evangelio, panem corpus suum appellans: ut & hinc iam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse, cuius ret●ò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit.  showeth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying, [This is my body] as the Prophet jeremy called his Body Bread, in saying, Let us put wood upon his Bread, meaning his Body. So Tertullian, showing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sense.  

CHALLENGE.  
THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans, as that, if the names of these Fathers had been concealed, our Reader might think that he heard, Bucer, Calvin, or Beza speak. Go you now and proclaim, that all Ancient Fathers teach your Literal sense of Christ his words, and persuade yourselves, if you can, that any man of Conscience and judgement can be seduced to believe you. They say, indeed, that Bread is the Body of Christ: and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech, which our Lord Christ used before them? But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body, as being an outward Sacrament, Sign, and Figure of his Body; seeing that every Sacrament, being a Sign or Figure, the Sacramental Speech must necessarily be Figurative; as hath been proved by Scripture, as in all other Sacraments, so likewise in the several confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament, in six several Instances. This one Argument of itself hath been termed by Master Calvin [Murus ahaeneus,] that is, a brazen Wall; and so will it be found more evidently to be, when you shall perceive the same Fathers 
* Lib. 3. throughout.  judging that, which they call Change into Christ's flesh, to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh, Bread still remaining the same: and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ, when he offered only the Types of both; in the 
* Lib. 6. Chap. 3. §. 2.  sixth Book. And now we are to withstand your Paper-bullets, wherewith you vainly attempt, in your Objections following, to batter our Defence withal.     

CHAP. III.  

The Romish Objections, against the Figurative Sense, Answered.  
The first Objection.  
SECT. I.  
NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken, (say 
a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ, est enim materia, de quâ hic agitur, Pactum, Sacramentum, Testamentum Novum: fuisse à Domino institutum patet ex illis verbis [Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo]— I am verò nihil solet magis propriè, simplicitèr, aut exquisitè explicari quam Testamentum, nè viz. detur occasio litigandi. Pacta seu foedera sunt etiam ex codemgenero, quae exquisitissimè & proprijs verbis explicantur, nèlocus ullus relinquatur cavillis. Sacramentum hoc effe, de quo agitur, nemo negat,— Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis, ut in corum usu non erretur. Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 9 §. Primùm & §. Deindè. & §. Porrò Sacramentum.  you) than words of Testaments and Covenants. Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literal Sense.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHat is this? are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants, and Testamentary Language? or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures? This is your rash and lavish Assertion, for you yourselves do teach that 
b In ipsâ Scripturâ dicitur Testamentum & Instrumentum— Quia pacta Dei & foedera inita nobiscum continent, ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo.— Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris, non solum ob utilitatem nostram, sed etiam propter necessitatem, à pluribus Patribus traditur. Sacram Scripturam de Deo, de Trinitate, de Patre, Filio, & Spiritu Sancto, proprie loqui non posse,— Quandò sermo est de vitâ aeternâ, & praemio filiorum Dei, claris rebus comparatur, per Tropos est explicandus.— ut August. ait, Nullogenere locutionis, quod in consu●tudine humanâ reperitur, Scripturae non utuntur, quià utique hominibus loquuntur. Salmer. Ies. Proleg. l. 1. p. 3. & 4. & lib. 21. p. 371, & 227, 229, 231, 234.  The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures, and yet are called Testaments. Secondly, That the Scripture, speaking of the Trinity and some divine things, cannot but speak improperly and figuratively. Thirdly, That Sacramental speeches, as, [The Rock was Christ,] and the like words are 
* See above, Chap. 2 Sect. 3. (e,)  Tropical and Figurative. Fourthly, That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ, at his Institution of this Sacrament, saying, [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood:] there is a Figure in the very word 
c See above, Chap. 2 Sect. 4. (p. q.)  Testament. So have you confessed, and so have you consequently confuted your own Objection.  
Hereto might be added the Testament of jacob, prophesying of his sons, and saying, 
* Gen 49.  Reuben is my strength: judah a Lion's Whelp: Issachar a strong Ass: Danan Adder in the way. All figurative Allusions. Nay, no man in making his Testament can call it his Will, or say that he hath set his hand and Seal unto it, without Figures: Namely, that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will; that the Subscription was made by his Hand; and that he added unto it the Print of his Seal. These Three, Will, Hand, Seale, every word Figurative, even in a Testament.    

The Second Romish Objection, against the Figurative Sense.  
SECT. II.  
Laws and Precepts (say 
d Verba Legum & praeceptorum debent esse propria. Bellar. l. 1 de Euch. c. 9 §. Sequitur.  you) should be in plain and proper words. But in the Speech of Christ, [Take, eat you, etc.] are words of Command. Ergò, They may not be held Figurative.  

CHALLENGE.  
CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts, viz. of Pulling out a man's own eye, of cutting off his hand? Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart? joel 2. Or of not hardening his heart? Psal. 95. and the like. Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples, and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as jesus commanded them, saith the 
* Luc. 22. 8.  Evangelist. In this Command is the word [Passeover.] We demand, The word, Passeover, (which is taken for the Sacrament and Sign of the Passeover) is it taken figuratively? You cannot deny it. And can you deny that a Commandment may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase? You can both, that is, say and gainsay any thing, like false Merchants, only so far as things may, or may not make for your own Advantage.  
But (to catch you in your own snare) your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this, viz. Bread, being turned into Christ's Body, is jointly turned into whole Christ; and Wine, being changed into his blood, is likewise turned into whole Christ, both flesh and blood. If then when Christ commanded his Disciples, saying, [
* Matth. 26. 27.  Drink you All of this,] that which was Drunk was the whole substantial Body of Christ, either must his Disciples be said to have Drunk Christ's Body properly, or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken. To say the first, contradicteth the universal expression of man's speech in all Languages; for no man is said to drink Bread or any solid thing. And to grant the Second, that the speech is Figurative, contradicteth your own Objection. Again, Christ commanded to Eat his Body; yet notwithstanding have Three 
e See above, Chap. 2 §. 4. l.)  Jesuits already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have been properly Eaten, but figuratively only. What fascination then hath perverted your judgements, that you cannot but still confound yourselves, by your contrary and thwarting languages?    

Your Third Romish Objection.  
SECT. III.  
Doctrinal and Dogmatic speeches (say 
f Praecipua dogmata etc. Bellar. quo sup. §. Denota.  you) ought to be direct and literal: But these words, [This is my Body] are Doctrinal.  

CHALLENGE.  
A Man would marvel to hear such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those, who are accounted great Clerks, and those who know full well that the speech of Christ, concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's self, is 
g Abulen in cum loc●●. Christus non laudat eos qui castrârunt se, sed qui se cast an't, concupiscentiam abscindedo— ut Chrys. Non membrorum abscisione sed malarum cogitationum increpatione: maledictioni nempè obnoxius, qui membrum sibi abscindit. Idem habet Hier. Addit Chrysost. super Matth. Abscissis vi●il●bus non tollitur concupiscentia; Concupiscentia inde fit molestior.  Doctrinal, and teacheth Mortification; and yet is not literally to be understood, as you all know by the literal error of 
h Idem. Origines seipsum castravit, ut posset liberius praedica●e tempore Persecutionis, & s●●urius esse inter foeminas. Abul. super Matth. 5. qu. 250. p. 326.  Origen, who did really Castrate himself. And the same Origen, who thus wounded himself by that literal Exposition, in his youth, He in his Age, expounding the words of Christ, concerning the Eating of his flesh, said of the literal sense thereof, that, 
i Origen. Littera hae● occidit. in Levit. Hom. 7.  It killeth. Secondly, these words [This is the New Testament in my blood,] they are words as Doctrinal as the other [This is my body:] and yet figurative, by your own 
k See above Chap. 2. §. 4.  Confession. Thirdly, the words of Christ, joh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinal; and yet by your own 
l Verus & literalis Sensus horum verborum non est quòd caro Christi nihil prodest, sed quod carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt Chrys. Theophyl. Euthem. Origen. Cyprian, & alij: vocatur enim eo in loco, nomine carnis, humana & carnalis cogitatio, ut distinguitur a spirituali cogitation. Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeterea.  Construction, are not to be properly understood, but as Christ afterwards expounds himself Spiritually. Fourthly, where Christ thus said, The bread, which I shall give, is my flesh, joh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body, that it is True bread, Verse 32. and bread of life, Verse 48. and living bread, whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally, Verse 51. All, Divine and Doctrinal Assertions, yet was his body figuratively called bread. Fiftly, that in those words of Christ to Peter, Matth. 16. Upon this Rock will I build my Church; And, To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; And joh. 21. Feed my Sheep; (In which texts of Scripture you place, although most falsely, your Doctrinal foundation of Popedom itself:) yet know you all these to be Tropical Speeches. Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinal Article, and foundation of Christian Doctrine, delivered by God unto man, in the beginning, 
* Gen. 3. 15.  The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head? Is not the latter part of the Article altogether Figurative, yet signifying this Doctrinal point, even the vanquishing of the power of Satan?    

Your Fourth Romish Objection.  
SECT. IV.  
THe Apostles (saith your 
m Bell. Apostoli rudes & simplices erarie etc. Lib. 1 de Euch. 6. 9 §. Argumentum secundum.  Cardinal) were rude and simple, Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plain terms, without Figures. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
ANd yet Christ, you know, did often speak Figuratively unto them, talking of Bread, Leaven, Seed, etc. And styling them the Salt of the earth; yea even in this Sacrament (as hath been confessed) in the words, Eat, Shed, Testament. Another jesuit witnesseth, that 
n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt, & illuminati, ut cum summâ re●erētiâ Sacramentum hoc susciperent. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 46▪ §. 3.  The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ; that they might receive this Sacrament with all Reverence. So he. Therefore are they but rudely by you termed Rude; and the rather because They (who being commanded to prepare the Passeover, perceived that by Passeover was figuratively understood the Paschall Lamb, and thereupon prepared the Passeover, according to the Lord's Command) could not be ignorant, that in this like Sacramental speech [This is my body] the Pronoune [THIS] did literally point out bread, and figuratively signify Christ's body. Doubtless, if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not been like the other in the Passeover, they would have desired Christ to explain his meaning, as they did solicitously in other doubts.    

Their last Romish Objection.  
SECT. V.  
WE are never to let pass the Literal Sense (saith your 
o Nunquàm dimitcamus proprium verborum sensum, nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scripturâ, etc. Bell. l. 1. de Euch, Cap. 9 §. Vltimò.  Cardinal) except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture, or by some Article of Faith, or by some common Interpretation of the whole Church. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
surely nor we, without some one of these; but that you may know the grounds of our persuasion to be more than one, or yet all These; And how bountifully we shall deal with you, we shall show in the Proposition following.    

Ten Reasons, for proof of the Necessity of interpreting the word● of Christ Figuratively.  
SECT. VI  
FIrst, We have been compellable to allow a Figurative Sense by the consessed Analogy of Scripture, in all such Sacramental Speeches of both Testaments, concerning Circumcision, Rock, Baptism; as also that speech of Christ, joh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, as you have 
* See above C. 2. §. 3.  heard. Secondly, We are Challengable hereunto by our 
p See hereafter, B. 6. Chap. 3. §. 10.  Article of Faith, which teacheth but one natural Body of Christ, and the same to Remain now in Heaven. Thirdly, We are enforced, for fear of such 
q See hereafter, B. 8. Chap. 4.  Heresies as have followed in other Cases, upon the literal sense; for it was not the Figurative but the literal and proper sense of being borne again, by Baptism, (Iob. 3.) that begat the error of Nicodemus; and the like literal sense of God's Eyes, Hands, Feet, etc. brought forth the Anthropomorphites; And so was it the literal sense of those words in the Canticles [Tell me where thou liest at noon] which deluded the Donatists; and of Origen you have heard, that he by the literal sense of these words, [Some there be that castrate themselves, etc.] did fond wrong himself.  
Fourthly, We are necessarily moved, to reject your literal sense, by a confessed Impossibility, taught by that Universal Maxim, 
r See above Chap. 1. §. 4.  Disparatum de disparato, etc. showing that Bread, being of a different nature from flesh, can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ, literally, than Lead can be called Wood Fiftly, We are persuaded hereunto by the former alleged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Church, calling the Sacrament a Figure; and expounding [This is] by [This signifieth.] Sixtly, We are urged by the Rule set down by Saint Augustine, for the direction of the whole Catholic Church; that, 
s Si praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, figurata est, ut [nisi manducaveritis carnem meam] facinus videtur iubere, ergo figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter, ac utiliter recolendum in memoria, quià pro nobis caro ●ius crucifixa, & vulnerata ●it, August. de Doctrina Christ. l. 3. c. 16.  Whensoever the precept (saith he) seemeth to command that which is heinous (as to eat the flesh of Christ) it is figurative. And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say, Take, Eat, This is my body? Seventhly, A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man, to defend the figurative sense, by observing the misery of your Disputers, in contending for a literal Exposition thereof; because their Objections have been confuted by your own Doctors, and by Truth itself, even the holy Scriptures. Eightly, your own unreasonableness may persuade somewhat, who have not been able, hitherto, to confirm any one of your five former Objections to the contrary, by any one Father of the Church. Ninthly, For that the literal Interpretation of Christ's words was the foundation of the Heresy of the Capernaites, and hath affinity with diverse other 
t See the last Book Chap. 2. §. the last.  Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquity. Tenthly, Our last persuasion is the consent of Antiquity against the literal conversion of Bread into Christ's body (which you call Transubstantiation) against the Literal Corporal Presence, against Literal Corporal Eating, and Union, and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's body Subiectively. All which are fully persuasive Inducements to enforce a figurative sense, as the sundry Books following will clearly demonstrate from point to point.  

CHALLENGE.  
YOu may not pass over the consideration of these points, by calling them Schoole-subtilties, and Logical Differences, as Master Fisher lately hath done; thinking by this his sly Sophistry, craftily to draw the minds of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false literal Exposition of Christ's words, [THIS IS MY BODY:] the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-erroneous, Superstitious, Heretical, and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence, whereunto we now orderly proceed.      

THE THIRD BOOK,  
Treating of the First Romish Doctrinal Consequence, pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's words, [This is my Body] called TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  
Your Doctrinal Romish Consequences are Five, viz. the Corporal 


1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ, called Transubstantiation; in this Third Book.  
2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament, called Real Presence; in the Fourth Book.  
3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants, called Real, or Material Conjunction; in the Fifth Book.  
4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body, by the hands of the Priest, called a Propitiatory Sacrifice; in the Sixth Book.  
5. Worshipping with Divine Worship, called Latria, or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament; in the Seventh Book.  
6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abominations of the Romish Mass, and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof; in the Eight Book.     
THese are the Doctrinal Consequences, which you teach, and profess, and which we shall by (God's assistance) pursue, according to our former Method of Brevity, and Perspicuity; and that by as good, and undeniable Evidences, and Confessions of your own Authors, in most points, as either you can expect, or the Cause itself require. And because a Thing must have a Begetting, before it have a manner of Being, therefore before we treat of the Corporal Presence, we must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation, which is the manner (as we may so say) of the Procreation thereof.  

CHAP. I.  

The State of the Controversy, concerning the Change and Conversion, professed by Protestants, which is Sacramental; And by the Papists defined to be Transsubstantiall.  
SECT. I.  
First of the Sacramental.  
THere lieth a Charge upon every Soul, that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament, that herein he Discern the Lord's Body: which Office of Discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not only 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 natural Bread, into a Sacrament of Christ's body; This we call a Divine Change, because none but the same 
* See hereafter, Cap. 4. §. 1.  Omnipotent power, that made the Creature and Element of Bread, can Change it into a Sacrament.  
The Second Object of Faith, is the Body of Christ itself, Sacramentally represented, and verily exhibited to the Faithful Communicants. There are then three Objects, in all, to be distinguished. The First is before Consecration, the Bread merely Natural. Secondly, After Consecration, Bread Sacramental. Thirdly, Christ's own Body, which is the Spiritual, and Super-substantiall Bread, truly exhibited by this Sacramental, to the nourishment of the souls of the Faithful.   

Secondly of the Romish Change, which you call Transubstantiation.  
SECT. II.  
But your Change in the Council of 
a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi, & totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, man●tibus duntaxat speciebus Panis, & Vini, quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 〈◊〉.  Trent is thus defined: Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ, and of Wine into his Blood. Which by the Bull of 
b Ego N. N▪ juro hanc Conversionem fieri, quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat ran●…stantiationē— Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest. Bulla Pij 4 super forma juramenti Prosessionis Fidei.  Pius the Fourth, than Pope, is made an Article of Faith, without which a man cannot be saved. Which Article of your Faith Protestans believe to be a new and impious Figment, and 
c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11.  Heresy. The Case thus standing, it will concern every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation. As for the Church of England, she professeth in her 28. Article, saying of this Transubstantiation, that It cannot be proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion unto MANY SUPERSTIONS.    

CHAP. II.  
The Question is to be examined by these ground; viz. I. Scripture. II. Antiquity. III. Divine Reason.  
IN all which we shall make bold to borrow your own Assertions, and Confessions, for the Confirmation of Truth.  

The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ his words, [This is my Body:] for proof of Transubstantiation.  
SECT. I.  
YOu pretend (and that with no small Confidence) as a Truth avouched by the Council of 
a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [Hoc est Corpus meum] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. Ies. Disp. 176. c. 6. Verba tàm perse clara cogere possint hominem non protervum Transubstantiationem admittere, Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. § Secundò.  Trent, that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you.  

CHALLENGE.  
Wherein you show yourselves to be men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to be undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you 
b Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequitur,— Dicunt non extare locum in Scriptures tàm expressum, ut sin● declaratiore Ecclesiae evidentèr cogat Transubstantiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile, quià an it à sit dubitari potest, cum homines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis inprimis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Cajetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem desinere esse, non tàm ex Evangelio, quam ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 419.  grant that (besides Cardinal Cajetan, and some other Ancient Schoolmen) Scotus, and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so express, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compel any man to admit of Transubstantiation. So they. Which your Cardinal, and our greatest Adversary, saith 
c See in the former Allegation at (b.)  Is not altogether improbable; and whereunto your Bishop 
d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem, non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis, sin● pia interpretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9 pag. 99  Roffensis giveth his consent. Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proof of your Transubstantiation, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as to 
e [Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventura docet. Idem ferè habet Occam, & Holcott, infinuat etiam Waldensis.— Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantiuè, sed Transitive interpretandam, sc. ut sit sensus [Hoc est Corpus] it est, Transit in Corpus.— Sed hoc corrumpit significationem verbi [Est] quod si permittitur, nulla est vis in huiusmodi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hîc non manner. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Repraesentat Corpus. Suarez. Jes. Tom. 3. qu. 78. Disp. 58. Sect. 7. A●t. 1. pag. 754.  Change the Verb Substantive [Est] into a Verb Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Transit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or, It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sense, which your jesuit Suarez cannot allow, because (as he 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 cannot be extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.  
We might, in the third place, add hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fathers, and by your own confessed Grounds hath been already plentifully * proved, as an Infallible Truth. So groundless is this chief Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixth Section following. But yet, by the way, we take leave to prevent your Objection. You have told us that 
* See the former Book throughout.  the words of Christ are Operative, and work that which they signify; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christ's Body; which we shall believe, as soon as you shall be able to prove, that upon the pronunciation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood,] Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood, or else into his Blood itself.    

The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof.  
SECT. II.  
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 Transubstantiation (as you grant) 
f Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nòmine Transubstantiationis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Archi●p. Caesar. lib. de real Present. cap. 59 art. 4.  was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that your Romish Change had not its Christendom, or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Cardinal 
g Conc. Lateran ense sub▪ Innocentio Tertio coactum, ut Haereticis os obthuraret, Conversionem hanc novo & valdè significante verbo dixit Transubstantiationem. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. p 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist. ad Coelosyrium [Convertens ea in yeritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vasquez the jesuit; non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli. Vasquez. in 3. T●om. Tom. 3. num. 24.  Alan witnesseth) before the Council of Lateran, which was 1215. years after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greek or Latin, for a Thousand years, attributing any word equivalent, in strict Sense; unto the same word Transubstantiation, until the year 1100. (which is beyond the Compass of due Antiquity) At what time you find, note, and ●rge Theophylact; who saith of the Bread, that It is Transelementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sense he used it, you might best have learned from himself, who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is 
h Theoph. in joh. 6. De Christo perfidem manducato, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]  Transelementated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradox it were, being taken in strict and proper Sense, we permit to your own judgements to determine.  
Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Novelty of this word, object the like use of this word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as though it had been in use before the Arian Controversy began, because the Fathers of the Council of Nice judged the Objection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious; for that the use of it had been Ancient before their times, as your Cardinal 
i Calumniam hanc Patres Antiqui aptissimè confu●âtunt, atque ostend●runt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud iam vocabulum usur pari, quo sui Maiores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3.  Bellarmine himself witnesseth.  
You furthermore to prevent our Objection (demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had been of your Romish Faith, concerning the Substantial Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) have shaped us this Answer, namely, that 
k Etsi veteres Ecclesiae Doctores non sint usi vo●● Transubstantiationis, tamen usi sunt vocibus idem significantibus, ut Conversioni●, Transmutationis, Transitionis, Transformationis, Transelementationis, & similibus. Lorich. Fortalit. fidei Tract. de Eucharist. §. Nota pro solutione Argumentorum. fol. 117.  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. So your Lorichius, Reader of Divinity among you; who by his vast and rash boldness might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle, viz. [
* 2. Cor. 3. 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are transformed] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ: or, from the word [
* 2 Cor. 11. 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He is transfigured] say that the Devil is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light: or from the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is changed] (used by 
l Quicquid Spiritus Sanctus te●igerit, & Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech. 5.  Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctify, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 643. Edit. Paris.  Nazianzen, conclude that Every Person Baptised is Transubstantiated into Christ.  
Will you have the world imagine that so many, so excellent, and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not in a Thousand years' space, find out either the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Latin Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Change, if they had once dreamt of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learn a point of wisdom in your Cardinal? 
n Periculosa est vocum nova●um Libertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vocibus nov●… eriam res oriantur, cum cuique licet in rebus Divinis nomina ●ingere. Bell. lib. d● Sacram. in Genere. c. 7. §. Ex quibus,  Liberty of devising new words (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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which St. 
* 1. Tim. 6. 20.  Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid; else so new and barbarous a name must needs engender a novel, and brutish opinion, such as this Article itself will appear to be; As followeth.   

The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and shown not to have been before the Council of Lateran (namely) not until 1215. years after Christ.  
SECT. III.  
THis Aricle hath been decreed (as you have 
* See above Chap. 1. §. 2.  heard) by your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and therefore presumed to be Ancient.  

CHALLENGE.  
THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Cardinal 
o Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.  Bellarmine noteth to have been in the days of Pope Gregory the VIIth. viz. 1073. years after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. years after this Pope, and esteemed the Master of the Romish School) when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts, especially in this very Question (whether the Conversion were substantial, or not) confesseth plainly saying: 
p Si quaeratur, qualis sit Conversio (viz. Panis in Eucharistia) an formalis, an substantialis, an alterius generis; definire non sufficio. Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam. Lomb. Sent. lib. 4. distinct. 11. lit. (a.)  Definire non sufficio: I am not able to Determine. So he. Anno 1140.  
Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception only, which caused your learned and subtle Schoolman Scotus to descend lower, to find out the Birth thereof, 
q Scotus dicit ante Concil. Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem. Id ille dixit, quiá non legerat. Conc. Rom. sub Gregorio. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produximus. Bellar. lib. 3. de. Euchar. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.  Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinal doth tax for want of Reading. But either were your jesuit Coster, and Cardinal Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning, as Scotus, or else they gave small Credit to that Council cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth. For your jesuit saith, in direct terms, that 
r Ante trecentos Annos in Conc. Lateran. ad istius rei tàm admirabilis clariorem explicationem usurpatum fuit nomen Transubstantiationis: ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir c. 8. §. De Transubstantiatione.  The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Council of Lateran, for clearer declaration, that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so understood before? But your Cardinal Perr●n more peremptorily concludeth that 
s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Cone. Lateran. ex communi Patrum assensu Decretum esset sequeretur posse ●t falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Card. Per. ensa Harangue au tiers' Estates p. 33. As witnesseth our P. Preston alias Widdrington Discuss. Conc. Later. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.  If it had not been for the Council of Lateran, it might be now lawful to impugn it. So he. A plain acknowledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Council, even as Scotus affirmed before, But we pursue this Chase yet further, to show,    

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Council of Laternae, under Pope Innocentius the III.  
SECT. IV.  
YOur own learned Romish 
t Venêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquamtamen a ptè potuir, cò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Perusij. Platina in vita Innocentij. Decerni nihil apertè potuit, edira sū● quaedam, etc. Nauclerus Anno 1215. [meaning after the Council.] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum, nihil dignum memoriâ actum, nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia, etc. Godfridus Monumetensis & Math. Paris Histor. minor. Concilium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes judificatus est: illi enim, cum nihilin eo Concilio geri cernerent, redeundi veniam petierunt. Thus far out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Book above cited.  Priest, a long time Prisoner, did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Matth. Paris, and others to testify as followeth. That many things fell under Consultation in that Council, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Per●sium. Insomuch that some of these Authors stick not to say that This General Council, which seemed to promise big and mighty matters, did end in scorn and mockery, performing nothing at all. We might add that the supposed Acts of this Council were not published until more than two hundred years after. No marvel then if some 
u Scholastici quidam haue Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valde Antiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scotus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 50 §. 1.  Schoolmen, among whom were Scotus and Biel, held Transubstantiation not to have been very ancient. And another, that 
x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem, diù satis erat Credere siuè sub pane, sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373.  It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, M. Breerly (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) sticketh not to say that 
y Mr. Breerly in his Liturgy Tract. 2. §. 11. pag. 158.  Transubstantiation complete (that is, both for form, and matter) was not determined until the last Council of Trent; that is to say, not until the year of our Lord 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ugly Bear and Beast had, before it came to be form? and yet it will appear to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to to be proved, by the full discovering of the palpable Falsehood thereof.    

CHAP. III.  

The Definition of Transubstantiation, in the Church of Rome; and of the Falsehood thereof.  
SECT. I.  
THe Council of Trent (saith your 
a Conc. Trid. dicit, fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis, id est, tàm formae, quam materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi. Bell. lib. 3. de Eucharist. Chap. 18. §. Si Objicias. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Cap. 4.  Cardinal) hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread, that is, as well form, as matter, into the Substance of Christ his Body.  

Our First proof of the Falsehood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof; whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article.  
THe Opinions of the Doctors of your Church, concerning the nature of this Conversion, are by you reduced into these two manners, (namely) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread; or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the form of Bread.   

CHALLENGE.  
Whatsoever it is, which you will seem to profess, never shall you persuade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Forms of Transubstantiation. First, not by Production, because (as the same 
b Productio est, quandò Terminu● ad quem non existir, & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur, ut aqua in vinum: Adductiva auterm, etc. Bell. ibid. §. Secundò notandum.— Productiva non est, quià Corpus Domini praeexistit. Idem ibid. §. Exhiss.  Cardinal truly argueth) 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 water: But the Body of Christ is always Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Jesuits 
c De rarione Transubstantiationis non est, ut Substantia, in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantiatio, producatur aut conservetur perillam: imò qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento, ad quod dam genus Philosophiae excogitatum, potius quam ad verum & necessarium, rem reducere videntur. Vasq Ies. To. 2. disp. 214. c. 4.  Vasquez, and 
d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidentèr refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis, qui vel dici, vel fingi possunt. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 7●. disp. 50 §. 5 §. Tertio Principaliter. [M. Fisher in his Rejoinder talketh fond of a Reproduction, as of Careases converted into men, in which Change any One may see that as much as is Produced is not Extant, for Dust is not Flesh. But since he cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ, his Answer is impertinent, and he may be produced for an idle Disputer.]  Suarez, by both whom it hath been confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, than it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation; which is demonstrable in itself, because the next manner, which they insist upon, cannot possibly serve your turn.  
This Second manner they name to be by Adduction, which your 
e Si Terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat, sed non in co loco ubi Terminus à quo (i. e. Panis) tum ui Conversionis adducetur ad eum locum. Indè vocatur Conversio adductiva: nam corpus Christi praeexistit antè Conversionem, sed non sub speciebus Panis. Conversio igitur non facit ut corpus Christi simplicitèr esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus: non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur, sed solùm quià per hanc conversionem fit, ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo, iam fit sub speciebus Panis. Nec haec Accidentalis Conversio, sed substantialis dicta est, quià substantia Panis definite esse, & substantia corporis Christi succedit Pani. Proindè Substantia in Substantiam transit. Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem, per nutritionem; nam anima non producitur sed tantùm per nutritionem fit, ut incipiat esse in ea materia, ubi anteà erat forma Cibi. Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18.  Cardinal defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar, & therefore called Substantial, but the Substance of Bread, ceaseth to have any Being, when the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Council of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Council, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread eaten 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 far from bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as unto the Bread, but to be under only the Outward Accidents, & forms of Bread. Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your 
f Fuerunt huius sententiae Alens. Bonavent. Marsil— dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse, sed accipere esse hîc; necmultum discordat Thomas. Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereti●os libentèr hanc sententiam amplectuntur, quià facilitatem quandam prae se fert, ut videre licet apud joh. Hessels, Claud. Guil. Paris, & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez. qu● sup. disp. 50. §. 44. p. 635. cum Panis substantialiter mu●etur, it à ut desinat esse, haec Conversio est Substantialis, non Accidentalis. 2. Corpus Christi est substantia, quae succedit Pani, proindè substantia transit in substantiam.— & dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse quandò quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis— Bellar. qu●supr●. § Respondeo 1.— Cedere Corpori, in ratione existendi est propriè Converti in ipsum, & per Consequens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio. Alan. lib. 1. de. Euch. cap. 34.  Schools.  
No marvel therefore if there arose some out of your own Church, who did impugn this delusion, calling it (as your 
g Dixi Conversionem Panis in Corpus Christi esse Adductivam, quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperàm acceptum, qui indè non Transubstantiationem, 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 inhaerentia. Bellar. Recog. in lib. 2. de Euch. p. 81.  Cardinal himself witnesseth of them) a Translocation only, 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 Lambskin, which Lamb was long since dead (and consequently ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lamb? yet is there in this example a more substantial Change by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under only the Forms and Accidents of the matter of Bread, because there is in that a Material Touch between the Substance of the hand, and the Lambskin: but in this other there is only a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kind of mere Succession of a Substance your jesuit Suarez will allow to be no more than a 
h Per solam Adductivam actionem reverà non explicatur vera Conversio Substantialis & Transubstantiatio, sed ●an●●m Translocatio quaedam: quandò una Substantiasuccedit loco alterius, non potest propriè dici unam converti in aliam. Suarez. loco citat. p. 639.  Translocation.  
We Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Production, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by yourselves to be contrary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your own knowledge.  
Observe by the way that they, who gainsay the Productive, and teach the Adductive, yet do all deny Local mutation à Termino ad Terminum: a Paradox which we leave to your wisdoms to contemplate upon.    

Our Second Proof of the Falsehood of the Article of Transubstantiation is from the Article of our Christian Creed, [BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY.]  
SECT. II.  
TRansubstantiation (as hath been defined by your Council of Trent) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body. Now, in every such Substantial Change, there are Two Terms, one is the Substance from which; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantial 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 it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body, out of the Substance of Bread. Your Cardinal hath no Evasion, but by denying the Conversion to be by Production, which notwithstanding was formerly the General Tenet of the Romish School, ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched; and which is contrary to his own device of Conversion by Adduction: wherein first he 
i Dico Corpus Christi ex pane fieri, non tanquàm ex materia, sed tanquàm à Termino à quo, ut mundus ex nihilo, [than confuting himself] e●iam ut ex aqua vinum (that was not ex nihilo.) In pr●senti negotio, Conversio non est Productiva. Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens: ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane, & ex Carne est idem. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Ad Tertium.  confoundeth himself, and secondly, his opinion hath been scornfully rejected by your own learned Doctors, as being nothing less than Transubstantiation, as you have heard. Therefore may you make much of your breaden Christ. As for us, We, according to our Apostolical Creed, believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, for fear of 
k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4. Ti●. Christus. haeres. 2. Manichaei di●erunt Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse; Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgin. Item. Chiliastae, Democritae, Melchioritae, & Proclianitae. Prateolus in Elench. Haeret. suis quique titul●s.  Heresy.  
This same Objection being made of late to a jesuit of prime note, received from him this Answer: viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones, can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ, which was of the Virgin. And he again received this Reply; That the Children, which should be so raised out of Stones, howsoever they might be Abraham's Children, according to Faith, yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. Therefore is there as great a Difference between that Body from Bread, and the other from the Blessed Virgin, as there must have been between Children out of Stones, and Children out of Flesh.  
And this out Reason acordeth right well to the Ancient Faith, professed within this Land, in the days of Edgar a Saxon King, as it is set out in an 
l Homily on Easter day, pag. 35.  Homily of that time, which being published standeth thus. Much is between the body that Christ sufferedin, and between the body of the hallowed housel: The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood, and with bone, with skin, and with sinews in humane limbs; and his Ghostly body, which we call his housel, is gathered of many Corns, without blood, and bone, without limb, and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood. This was our then Saxon's Faith; wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramental (which is called Ghostly) as is the Body of flesh from the Consecrated Substance of Bread. A Doctrine directly confirmed by 
* See Book 4. C. 4. §. 〈◊〉. in the Challenge.  Saint Augustine. Wherefore we may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantiation from bread, than it is not the Body, which was borne of the blessed Virgin; as your own Romish Gloss could say of the Predication: 
* See above, Book 2. Chap. 1. § 4.  If Bread be Christ's Body, than something was Christ's body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary.   

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.  
WE wonder not why your Fathers of the Council of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of 
m Si quis dixerit remanere Substantian Panis, Anathema sit. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. Can. 2.  Anathema, and Curse upon every man that should affirm, Bread and Wine to remain in this Sacrament after Consecration: which they did, to terrify men from the Doctrine of Protestants, who do all affirm 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 do remain, then is all Faith, yea, and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera, and mere Fancy, as your Cardinal doth confess, in granting that 
n Panis etsi non annihiletur, tamen manet nihil in se; ut Aqua post Conversionem in vinum. Neque obstat, quod fortè materia manserit, nam materia non est Aqua. Prima Conditio in vera Conversione est, utid, quod convertitur, desinat esse. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 18. §. Igitur. & cap. 24 §. Ad Alterum.  It is a necessary Condition, in every Transubstantiation, that the thing, which is Converted, cease any more to be; as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine; Water ceased to be Water. And so must Bread cease to be Bread. This being the State of the Question, we undertake to give   

Good Proofs of the Existence, and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist, the same in Substance, after Consecration.  
Our First Proof is from Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. Saint Paul calling it [Bread.]  
SECT. IV.  
IN the Apostle his Comment (that I may so call his two 
* 1. Cor. 11. 26, 27. & 10. 16.  Chapters to the Corinthians) upon the Institution of Christ, we read of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup, thrice; all which, by the consent of all sides, are spoken of Eating & Drinking after Consecration: and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread. You will say (with some) It was so called only because it was made of Bread; as Aaron's Rod, turned 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 Aaron's Rod, turned into Serpent, none could say, This Rod. And secondly, it is contrary to Christian Faith, which will abhor to say, in a proper sense, that Christ's 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.  
But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfy; for we shall prove, that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration, but because it was Substantially, still, Bread. Our Reason is; He had now to deal against the Prophaners of this Sacrament, in reproving such as used it as Common Bread, 
* 1. Cor. 11. 21.  Not discerning therein (Sacramentally exhibited) the Lord's Body. It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles, agreeable to the Body of Christ, hypostatically united to his Godhead, and to have denied it absolutely to have been Bread, considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seem to be abased, and Eclipsed; if in Truth, and Verity he had not believed it to have been (then) Bread.  
This Reason we guess you are bound to approve off, who, in your opinion of the Corporal 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 Greek 
o Archiep. Cabasila. Latini nostros rehendunt, quòd post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum] Panem & Vinum nominant, etc. Exposit. Liturg. c. 29.  Archbishop Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors, for reprehending the Greek Liturgies: why? Because (saith he) after the words of Christ, [This is my Body] we call the Symbols and Signs 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, prejudicial to their Transubstantiation; and that if Saint Paul himself should deliver the same words he did, at this day, he should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Terms in another style. What need many words? except in the words of Christ the word [Body] be properly predicated, and affirmed of Bread, farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body! But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread, hath been the General Confession of your own Doctors, and the Conclusion of our second Book.   

Our Second Proof of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ, touching the Continuance of Wine, after Consecration, Matth. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity.  
SECT. V.  
THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himself, in thesecond Element of Wine, call it 
* Matth. 26. 29.  This fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, after Consecration: where the Pronoune [This] hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ, we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers; Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, Epiphanius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Bede, as witnesseth your jesuit 
p Origenes, Cyprianus, Chrysost. August. Hieron. Epiphan. Beda, Euthym. Theoph. [Genimen vitis] ad sanguinem Christi referunt— Maldon. Ies. Com. in eum locum; where he addeth: Persuadere mihi non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda.— Hoc Patres, sed alio sensu à Calvinistis, qui dicunt Christum vinum appellâsse, quià vinum erat; sed Patres vocaruntsanguinem Vinum, sicut Christus Carnem 10. 6. vocabat Panem. Maldo. in eund. locum. Haec, nè illi Calvinistarum errori affinis esse videatur. Maldon. Ibid.  Maldonate (no one Father produced by him to the contrary) Then answering; But I (saith he) cannot be thus persuaded. So he. Mark this (you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity!) and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this jesuit. But he proceedeth, telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine, as thinking it to be Wine, but even as Christ did when he called his flesh Bread, john 6. Then he addeth; They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them. And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement, Lest the other Exposition (saith he) may seem to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists. So he.  
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 plain and evident meaning of their Testimonies; who declare that they understood Natural and Substantial Wine (as the 
q Novum promisit, id est, Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno, id est, post resurrectionem, quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem. Theoph. in Matth. 26. [Bibite ex Hoc omnes:] &, non Bibam amodò, etc.] quâ in parte inveni●us vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit, undè apparet sanguinem Christi non offerti, si desit Vinum Calic●▪ Cyprian. ad Cecil. Epist. 63. paulò ante medium, & Epiphan, contra Encratit. Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharist●…, ut dicant vino quoque utendum: In hoc sermone Domini (inquit) redarguuntur [non bibam defructu hujus Vitis.] Epiphan. Tom 2. lib. 2. [Non bibam degenimine hujus Vitis.] Christus post resurrectionem, n● putaretur Phantasia, comedit, undè Apostoli dixerunt, Act. 10. [Comedimus, & Bibimus eum eo] Sed cujus rei gratiâ non Aquam, sed Vinum bib it? ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum qui Aquâ in mysterijs utuntur. [Ex genimine Vitis:] Certè Vinum non Aqùam producit. Chrysost. in eum locum Hom. 83.  Marginals do manifest) so plainly, as to affirm that It was Wine, which then Christ drank, and that hereby the practices of the Heretics Aquarij are confuted, who would drink nothing but Water in the Eucharist. It was the Wine (saith 
r August. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75 Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs, cum dixit [non bibam.]  Augustine) which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption: Even that Wine, which was blessed (saith 
s Clem. Alex. Quòd Vinum esset, quod benedictum fuit, oftendit rursus dicens, [Non bibam de fructu Vitis.] Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 11. sub finem.  Clemens Alexandrinus:) and your own Bishop 
t Cum Matthaeus, & Marcus nullius alterius Calicis fecerint mentionem praeter sacri, quòd dicitur [De genimine Vitis] nullus alius Calix intelligi potest ab iis demonstratus, quam cujus meminerant— Et omninò videtur ex Matthaeo & Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem. jansen. Episc. Concord. in cum locum, p. 914 col. 2.  jansenius doth confess that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist; and not (as some say) to the Cup of the Passeover.  
Mark you furthermore the Error of the Aquarij, and the Confutation thereof: they used only Water in the Eucharist, in pretence of 
* See above, Book 1. Chap. 3. §. 10.  Sobriety, which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground, viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the 
* See above, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Margin.  Institution of Christ, wherein Christ ordained Wine, and not Only Water: and now tell us, if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had been an Article of Faith, in those days, whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it, for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij, to let them know, that if they would needs use only Water, than (according to your Doctrine) their Consecration should be void; and consequently their Adoration (if it had been then in use) should have been like wise Idolatrous.   

The former Proof confirmed by Analogy, between Bread and Christ's Body, both Natural, and Mystical.  
SECT. VI  
IN 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. [The Bread which we break (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 we all partake of one Bread.] In this Sentence the word [Bread] hath a double Relation, the First to Christ his Body Natural. Thus the joint Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogy, in this respect, is excellently expressed by 
u Panis quià confirmat Corpus, ideò Corpus Christi nominatur: Vinum autem, quià sanguinem operatur, ideò ad sanguinem refertur. Haecautem duo sunt visibilia, sanctificata autem per Spiritum sanctum, in Sacramentum divini Corporis transeunt. Isidor. Hisp. de Offic. Lib. 1. cap. 18. See above, Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 9 (at x.)  Isidore: Bread (saith he) because it strengtheneth the Body, is therefore called Christ's Body; and Wine, because it turneth into Blood, is therefore called Christ's Blood: These two are visibles, but being sanctified by the holy Spirit, are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. So he. This is indeed a true Analogy, not to be performed by Accidents.  
Could any of them, whom you call Calvinists, have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words (for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body;) or in declaring the true proper Sense of the Sacramental Conversion? (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 Signs of Christ's Body, and Blood, by which we are spiritually fed? (for he showeth that it is because of their Natural Effects, Bread substantially, and therefore not Accidentally, strengtheneth Man's Body: Wine turneth in Blood.) Which overthroweth your third Figment of only 
* Substantia Panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti, sed solùm Accidentia. Beilar. Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Respondeo substantiam.  Accidents; as if the Substance of Bread and Wine, were not necessary in this Sacrament. Say then, doth the Accident of Roundness and Figure of Bread strengthen man's Body? or doth the Accident, Colour of Wine, turn into Blood? As well might you affirm the only Accident of Water in Baptism to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body, by the colour, and coldness, without the substantial matter thereof.  
The Second part of the Analogy is discerned in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Congregation of the Faithful Communicants; [
* 1. Cor. 10 17.  We are all one Body, in as much as we are partakers of one Bread.] It standeth thus; As many Grains of Corn make one Loaf of Bread, and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup: So, many Christians, partaking faithfully of this Sacrament, become One mystical Body of Christ by the Union of Faith, and Love. This Exposition, as it is yielded unto by your Cardinal 
y Vnus Panis, unum Corpus multi sumus, nam omnes in uno Pane participamus.] Significatur unitas fidei in unitate Panis, ac unitate Corporis Metaphoricè, ad similitudinem multorum granorum, ex quibus con●icitur Corpus unum. Et attulit Panem propter id, quod dixit [Panis quem frangimus] Caietan. Card. in ●um locum. pag. 137.  Cajetan, and authorized by your Roman and Tridentine 
z Vnum Ecclesiae corpus ex multis membris compositum est: nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis, quam Panis Vinique elementis. Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur, & Vinum ex multitudine racemorum existit. Ità fidelis, etc. Catech. Roman. part. 2. de Euch. pag. 177.  Catechism, so is it also confessed to be used of 
a Augustinus. Dominus noster Christus, inquit, Corpus suum in iis rebus commendavit, quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur: ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur, ex multis racemis unum Corpus confluit; ut●ntur hac similitudine Sancti propè omnes Doctores. Teste Bozio de Signis Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6.  Almost all holy Doctors. He was held a most expert and artificial Painter, in Pliny, that could paint Grapes so to life, as to deceive Birds; which came to feed on them: But they are the only Sophistical Doctors, that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents, as painted Colours in stead of natural, because where there is not a Real Analogy, there is no Sacrament. You may not say, that the Analogy consisteth in the matter before Consecration; because every Sacramental Analogy is between the Sacrament, and the Thing Signified, but it is no Sacrament, before it be Consecrated.  

CHALLENGE.  
SAy now, what Better Author is there than Christ? What better Disciple and Scholar, than the Apostle of Christ? or 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 Proof, that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament, is taken from the judgement of Sense necessarily.  
First, by the Authority of Scripture.  
SECT. VII.  
ALthough man's Sense may be deceived, thorough the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium, thorough which he seeth, as it happeneth in judging a strait Staff to be Crooked, which standeth in the Water; and in thinking a White Object to be Green in itself, which is seen through a Green glass: or Secondly by the unequal Distance of place, as by conceiving the Sun to be but two feet in breadth; or the Rainbow to be a Colour, and not Light; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ, or Instrument of seeing (which is the Eye) whereby it cometh to pass that we take One to be Two, or mistake a Shadow for a Substance: yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution, and Temper; the Medium, whereby we see, is perfectly disposed; the Distance of the Object, which we see, is indifferent; then (say we) the judgement of Sense, being free, is True, and the Concurrence and joint Consent of diverse Senses, in one arbitrement, is infallible.  
This Reason, taken from Sense, you peradventure will judge to be but Natural and Carnal, as those Terms are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning: We defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himself used to his Disciples, Luc. 24. 39 [Handle me, and see.] Your Cardinal although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available, to prove that his own Body was no Spirit, or Fancy, but a true body, even by the only Argument from the Sense of Touching; 
b Consequentie Christ●, affirmatiuè sumpta, Hoc pa patur, hoc videtur, Ergo est Corpus, optima fuit, quià sensus non fallitur Circa proprium Obiectum: itaque necessariò quod videtur, & tangitur Corporale est. At negatiuè; hoc non palpatur, nec videtur, Ergò non est Corpus; Dominus non fecit, & mala est. Non falluntur Sensus nostri, cum nos album quid, rotundum, solidum sentire arbitramur, quae sunt propria objecta. Sed cum Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus latere denuntiant, falluntur. Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum, seu Phantasma, sed verum Corpus; id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit. Illud autem Corpus esse humanum, idem quod anteà fuerat, non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento, ex Tangendi sensu desumpto (quod sine dub●o non erat sufficiens) sed multis aliis modis, loquendo, mandueando, testimonio Angelorum, miraculo Piscium, allegatione Scripturarum. Bellar. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo.  Yet (saith he) was it not sufficient in itself, without other Arguments to confirm it, and to prove it to have been a humane body, and the very same which it was. So he.  
Which Answer of your Cardinal we wish were but only false, and not also greatly irreligious: for Christ demonstrated hereby not only that he had a body (as your Cardinal speaketh) but also that it was his own same humane body, now risen, which before had been Crucified, and wounded to Death, and buried, according to that of Luke [That it is even I.] Luc. 24. 39 Now because 
* 1. Cor 15.  It is not a Resurrection of a Body, except it be the Same body: Therefore would Christ have Thomas to 
* joh. 20. 27.  thrust his hands into his sides, and feel the print of his wounds, to manifest the same body; as Two of your Jesuits do also observe, the One with an 
c Optimè Origines, Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum. Tolet. Ies. in joh. c. 20. p. 534.  Optimè, the Other with a 
d Probatum est, Christum idem Corpus numero demonstrâsse. Suarez ●es. Tom. 2. qu. 54. § 1.  Probatum est. Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument, taken from Sense, as the foundation of a Fundamental Article of Faith, even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead; for how often doth he repeat, and inculcate this? 
* 1. Cor. 15. 5.  He was seen, etc. And again thrice more, He was seen, etc. And Saint john argueth, to the same purpose, from the Concurrence of three Senses: 
* 1. joh. 1. 1.  That which we have heard, which we have seen, and our hands have handled, declare we unto you. The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect, as Christ averreth, 
* john 20. 29.  Thomas because thou hast seen (that is, perceived both by Eye, and hand) thou hast believed.   

The Validity of the judgement of Sense, in THOMAS, and the other Disciples, confirmed in the second place by your own Doctors.  
SECT. VIII.  
PErerius a jesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch: 
e Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor, non posse ab ullo Daemone formari corpus adeò simile humano, ut siquis cum curâ animi & attentione id tangeret, non facilè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum. Itaque non poterit Daemon similitudine corporis humani oculos fallere: Tactus autem sensum fallere omninò, non potest, quod qua●●or Argumentis confirmabo— Hoc ve●issimum esse patet ex eo, quod Christus dixit discipulis s●is [Palpate & videte:] & Thomae [Affer digitum, etc.] Perer. ●es. in Gen. 6. num. 78. p. 2.  I fear not (saith he) to say, that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument, to prove without all doubt an humane Body, that the Devil himself cannot herein delude the touch of man, that is of understanding and consideration. As for the unbelieving Disciples, [Christ his Handle me, etc.] (saith your jesuit 
f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera ossa & carnes discernere, mollitiem, & duritien eorum, non dixisset iis [Palpate, & Videre] ac si diceret, Palpate, & Percipite veras carnes & ossa. Vasquez. Ies. Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art. 2. disp. 184. cap 2. p. 487. Thomas dicit fingula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia, benè tamen coniuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophetarum.— Ego tamen cum Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandam ve●itatem Corporis humani in Christo. Idem ibid.  Vasquez) was as much as if he had said to them, Perceive you my true flesh? as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body. So he, yea, and 
g Illud Thomae [non credam, etc.] 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 animas interdùm apparere Corporibus, & proprias formare voces, & tamen non esse Corpora vera. Quapropter non dixit solùm [Nisi videro, non credam] sed adiunxit, [Nisi infero manum in vestigia Clavorum.] Tolet. Ies. Com. in joh. 20.  Tolet another jesuit did well discern the case of Thomas to have been an extreme Infidelity, when he said, [Except I put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.] Which proveth the efficaciousness of the judgement of Sense, in reducing so extreme an unbeliever to believe.  
Wherein your Authors are authorized by Saint Augustine, 
h Aug. de tempore. Si forte, inquit, Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, at non possemus dicere manus frustratas▪ de Tactu non potest dubita●i. Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides credentium Disscipulorum profuit, quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur, mens nostra omni dubitatione postpositâ. Teste Maldon. Ies. Com. in Jo●. 20.  saying, that Although Thomas his Eyes had been 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 belief, than did the faith of the other Apostles, because his Doubtfulness being convinced by the Sense of Touching, we are thereby freed from all doubtfulness in the faith. And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinal, he may be shackled with his own answer, who, to disable the Infallibility of the Sense of feeling, said; 
i See above at (b.)  That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the judgement of Sense: and among these Other he reckoneth Christ his speaking, eating, and working Miracles. All which, what are they else (we pray you) but equally Objects of Sense? What Vertigo then may this be called in him, to seek to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument, which justifieth the certainty of Sense?   

A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses, as sufficient in Divine Causes, for discerning Objects of Sense, and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament; by the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. IX.  
HOw many Heretics of old were there (such as the Valentinians, Montanists, Marcionites) who denied that Christ had a True, and Essential Body? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers, by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard, saw, and felt the Body of Christ? Which showeth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong even in Christian Philosophy. And to come to the point in Question, to conclude 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 concluded by the same Argument of Sense.  
And that there is the same Reason of both these, the Ancient Father Theodoret showeth in the Argument, wherewith he confuted an Heretic by Sense, thus; 
k Eranistes apud Theod. Quià sicut Panis desinit esse Panis post Consecrationem, sed mutatur in substantiam Corporis Christi. Ità Corpus Christi post resurrectionem desinit esse propriè Corpus, sed in Naturam divinam mutatur. Orthodox. Imò verò, ut te capiam in laqueis his: signa mystica non recedunt à naturâ suâ, manent enim in priori suâ formâ, figurâ, & substantiâ. Theod. Dial. 2. Cap. 24.  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 Analogy. (As for the word [Substance] more is to be spoken thereof 
* See hereafter, Sect. 12.  hereafter.) Yea, and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blindfold himself, whose Testimony (digested by 
l Beda ex Augusti no, Serm. ad Infants, in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 1●9. apud Bedam. Quod vidistis Panis est, quod oculi vestri renunciant, quod autem fides vestra, etc. Sicut ex multis granis tri●ici unus Panis: Ità ex multitudine fidelium, una as●urgit Ecclesia.  Bede) is this: That which you have seen is Bread, as your eyes do manifest unto you. And he speaketh of Bread, as this Sacrament was a Symbol, and Sign of the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, consisting of a multitude of Faithful Communicants, as one Loaf doth of many grains of wheat. So Saint Augustine. Ergò, It is Bread after Consecration.  
Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academici, who denied the judgement of Sense; wherein he maintaineth the Truth of the Senses, and in proof thereof he manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling; and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question, saying that 
m Tertul. de Animâ. cap. 7. ad finem. Quid agis, Academices procacissime? totum vitae statum evertis, ipsius Dei providentiam excoecas— non licet in dubium Sensus istos revocare, nè & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur, nè forte dicatur, quod falsò Patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatam, aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum tetigit: aut alium posteà unguenti senserit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit: alium posteà Vini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. Sic enim & Martion Phantasma ●um maluit credere, totius corporis in eo dedignatus veritatem: Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est, fidelis fuit & visus, & auditus in Monte, fidelis & gustus Vini in nuptijs, fidelis tactus Thomae: Recita testationem johannis; Quod audivimus, inquit, quod oculis vidimus, & manus nost●ae contrectarunt de sermonevitae. Falsa utique testatio, si ●culorum & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur.  If we yield not to the suffrages of Senses, some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of ointment, which he received (meaning another than the natural Sent thereof) before his Burial. And immediately he addeth, (mark we pray you) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine, than was that, which he consecrated for the memorial of his blood. That then, which Christ Tasted, was first Consecrated. Next, he invadeth the Heretic Martion, for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth, and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles. Faithful (saith he) was their sight of Christ in the Mount, Faithful was their Taste of Wine at the Marriage, Faithful was the Touch of Thomas, etc. (then concluding:) which Testifications (saith he) had not been True, if their senses had been Liars. So he in his confutation not only of the natural Academici, but also of the Heretical Marcionites, who (contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis Apology of Tertullian, in behalf of the verity of the Senses, doth minister to all Christians four Conclusions. First, not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects: but to discern of Subjects, and Substances, by their Accidents. Secondly, that our Outward Senses rightly constituted (more especially the Sense of Feeling) are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Objects. Thirdly, that this verification of Subjects, by their Accidents, is common with Christ, his Apostles, all Christians, and with every reasonable man. And lastly, that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally Wine, after Consecration, by the judgement of the Senses, because he instanceth in this very point: teaching that Christ had the same taste of Wine afterwards, which he had before in that, which he consecrated; even as he had also the same Sent of Ointment after, which he had before his Burial. And all this even now, when he convinced Martion of Heresy, an Enemy to the Catholic Faith, in denying the Truth of Christ's humane natural Body, notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses.  
Here had been a full and flat Evasion for that Heretic to say, what tell you us of the validity of the Evidence of two Senses, concerning the Truth of Christ's Body, seeing you your-selves gainsay the judgement of four Senses at once, in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament? This, we say, they must needs have replied, if that the Catholics then had been of your now Roman Belief, to think that all the Senses are deceived, in judging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or Wine; and so might they have blown away all this Catholic Confutation of Heretics and Infidels with one and the same breath.  
Come now hither all ye that say we must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case; and tell us whether any Protestant could have been more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian, in his Defence of this Truth? whereby he also defendeth the Catholic Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ, and was never hereof questioned by any Catholic, in, or since his days.  
Let none of you object that of the Disciples, in their way to Emmaus with Christ, of whom it is said that [
* Luc. 24. 16.  They could not know him:] for the same Text giveth this Cause, that their eyes were holden, lest they should see him: and after, 
* Ib. vers. 31.  Their eyes were opened, and they saw him. So the Evangelist, which is so far from infringing any thing that hath been said, for the Infallibility of Sense, rightly constituted and disposed, that this thereby is notably confirmed. We call upon Hierome to witness, saying; 
* Hieron. ad Pammach: contra Err●res johan. jerusal. Episc. Scias errorem fuisse non Corporis Domini, sed oculorum fuis●e clausorum: nam aperti sunt oculi eorum, & videbant.  The Error of not discerning Christ, when he was in the midst between them, was not in Christ's Body, but in their eyes, because they were closed that they could not see. Apply we 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 believe to be in itself invisible) but in your Eyes, as being shut up; when notwithstanding you will be known, that these are open enough for discerning Colours, and forms of Bread and Wine?    

Our Fourth Proof, that the Substance of Bread remaineth, after Consecration, is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects.  
SECT. X.  
THe Effects, which you 
n (1) & (2) Hostia magna quantitate sumpta verè nutrire potest. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 77. art. 6. Etiam Apostolus 1. Cor 11. [Alius Ebrius, quidam esurit:] ubi Glossa not at eos, qui post Consecrationem oblationes suas vendicantes inebriarentur. Aquin. ibid. (3.) Archiepiscopus Eboracensis hausto in ipso Calais (ut aiunt) veneno obijt, Matth. Paris. Anno 1154. in vita Steph. ●tem, Victor Tertius veneno Calici primae Missae mixto perijt, Malmsbur. lib. 3. cap. 39 & Volaterr. lib. 23. Henricus Lucelburg. Imp. cum Eucharistiam acciperet â Fratre ordinis Praedicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis, & à Siciliae rege subornato, illicò caepitaegrotare: ferebatur Monachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse, quo & Calicem, & Hostiam infecerat: mox obijt Imperator, & Beneventi animam Deo reddid●t, Anno 1313. Cuspinian. & Valater. lib. 23. (ut refert Zuingerus.) (4) Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est, cum experimentis construe. Difficultas ergo circa modum est. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art. 5 Disp. 57 pag. 427. Alij ex aere vermes generari dicunt. Thomas refert hanc ●pinionem, sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei, quod ad sensum apparet: quod reverà ità est, satisque ab ipso quatuor rationibus confirmatur. Suarez. ibid. (5) Generatio, & Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis, quae divinitùs locum tenet materiae Panis, ut Thomas explicat. Greg. de Valent. Ies. lib. 2. Exam. mystag. Calvin. pag. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam, sed solam quantitatem sufficere, ut subster formae substantiali advenienti, sive de potentia eius educatur, sive per nutritionem varietur. Sic Thomas, & Alij. Fundamentum huius opinionis est, quià conveni●ntèr hic modus est sine novis Miraculis. Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi om ninò, & incredibilis.— Dicendum est, necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam, ex qua Generatio fiat, quià deratione essentiali huius Compositi est substantialis materia; propter quod Aristoteles dicit, Impossible esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ. Ergo impossibile est, ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae, & substantialem Causalitatem eius. Suarez. quo supra Disp. 57 Art. 8. §. 〈◊〉. 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 finè necessitate. (6) Mihi tamen videtur eandem numero esse.— Etiam iuxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam, Alens. Bonavent. Innocent. nec maius est miraculum, siuè eandem, siuè materiam novam facere. Suarez. ibid.  yourselves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament, are these. First, That the Cup doth inebriate, or make drunk. Secondly, The Host taken in great Quantity doth nourish. Thirdly, That, it being poisoned, it poisoneth. Fourthly, That having been long reserved, It engendereth worms, which are bred out of it; and are also fed of the same. Fiftly, That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantial; and that the Contrary Opinion is false, and Incredible. Sixtly, That this matter, whereof worms are bred and fed, is the same Bread, which was taken before Consecration. So your own prime Schoolmen, Historians, and Jesuits respectively.  
If then the Bread, now engendering worms, be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated; How say you that being Consecrated it is not still the same, our Senses giving Testimony thereunto?  

THE FIRST CHALLENGE.  
HEre you have nothing to answer, but that the Bread, whereof new worms are Bred, whether it be the same that was, or not; yet being Bread, it is wrought either by a 
o Quomodò fiat haec materia.— Thomistae aliquot dicunt per Conversionem aliquam in ipsum Panem: Alij iterùm Creari; & hoc verius. Suarez. quo supra.  Miraculous Conversion, or by a New Creation. What? you, who every where teach that none are to conceit of any Miracle in this Sacrament, without necessary Cause, can you possibly be persuaded that there is, or can be any necessary Cause, why God should work a Miracle, either of Conversion into, or of New Creation of Bread, for Breeding, or Feeding of worms? or of Wine, for making such men Drunk, as should taste too largely of the Cup? yea, or else to poison our Enemy, were he 
p See above at (n) num. 3.  Emperor, or 
q Platina in vita Victoris. Henrici Regis fraud (ut Martinus scribit) veneno in Calicem iniecto, dum sacrificat, necatur. See also above at (n) num. 3.  Pope? Nay can it be less than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles, for the accomplishment of vain, wicked, and mischievous effects? But far be it from us to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ, who by his Touch cured so many diseases, in the time of his mortality, should now, being glorified, miraculously poison his Guests whosoever they be.  
Believe (if you can) that if God wrought (as you say) a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread, to engender, or nourish vile worms, that he would not much rather work a miracle, (if any such miracle were herein to be expected) to hinder the poisoning of his faithful Communicants. In all this we appeal again to true Antiquity, and require of you to show, we say not some express Testimony of Primitive Fathers, but so much as any intimation or insinuation, were it but by way of a Dream, of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host (when it beginneth to putrify) by being changed again into Bread; or of Mice eating the Body of Christ, or that being putrified it should breed worms; (seeing it were rather a miracle they should not be so bred) or any such kind of Romish Fancies, and delusions; or otherwise to confess your Obiectours to be miserable Proctors of a vile, and desperate Cause. Yet lest any of your may think, that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine, and made drunk with the smell thereof, therefore mere Accidents do Inebriate: your jesuit will deny this, and tell you that it is the 
* In Cella Vicaria, novis vinis impletâ, solus A●r odore infectus inebriat. Coster. Ies. Christian. Institut. lib. 1. c. 8.  Air infected with the odour which maketh man Drunk.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE, with a Caution.  
YOur Common, and most plausible Objection, to dementate vulgar people, is to persuade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith. Therefore, for Caution-sake, be it known unto you, that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses, as holding nothing Credible, but that, which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses.  
This we utterly abhor, as the Gulf of Infidelity, proper to the Athean Sect: for we accord to that saying of an holy Father, Fides non habet meritum, ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum; and also to that other of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Exposed. Fidei.  justine. In which respect we condemn the Incredulity of Thomas, in that he would not believe, except he should See: yet notwithstanding we, with our Saviour, approve in Thomas, that by Seeing he did believe. 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 belief of any Sensible thing, which was Contrary to the exact judgement of his Senses. And therefore your opposition, in this Case, as it is Senseless, so it is indeed Faithless; as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers; by whom the judgement of Sense hath been acknowledged to be, in Sensible Objects, a notable Ground of Faith.    

Our fifth Proof, that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance, after Consecration, in this Sacrament, is by the judgement of Ancient Fathers. First from due Inferences.  
SECT. II.  
TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers infer a necessary Consequence, for proof of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised, and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed. But we shall be content with those few which do more properly appertain to this present Dispute, concerning the nature of a Body. First Irenaeus, speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration, as being not now common Bread, said that 
r Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis, qui est à terrâ, iam non Communis Panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ, & caelesti: Sic Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiam iam non sunt Corruptibilia, sed spem Resurrectionis habentia.  It consisteth of an earthly part, and an heavenly: how? even as the Bodies of the Communicants (saith he) are no more corruptible, having an hope of the Resurrection to come. Scan these words by the Law of Similitude, and it must infallibly follow, that as our Bodies, albeit substantially Earthly, are notwithstanding called Incorruptible, in respect of the Glory and Immortality, in which (through hope) it hath an Interest; Even so the Earthly Substance of this Sacrament, being Bread, is nevertheless endued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramental Representation of Christ's Body. Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat, saith that the 
s Origen. in Math. 15. Ille Cibus, qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei & Orationem, iuxtà id quod habet materiale in secessum emittitur. And after he calleth this [Materiale] Materia Panis, super quem dictus est Sermo. Ibid.  Material part thereof goeth into the Draught, or siege: 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, Material, in this place, think you M. 
* Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 11. Subd. 3.  Breerly? namely, Magnitude, and other Sensible Accidents, which in regard of their Significations, are materials. So he. Very learnedly answered forsooth! If Magnitudo, that is Greatness, be a Material thing, be you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof? for whatsoever is Material, hath that appellation from its Subject matter. Is it the Body of Christ? then must you grant (which we, with holy Fathers abhor to think) that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught: or is it Bread? Then farewell Transubstantiation. Nay, will you say, but they were Accidents; And we Answer, that it was never heard, no not in your own Schools, that mere Accidents were called (which are Origen's words in this place) either Meats, or Materials. Yea, and Origen (that he might be known to understand Material Bread) furthermore calleth it now, after Consecration, Matter of Bread.  
S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence; 
t Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius sermo Christi, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud convertantur?— Tu eras vetus Creatura, pos●quam Consecratus, nova Creatura esse coepisti.  As one Baptised had been an old Creature, and was made a new one, even so (speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration) they being changed into another thing, remain that which they were before. But he (you know) that was baptised remaineth after Baptism in Substance the same man, although, in respect of Spiritual Graces, he suffereth a Change. Of which Testimone more 
* See below, Chap. 4. Sect. 2. at the let (c.)  hereafter.  
Cyprian is a Father much alleged and urged by you, in defence of Transubstantiation; but is now at hand to control you. 
u Cyprian. lib. de Vnctione. Dedit Dominus noster in mensâ, in qua ultimum Convivium cum Apostolis participavir, proprijs manibus Panem & Vinum: in Cruse verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, ut in Apostolis secretiùs impressa sincera veritas & vera sinceritas exponeret Gentibus, quomodò Panis & Vinum Caro eius essent & sanguis, & quibus rationibus Causae effectis convenirent, & diversa nomina, vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, ut significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis conserentur.  Our Lord gave in this Banquet (saith he) Bread and Wine with his own hands, when he pertaked thereof with his Apostles: but on the Cross he delivered up his Body to the Soldiers to be pierced with wounds, to the end that sincere verity, and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles, he by them might manifest to the Gentiles, how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood, and by what means there may be agreement between Causes, and Effects; and how different names and forms might be reduced to one Essence; that things signifying, and things signified might be called by the same names. So he. A Catholic Father, as all know; whom if you ask, what Consecrated thing it was, which Christ had in his hands, and gave to his Disciples, he answereth it was Bread, and Wine; and not absolutely that, which he gave up to be Crucified on the Cross by Soldiers, (namely) his Body, and Blood. If again you demand of Cyprian, why Christ called the Bread, which he had in his hand, his Body, he readily answereth saying: The things signifying (or Signs) are called by the same names, whereby the things signified are termed.  
A 
* Causabon Exercit. ad Baronij Annal. c. 38. Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad Philadelph. de Eacharistia loquens; Panis, inquit, omnibus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Comminutus est. Vox haec propriè de iis usurpatur, quae in minutas partes comminuuntur: Sunt qui cas micas vocant. August. in Epist. 59 ad Paulinum; Cum illud, ait, quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur, & Sanctificatur, ad distribuendum comminuitur. Idem Casaub. quo supra. cap. 50. Osim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potius, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Patres in Synod. Nicaen. Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, and Baronius himself, Anno 57 nu. 149. Eucharistiae parts, Tert. de Monog. Buccellas: & August. ac Alij Particulas vocant.  Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the judgement of Antiquity, from the Testimonies of diverse 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 Bits than Parts. Thus they spoke expressly of Bread Consecrated; but to say that you eat bits and Fragments of whiteness, of Roundness, and other Accidents, who is so absurd among yourselves? And to affirm the same of Christ's body, who is so impious? Somewhat more of this, when we shall appeal to the Canon of that famous Council of 
* Below in the fourth Book. Ch. 9  Nice.  
Another Inference we may take from Antiquity, in her calling this Sacrament [Pignus] a Pledge (so 
y Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem, & memoriam reliquit, quemad modùm siquis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei, quem diligit, derelinquat, ut possit eius amicitias, & benficia commemorate.  Hierome, and 
z Gaudent Tract. 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti eius Novi, tanquàm Pignus suae Praesentiae, dereliquit.  Gaudentius) of the Presence of Christ now departed from us. A Perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ, by virtue of the Relation between the Person and his Pledge. The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following.   

A Confirmation of the same judgement of the Fathers, acknowledging in express terms Bread to remain after Consecration, in Substance, the same.  
The First Father is THEODORET.  
SECT. XII.  
THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference between two Parties, being in Controversy about the humane and bodily nature of Christ; the one is named Eramstes, upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretic, for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians, who (falsely) held, That the Body of Christ, after his Ascension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deity, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as before his Resurrectiit had been. The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholic Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himself did sustain, in behalf of the Catholic Church. In this Dispute the Heretic is brought in, for Defence of his Heresy, arguing thus; Even as Signs in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed into the Body of Christ: Even so, after his Ascension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanists and Protestants confess to have been the Doctrine of these Heretics. This was that Heretic his Objection. The Orthodox, or Catholic (which was Theodoret himself) cometh to answer, promising to catch the Heretic, as he saith, in his own Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: 
a Th●●d. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctificationem mystica signa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paulo post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorem habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (ut summatim dicam) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] etiamsi post resurrectionem immortal, & immune ab omni corruption.  Nay, But as the mystical Signs in the Eucharist, after Sanctification, depart not from their former nature, but continue in their former Figure, Form and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Form, Circumscription, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Substance] which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set down in the name of a grand Heretic, 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 Catholic Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants, defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore, if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresy:) which diverse have undertaken to do by their Answers, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at; and so false, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them.  
The Principal Answer is that, which your 
b Non loquitur de substantiâ quae distinguitur contra Accidentia, & quam in Categoricâ posuit Aristoteles; sed de Essentiâ, & naturâ Accidentium. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. 27. §. Sed me.  Cardinal giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Form, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] meant not Substance properly understood, but the essence of Accidents. So he. An Answer (by your leave) notoriously, ridiculously, and heretically False.  
First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodoret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the other Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logic (as you know) that the words and terms, betokening the same Similitude, 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, Form, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the main point in Question between Theodoret and the Heretic; viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had been in time before his Resurrection (the Heretic denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same only in Quantities, and Accidents; for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable, 
* 1. Cor. 15. 〈◊〉.  Corruption putting on Incorruption, Mortality Immortality, 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, Form and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken.  
Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Form, which are known to be Accidents, and adding [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Accidents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so unlearned, who did add the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] to Forms, and Figures, but he thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents.  
Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresy of the E●tychians? tell us; They (say 
c Alphonsus à Castro de haeres. Eutych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam humanam; tantùm i● eo ponentes naturam divinam.  you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but only Divine. Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantial nature of Man; and therefore in his comparison, made for the illustration of that Heresy concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Figure, Form, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the same word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] had the same signification of Substance, as your Master Brereley afterwards is compelled to confess: who, to the end he may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justify the Heretics speech to be Catholic, for proof of Transubstantiation.  
Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answer Retorting (as he himself saith) the Heretics Comparison against him, did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; but by a shameful Tergiversation had betrayed his Catholic Cause unto that pernicious Heretic. Much like as if one should use this comparison following. As the Moonshine in the water (in the opinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bigness with the Moon in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithful. And another retorting the same should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moonshine in the water is not of the same bigness with the Moon in the Firmament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithful. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyal Affection by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signify lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in 
* Alter hircum mulge●: alter cribram supponit.  Agellius, where such an Obiectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-Goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to another holding under a Sieve.  
Here had we fixed a Period, but that we again espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) coming against us with a full career, who after that he had been 
* Vid. Protestants Appeal, Book 2. Ch. 2. § ●0.  confuted, for urging the former Objection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answer, he blusheth not too regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to himself of the futility thereof, he leaveth it presently, falling foul upon Theodoret, as though that Father had been in some distemper, when he so writ: 
d In his Liturgy of the Mass. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3 p. 254.  saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his 
* Not so, for he was now not in a personal dispute, but deliberately writing against the Heresy of the Eutychians.  heat of Dispute. Then he taketh part with the Heretic, saying, It is not likely that an Heretic should have urged against a Catholic sentence for Transubstantiation, as for a point of Faith well known, if the same doctrine had been then either unknown, or else condemned as False. So he, who might as well have reasoned in the behalf of the Sadduces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressly have denied that there are any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had been then either unknown, or condemned as False by the Church of God among the jews. And yet it is certain that the Heresy of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church. Now if the Eutychian Heretic find such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father Theodoret? Harken, Theodoret being an Orthodox Bishop (saith he) could not have propounded the Heretics Argument, as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same been then unknown, and reputed False. So he, who, if he had not lost his Logic, would certainly have argued contrarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodox and Catholic Bishop, would never have set down an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a rank Heretic, and after himself impugned and confuted the same, except he had known it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholic Church in his time. Wherefore if you 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 forlorn of all Truth.  
For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answer of your jesuit Valen●ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvel (saith 
* Valent. Ies. lib. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo responsum. Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palàm in Ecclesia agitaretur, minime mirùm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui minùs considerate, & rectè hac de resenserint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto ipsam quaestionem.  he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought less considerately and truly, before that Transubstantiation was handled publicly in the Church, especially they not handling the same Question of purpose. So he; and this he calleth a brief and plain Answer. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Transubstantiation had not been so Anciently handled in the Church, he plainly confuteth your now Roman Church, which judgeth it to have been always an Article of Faith: And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretic in an extemporal speech personally, but deliberately and punctually by writing, and therefore of Purpose.   

The Second Father, expressly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, is Pope GELASIUS.  
SECT. XIII.  
THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius, and urged his Testimony. Your Disputers cavil; First at the name of the Author, calling Protestants 
e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius, ut Adversarij impudentèr iactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 27.  Impudent, for styling him Pope Gelasius. But if he were not that Pope Gelasius, what Gelasius might he be then? Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, saith your Cardinal Bellarmine. Contrarily your Cardinal 
f Baronius himself contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496. num. 123. etc. yet coming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasius, doth expound the doubtful words thereof by the Phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist. 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 after Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying: Vides, Lector, ex usu verborum Phrasiqúè dicendi Gelasij Papae, & alia eius sententia perspicuè demonstratum esse, etc. Et Anno 496. num. 13. Gelas. in Epist. ad Picen. ait, Peccato Originali substantiam hominis esse depravatam, cum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; utpote iustitia originalis, & alia dona erant corrupta.  Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 476. (namely) Gelasius Citizenus; yet so, as confounding himself, insomuch that he is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesseth) of Gelasius Pope of Rome. But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants, as your Cardinal hath called them? Surely nothing, but we require more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meaner to follow than these 
g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem. Genad. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita Gelasijs. Margarinus de la Bigne lib. 5. Biblioth. Patrum p. 467. Masson. de Episc. Rom. in vita Gelasijs. Alphons. lib. de haeres. 'tis Christus. haeres. 3. in fine. Onuphrius de Create. Pontif. & Cardin. Gelasius (inquit) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem, & Nestorium. Fu●sse Caesariensem Episcopum, non posse jure affirmari, videtur. And proveth, why not.  Historians, viz. Genadius, yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius, Alphonsus de Castro, Onuphrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have entitled this Gelasius Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that he was an Orthodox Father, and very Ancient.  
Now then, Gelasius said that 
h Gelasius lib. de duab. nature. cont. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis, & vini; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And again. Permanentin proprietate naturae.  The Sacraments of the Body, and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread, and Wine. In Answer whereunto, both your foresaid 
i Bellar. & Baron. quo suprà. At dicit Gelasius, In Divinam t●anseunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ proprietate naturae. [By this it may be seen, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latin Author, (but what is this to the Greek Theodoret?) when the Latin Language was not so perfect, and that he did use the word equivocally, but yet so, that the matter itself doth challenge a proper use thereof, when he speaketh of the Substance of Bread.]  Cardinals here, (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will compel the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For whereas the Heretic 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, be not in both places taken properly, Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason, as any reasonable man will confess. For albeit Similitudes do not amble always on four feet, yet if they halt upon the right foot (which is the matter in Question) they are to be accounted perfect Dissimilitudes.  
Master 
k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. p. 259.  Brereley would have you to know, that this Gelasius (whosoever he were) writeth against the same Eutychian Heresy, 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 we assure ourselves of the consent of this Gelasius with us, until you shall be able to free yourselves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Mr. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius, from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation: so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself, then that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet. Whereas, indeed, he saith no more than, in a mystical sense, any Protestant must, and will allow, viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing, and that whosoever eat spiritually the Body of Christ, are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature, which dwelleth in Christ bodily, saith the Apostle. So Gelasius.  
To which saying of Gelasius, touching the Eucharist, is answerable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen, concerning Baptism, calling it a 
l Greg. Nyssen. Aquam per benedictionem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrum sit, à quò mirabiles existunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo.  Divine Laver, working miraculous effects. Yea, and Dionysius the 
m Dionies. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. §. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread itself in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporal Change, what a number of Transubstantiations must you be enforced to allow? Fie upon blind boldness! This man's falsity, in alleging Chemnitius, I let pass.  
It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Disputers how earnest they have been to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your own Historians. May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony objected was distasteful unto them, when they so greatly feared, lest this Witness should be thought to have been a Pope and Supreme Paster of your Church?   

Two other Testimonies from Antiquity, for the express acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration, in the Sacrament; Chrysostome, and Bertram.  
SECT. XIIII.  
CHrysostome his words are these, that 
n Chrysost. Ante Consecrationem Panem vocamus, Divina verò gratiâ Sacerdotis ministerio sanctificatur, & digna appellatione Dominici Corporis habetur, etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit. Epist. ad Caesar.  Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread, being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ, albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still. Your Exception is, that this Epistle is not extant among the works of Chrysostome. This Answer might satisfy us, were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of 
o So our Peter Martyr.  Florence, and 
p So your Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, lib 2. de Euch. as he is cited.  Canterbury. To whom may be adjoined the Author of that Unperfect work, still standing under the name of Chrysostome, and by you upon any occasion objected against us; wherein it is expressly said, that 
q Author operis imperfecti, in Math. hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sit periculosum, in quibus non est Corpus Christi, sed mysterium Corporis eius continetur; quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitandum praeparavit?  The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels. 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 been admonished by one 
r Dr. james in his Specimen corruptelarum, etc. Haec verba habentur in editione Antwerpianâ. Anno 1537. apud joh. Steelsium, & in Parisiensi An. 1543. apud joh. Roydwey, ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum, Anno 1557.  most worthy and able to advertise in this kind.  
Bertram is our next witness from Antiquity, being about 800. years ago, and never noted of Error anciently, until these later times of Booke-butchery (that we may so call your 
s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini. 810. de Corpore & Sang. Christi: Prohibitum est omninò à Clemente Octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum. Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Bertram.  Index Expurgatorius) denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Book. But why? what saith he? He maintaineth (saith your 
t Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis & Vini substantiam, quae figuram, similitudinem, & appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit. Senenens. Biblioth lib. 6. Anno 196.  Senensis) that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine. And indeed so he doth in his 
u Bertramus. Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerant ante Consecrationem, hoc & posteà consistunt: Panis & Vinum prius extitêre, in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt, permanere videntur. de Corpore Domini, pag. 38.  Book dedicated to the Emperor Carolus Calvus, which also he affirmeth to be written 
x Animadvertat (Clarissime Princeps) sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs, & Patrum dictis etc. Idem. pag. 65.  According to the truth of Scriptures, and judgement of Ancient Fathers before him. This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the University of Douai, which, confessing him to have been a Catholic Priest, framed diverse Answers, whereby they meant to prevent all objections, which Protestants might peradventure urge under the Authority of this Author Bertram. But how? Mark this Romish Profession of answering Protestants, as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of ancient Writers: 
y judicium Vniversitatis Duacensis. Bertram Ca●holicus Presbyter, & Monachus Corvinensis— In Catholicis veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errores, & extenu●mus, excusemus, excogitato Commento saepè negemus, & Commodum eis sensum affingamus, dum obijciuntur in Disputationibus cum Adversarijs. Index Expurg. iuxta Conc. Trid. Decret. 2. Philip. 2. Reg. Hispan. iussu Anno 1571.  Let us (say they) in Disputation with our Adversaries, objecting ancient Authors, tolerate many of their Errors; extenuate, and excuse them; yea and oftentimes, by some devised Comment, deny them; as also by feigning to apply some apt sense unto them. So that University. This being the guise and professed Art of your Schools, to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation; what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering? Let us leave Bertram under the Testification, and Commendation of Abbot 
z Bertramus Presbyter, qui in divinis Scripturis valdè peritus, non minùs vitâ, quam doctrinâ infignis, multa sciripsit praeclara Opuscula, de quibus ad meam notitiam pauca pervenerunt. Ad Carolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imp. scripsit Commendabile opus de Praedestinatione; & libru●… unum de Corpore, & Sanguine Domini. Trithem. Abbas.  Trithemius, for his Excellent Learning in Scripture, his godly life, his worthy Books, (and by name this now mentioned, written expressly) Of the Body and Blood of Christ.    

CHAP. IU.  

Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctors, taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, for Transubstantiation.  
Or, an Antidote to expel all their poisonsome Pretences in that behalf.  
SECT. I.  
THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients, used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers, in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under False pretences. First, upon their terming the mystical Act A Work of Omnipotency. Secondly, their denying of the Eucharist to be Naked, and Bare Bread. Thirdly, in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the judgement of their Senses. 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 seem to make for Transubstantiation, as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the same Fathers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptism, and also to other sacred Rites, wherein you believe there is not any Substantial Change at all.   

The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers, in objecting the Father's speeches of●an Omnipotent Work in this Sacrament, for proof of Transubstantiation.  
SECT. II.  
A Work of Omnipotency is attributed by diverse Fathers to the Change, which is made in this Sacrament, which we likewise▪ confess. 
a Ambros. Se●ino Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutate, quod non erant etc. De myster. initiand. c. 9— At omnipotentia non requiritur, ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 14. Ambrose ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio con. secravit. Idem. Ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior. & Aug. lib. 3. de Tr●…tate, cap. 4.  Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction, made in this Sacrament, unto many miraculous works of God; yea, even to the work of Creation. 
b Ex Cyprian de Coena Domini. §. Secundum.— Panis iste non effigy, sed naturâ mutatus omporentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas▪ ità Sacramento visibili divina se effundit essentia. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9 [whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance, but the Condition: Et factus Caro, is no more than a Sacramental and mystical Being of the Body of Christ, as all other places of Cyprian show.]  Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature, by divine Omnipotency. 
c Aug. de Trinitate, lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante spiritu Dei, quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motus sint, Deus operatur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo.  Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles, saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God. Accordingly we hear 
d Chrysost. hom. 83. Non sunt humanae virtutis haec opera, quae tune in illâ Coenâ confecit, ipse nunc quoque operatur, ipse perficit, ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus: qui vera haec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est. This is objected by Mr. Breerly, Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. pag. 111 Liturg.  Chrysostome proclaiming, that These are not works of humane power: He that changeth, and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper. Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers, as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation; and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwark impregnable; but why? 
e See above in his objecting of Ambrose.  Because (saith your Cardinal) Omnipotency is not required to make a thing to be a Sign Significant. See he. We answer first from your own Confessions, and then from the Fathers themselves.  
There are two works observable in every Sacrament: one is to be not only a Sign of an Invisible grace, promised by God: but also both a Seal and Pledge thereof, as all Protestants hold; and (as your most opposed 
f Calvin. Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quam Instrumentales esse conferendae nobis gratiae Causas. Antid. in Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 5.  Calvin teacheth) an Instrumental cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments. In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotency of a Divine work, without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament, either to signify, or yet to seal, much less to convey any Grace of God unto man. And (that we may take you along with us)▪ It is the Doctrine of your Church, with common consent (saith your Roman 
g Solus Deus (communi Consensu) instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest, quae gratiam efficiunt, aut etiam infallibiliter significant. Bellar. lib 1. de Sacram in gen. cap. 23.  Cardinal) that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament, because he only can give them power of conferring grace, and of infallible signification thereof. So he. Well then, as well infallible Signification of Grace, as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the work of the same Omnipotency. To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinal Alan, speaking (as he saith) from the judgement of Divines, 
h Card. Alan. de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 〈◊〉 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem, neque ad ullam Creaturam pertinere: nec hoc solum sed etiam, etc.— propter solam significationem Gratiae, quain Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus, debebant eriam vetera Sacramenta determinari per appplicationem n●ortis Christi: quià licet quidem in Creaturis, ad signationem effectuum spiritualium, aptitudo quaedam sit, t●men ista aptitudo non nisi à divinainstitutione determinatur ad peculiarem effectum. Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet, at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet, & hominis sanctificationem repraesentet; divinaetantùm institutionis est, per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consu●tudinem, non solùm quoad vim operandi, sed etiam significandi. Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari, quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum, ut in veterilege, quae dabant munditiem legalem. These (he saith) that he speaketh, Ex Theologorum Sententia.  telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to bear a signification of some spiritual effect, yet cannot the aptness be determinately applied unto any peculiar effect, n● not so much as to signify the outward Cleanness of man's Body (Sacramentally) without a Divine Institution: much less to represent man's sanctification, but being so determinated and ordained of God, the Creature (saith he) is elevated above the Custom of nature, not only in respect of the work of sanctification, but even of signification also. So he; And that as well as we could wish: for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament, and this Instrumental Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace, to the Faithful Communicant, is the General Doctrine of all Protestants. But what Change shall we think? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, as you teach? No; but as 
* Book 2. Chap. 2 §. 7.  before Isidore said, The Change of visible things, by the spirit of God, into a Sacrament of Christ's Body.  
Seeing then that both Divine power, and authority is required 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 spiritual and divine property of a Sacramental Signification, as one of your Cardinals hath said: What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers, from the terms of Omnipotency and Divine working, which is necessary in all Sacraments, to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread, by Transubstantiation, as you have heard.  
But much more transparent will their unconscionableness be, if we consult with the Objected Father's themselves. For first Ambrose, who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament, explaineth himself what kind of Efficacy he meant, viz. such that 
i Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut incipiant esse quae non erant, quantò magis Operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud convertantur 〈◊〉— Tu ipse eras vetushomo, postquàm consecratus eras, novus homo esse coepisti.  The things changed into a divine Sacrament 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 seem you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new 
k These words are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603. As Bishop Usher witnesseth in his Answer to the jesuit.  Editions: notwithstanding, by God's providence, so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place, as will convince your Obiectors of wilful Falsehood, telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate 
l See above at (i)  of an old Creature is made a new Creature: which is (as every Christian knoweth) not a change in the substantial nature of man, but in the Accidental properties. So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramental. And the same Father who said of a man, that by Baptism he is made a new Creature, saith also of this Sacrament, that 
m Per Benedictionem natura ipsa mutatur. Ambros. De iis qui mysterijs initiantur. where C. 9 ●e addeth, for Explication; Corpus significatur.  By Benediction Bread is made another nature, (namely) of an Elemental become Sacramental, as you have heard; and as his own words import, After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified: and that, which was Wine, Is called Blood.  
In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud yourselves, for to your Lindan 
n Lindan. Aurea prors● sunt Divi Cypriani verba— h●c mihi advigilate, Evangelici, & Divum Cyprianum orbis totius Doctorem, imò miraculum, iudicem incorruptibilem audite. lib. 4 cap. 6.  The words of Cyprian appear Golden: and he must needs provoke, forsooth, all Gospelers to hearken unto them: which also seemeth to your 
o Hoc Testimonium nullam admittit Solutionem. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9 §. Secundum.  Cardinal To admit no solution. Our Answer first unto the Author is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian: may we not? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us (saith your Master 
p Master Brerely Liturg. Praef. § 14 pag. 51.  Brerely) attributed to Cyprian. Whom of your Side he meant by [Us] you may be pleased to ask him; sure we are your Cardinal doth tell us that 
q Author illius de Coena Domini non est Cyprianus, sed aliquis post eum. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9 §. Extet.  The Author of this Book is not Cyprian, but some other after him. But, not to disclaim your Author; all that he saith is that 
r Cyprian. de Coenae Dom. Panis iste naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro, etc.  Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure, but in Nature. This is all; And all this hath been, but even now, quitted by your own Confessions, granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramental Change, where the natural Element is altered from its common habitude into the nature of a Spiritual Instrument and use, both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace: and so the word Nature doth import. The Schools, distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects, show that there is an Accidental Nature as well as a Substantial. Theology teaching that 
* Ephes. 2. 3. August. Ipsam naturam aliter dicens: cum proptièloquimur naturam hominis inculpabilis factus est.  By nature we are the children of wrath; wherein Nature signifieth only a vicious Quality. This saying, viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature, when they are commanded, Master 
* Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 6.  Brerely alloweth of, as for example: a Surplice being commanded by lawful Authority, the use thereof becometh necessary, so that the nature thereof is Changed, yet not in the Substance of the thing, but in the legal necessity of the use.  
But to come nearer, Answer us but this one Question. Whereas all learning alloweth this saying, that in Baptism the nature of the Element, and the nature of the Sacrament are different, whereupon it is said; The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament: when we shall say of the water in Baptism, that the Nature of it, as of a Sacrament, is more excellent than is the nature of it, as it is a mere 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 of immediately following the Testimony objected, doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude, comparing the Humanity, and Deity of Christ with the Natural and Spiritual parts of this Sacrament, to wit; 
s Et sicut in person● Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat Divinitas; ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia. Author C●n●. Ibid. §. Quarto.  As in Christ himself true humanity appeared in his flesh, and his Deity was hid: (This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and first part of this Similitude; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and next part followeth) Even so in this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth itself. So he, which, by the law of a Similitude, must stand thus: Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seen, and the Spiritual operation of God's power therein to the Faithful is Invisible. Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithful; The words are audible, and sensible, but because of the inward working of God's Spirit, for the Conversion of Man's soul, it is called 
* Rom. 1. 16.  The Power of God unto salvation: as likewise Baptism is made the Lavacre of Regeneration; whereof Greg. Nyssen affirmeth that 
t Greg. Nyssen. Orat. de Baptismo. Divinum Lavacrum magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem, & mirabiles producit Effectus.  It worketh marvellously by benediction, and produceth marvellous Effects. As for Augustine, and Chrysostome (not to be superfluous) every Protestant doth both believe and profess, namely, a Divine Operation of God, both by changing the Element into a Sacrament, and working by that Sacrament Spiritual Effects, to the good of Man's soul.   

The second unconscionableness of Romish Disputers, in abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, is seen in objecting their denial of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament, for an Argument of Transubstantiation.  
SECT. III.  
TO this purpose Irenaeus, saying that 
a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Her. c. 34. Non est Panis Communis. Bellar. Obijcit l. 2. de Euch. per totum.  It is not Common Bread: Ergo (say you) not to be properly judged by Sense. Unconscionably, knowing that 
b Sol. Chrysost. in Ps. 22. hom. 16. De aqua Baptismi. Non est aqua Communis.  Chrysostome (and also all other Fathers whom you moreover object) saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptism, 
* See in this Sect. lit. (〈◊〉. h)  We are to behold it not as common water. The second i● justine Martyr, saying; 
d Bellar. Ob. justin. Mart. l. 2. Apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sol. Ratio. quià 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Eucharisticatus, siuè sanctificatus Cibus.  We receive these not as Common Bread, or Common Drink. Therefore (say you) we may not judge them by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that justine Martyr in the same place showeth his Reason, why it is not to be called Common, even because (saith he) it is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Sanctified meat. And so Water in Baptism is Sanctified, as you know. The third is Cyril of jerusalem, saying, 
e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 1●. Ob. Cyril. Hieros'. Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sol. Idem Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Consider these, not as Common Bread and Wine: Ergò (say you) not to be judged by Sense. Unconscionably, knowing that the same Cyril, in the same place, saith the same of the water of Baptism: It is not simple Water. Yea, but he further saith (say 
f Ob Cyri●●. mystag. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you) Think not of it, as of bare Bread (adding) but the body of Christ. Ergò (say you) not to be judged otherwise by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that the same Father in the same place, for explanation sake, saith likewise of 
g Sol. Sequitur: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem Cat●…. Mystag. 3.  Sacred Oil, viz. Even so that holy Oil is not bare and simple Oil (Adding) but the gift of Grace.  
And that your Authors unconscionableness may be the more notorious, in their wresting of the Catholic meaning of the Fathers, in this kind, we must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteem, as they ought, all Sacramental Signs Sacred; and therefore no more Common, or bare Elements. Insomuch that Gregory Nyssen, speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament, which is the Altar, or Table of the Lord, he saith that 
h Greg. Nyssen. Altar hoc sanctum, cui adfistimus, lapis est naturâ Communis, nihil differens ab aliis crustis lapideis, ex quibus pavimeta nostra exornantur: Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur, & dedicatur, & benedictionem accepit, mensa facta, & Altar immacula●um est. Orat. de Sancto Baptism. Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum, neque id Commune putes, etc.  Although by nature it be but as other stone, wherewith the Pavements are garnished, and adorned; yet being Consecrated to God's Service, by Benediction, it is an holy Table and Altar. Yea, and what less doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsam, Beads, and Bells, and the like, all which you distinguish from Common, and bare Oils, and Metals, because of their different use; and service, without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all?   

The third unconscionableness of your Disputers in urging, for proof of Transubstantiation, the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, forbidding men to [Discern of this Sacrament by their Senses.]  
And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril, by two egregious Falsifications.  
SECT. IV.  
WE may not easily pass over your Objection taken out of Cyril, being in the opinion of your Cardinal so impregnable; Let us first hear your Obiector. 
i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet, est n. huius Sancti, & antiquissimi, & ex opere eius indubitato, & clarissimum & apertissimum, ut nullo modo perverti possit; & est in Catechesi, in quâ solent omnia propriè & simplicitèr explicari, & deniqué nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicuius circa Eucharistiam. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13.  This Testimony of Cyril alone ought to suffice, being the Sentence of an holy man, and most ancient, out of a work which (unquestionably) was his, yea and most clear, and plain, as that it cannot be perverted: Besides it is in his Catechism, wherein the use of all things is delivered simply, properly, and plainly: Nor was this Father Cyril ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist. Thus far your Cardinal, you see, with as accurate an oratory of Amplification, as could be invented. What Protestant would not now, if ever, expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholic Cause? but attend to the Issue.  
First, 
k Cyril. Pro certissimo habeas Panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis, Panem non esse, etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit, sed esse Corpus Christi— Rursus. Christus cui credamus, Panem in Corpus Transmutavi●— Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus: sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis. Catech. Mystag. 4.  Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste, but although Taste saith it is Bread, yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ, whereinto the Bread is changed. And he is brought in by your 
l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi, & solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem, quià dicit Corpus Domini sub spec●e Panis sumi, distinguens Corpusd Pane. Bellar l●… de Euch. cap. 13. adding; Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum.  Cardinal to aver furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the form of Bread. And so the Sentence seemeth to be most manifest, saith he. But for what we 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 form of Bread. So he, and Master 
* Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subed. 4. pag. 116.  Brerely from him, as followeth; Cyril saith, under the form of Bread his Body is given, etc. and then dancing in the same triumph, addeth; Can any Catholic of this Age write more plainly? So he. And we answer, could any jugglers deal more falsely? For upon due examination it will appear to be a manifest Delusion, by a false Translation of Cyril's words. The Body of Christ is given (as your Cardinal doth render it) sub specie Panis, under the form of Bread; whereas it is in the Greek, 
m Cyril. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Catech. Mystag. 4. Rursus. Mystag. 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem, & Vinum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Under the Type of Bread: even as he saith afterwards; Think not that you taste Bread, but the Antitype of Christ's Body. In both, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] not, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] Type, and Antitype, not Form, or Figure of Bread.  
Now there is a main and manifest difference between Form, and Type. For Accidental Forms are things Real, and the determinate Objects of Sense; but Types, or Antitypes are only Relatives, and (as such) no Objects of Sense, but of Reason, and understanding only. As for Example, when a judge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench, the Eye seeth nothing but red Scarlet, and the fashion of the Gown, and outward figurature 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 judge, ordained to try Causes between parties, is a sight of the mind, which looketh upon his Office, to discern 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, Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding only.  
As therefore it followeth not, that the Scarlet Gown of the judge, because it is an Ensign of his Office, should be only Colour and Fashion, without the matter and Substance of the Cloth; no more can any conclude from Cyrill, that because the Sacrament is a Type, therefore this Type was only Form, and outward Accidents, without all Substance of Bread. And thus your Cardinal his first [Apertissimum Argumentum] for proof of Accidents, without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament, is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum, void of all substance, or almost shadow of Truth.  
His next observation is the Change by Transubstantiation, and the error of Sense, in judging it to be Bread. We call upon Cyrill to decide this Controversy, who is best able to interpret himself. He therefore that said of the Eucharist, after Consecration, It is not Bare Bread, but the Body of Christ, affirmed as much of Consecrated Oil, saying, It is 〈◊〉 Bare Oil. But we are answered, that 
n Bellar. Hoc confirmat sententiam nostram. Nam Cyrillus non eodem modo loquitur de Chrismate, & de Eucharistia. De hac enim ait, Non esse Panem Communem, sed Corpus Christi: de Chrismate vero dicitur quidem, non esse Commune Vnguentum, sed non addit Spiritum sanctum, vel Corpus Christi: sed esse Chrisma Christi sanctificatum oleum. Lib. 2. de Euch. C. 13.  Cyrill, in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread, called it after Consecration Christ's Body: but in denying Oil to be Bare Oil, he called it yet still Chrism (that is) Sanctified Oil, after Consecration. So your Cardinal. And so are we posed for ever. But behold another jesuitical Fraud! For Cyrill as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body, after Consecration, so doth he call the Consecrated Oil [Charisma] that is, the Gift of the Grace of Christ; and not [Chrisma] that is, Chrism, or Ointment, as your Cardinal rendereth it.  
We say again he calleth that Charisma, which notwithstanding he saith was, after Consecration, still Oil, wherewith their Foreheads were anointed. This must we judge to have been a notable Falsification of Bellarmine, except you would rather we should think, that when he was now to prove that our Senses are deceived, in judging of Bread to be Bread, he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himself, in thus mistaking the word Chrisma, for 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Catchy. Mystag. 3.  Charisma, and so utterly perverting the judgement of Cyrill; by whom we are contrarily taught, that the Sight is no more deceived in judging Bread to be Bread, than in discerning Oil to be Oil. For neither was the other Bare Oil, being a Type of a spiritual Gift; nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spiritual Grace itself, because it is so called; but only is a Type and Symbol thereof. Which One Parallel of Oil with Bread doth discover the Unconscionable pertinacy and Perverseness of your Disputers, in urging the Testimony of Cyrill.   

The like Romish Objection out of Chrysostome, and as Unconscionable.  
SECT. V.  
SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted, which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent, that your 
p Bellar. lib. 2. de Buch. c. 22.  Cardinal placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers, whom he produceth, as able to break through an army of Adversaries alone; and Mr. 
q Master Brereley, Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 2. pag. 167.  Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies, which he alleged, as that which might serve for an Upshot. I will conclude (saith he) admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying (you long to hear it, we think:) Although Christ his speech (saith 
r Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. Etiamsi sensui, & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit, superatque sensum nostrum & rationem sermo ipsius, quaeso, quod in omnibus rebus, sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus? non illa quae ante nos iacent aspicientes, sed verba tenentes? nam verbis eius defraudari non possumus, sed sensus saepi● fallitur. Quoniam igitur ille dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum] nulla dubitatione teneamus, sed credamus, nihil enim insensibile traditur à Christo nobis, sed in rebus sensibilibus. Omnia verò, quae tradidit, sunt insensibilia; sicut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud conceditur— Regeperatio intelligitur, quià est: nam si incorporeus esses, incorporea tibi tradisset dona; quoniam verò anima conjuncta est Corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit.  Chrysostome) may seem absurd unto Sense and Reason, jexhort you notwithstanding that especially in mysteries we look not unto that which is before us, but observe Christ's words: for we cannot be disappointed of that, which he saith, but Senses may be deceived. Wherefore, because he said [This is my Body] we are altogether to believe it, for he delivereth no sensible things unto us; but all which he delivereth in things sensible are insensible: even as in Baptism the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible. For if thou wert without a Body, than things only unbodily should be given unto thee, but now because thy Soul is joined with a Body, therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible. So Chrysostome.  
Now what of all this? Chrysostome (saith your 
s Bellar. Non po●uisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariù's, si Calvinistan aliquem habuisset, quem hor●ari ad fidem voluisset. Ibid. quo supra.  Cardinal) could not speak more plainly, if he had had some Calvinist before him, whom he meant to exhort to the Faith. So he, meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation, which (as hath been confessed) was no doctrine of Faith until more than a Thousand years after Christ. But to return to Chrysostome, whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut, consisting of a Shell, and a Kernel: The Shell we may call his Figurative Phrases: the Kernel we may term his Orthodox meaning. Of both in the Section following.   

Of the Rhetorical, and Hyperbolical Phrases of Chrysostome.  
SECT. VI  
TO begin with the Shell. First, we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetorical Trope, or Figure, which may be defined to be an Excessive speech, signifying a Truth in an Untruth. As to say, Something is more dark than darkness itself; which being strictly taken were an Impossibility, and Untrue: but it doth imply this Truth, (namely) that the thing is wonderfully, and extremely dark.  
Secondly, that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole, your own 
t Non sunt Concionatorum verba in rigore accipi●nda, quùm primùm ad aures perveniant, multa enim per Hyperbolen Declamatores enunciant: ●●c interdum Chrysostomo contingit. Senensis Biblioth. Annot. 152  Senensis doth instruct you; where giving a general Caution, that Fathers in their Sermons do use to declaim Hyperbolically, he doth instance most specially, by name, in Chrysostome.  
Thirdly, that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome, upon this Sacrament, do verify as much, viz. to tell his people, that 
u Dentes Carni suae infigere Chrysost. hom. 45. in joh. Lingua cruentatur hoc admi●abili Sanguine. Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circumfusam rubifieri. Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.  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 he is as Hyperbolical in denying (in the Celebration of this Sacrament) the judgement of Senses, saying, 
x Num vides Panem? num vinum? nè putetis Corpus acc●pereab homine, sed ex ipso Sera●hinforcipe ignem. Idem. Tun. 3. de Euch. in Encaenijs.  Do we see Bread, or Wine? which is spoken in as great an exuberancy of speech as are the next words immediately following, saying: Think not that you receive the Body from a man, but fire from a Seraphin, or Angel, with a pair of Tongues. You will think (notwithstanding those kind of Phrases) that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread, and Wine in this Sacrament, as he could discern either Man from a Seraphin, or Spirit; or his own Fingers from a pair of Tongues.  
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 unconscionably; both because every Sacrament by your own Church is defined to be 
y Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae signum visibile. Magist. Senten. lib 4. dist. 1. Sacramentum est res sensibus obiecta. Ca tech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. c. 11.  A Sensible Sign; and also for that you yourselves confess that 
z Sensus non fallitur circà proprium obiectum. Sententia vera. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24.  Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Objects.  
Sixtly, that Chrysostome himself well knew he did Hyperbolise herein, who after that he had said, No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament; notwithstanding he addeth immediately, saying of this Sacrament, that In things Sensible, things Intelligible are given unto us. Thus far of the Rhetoric of Chrysostome.  
Now are we to show his Theology, and Catholic meaning, as it were the Kernel of his speech. He in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soul, and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministered to the Body, as Symbols of Spiritual things, which are for the Soul to feed upon. So that a Christian, in receiving this Sacrament, is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Object, as if that were only, or principally the thing offered unto us; No, for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Souls of their spiritual Benefit. As for Transubstantiation, and Absence of Bread, Chrysostome, in true Sense, maketh wholly against it, by explaining himself, and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptism: As in Baptism (saith 
a Sicut in Baptismo etc. Chrysost. See above §. 5. at (r.)  he) Regeneration, the thing intelligible, is given by water the thing sensible, the Substance of water remaining. Which proportion, between the Eucharist and Baptism, is held commonly by ancient 
* See hereafter at large, in the 8. Book.  Fathers, to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation. And that Chrysostome believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration, 
* See above Chap. 3. §. 13.  hath been already expressly shown, and is here now further proved. For he saith of Bread after Consecration, that 
b Nos per hunc Panem unione coniungimur. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.  We are joined together one with another, by this Bread.  
And now that you see the Nut cracked, you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolical Phrases, and left the kernel of Theological Sense for us to content ourselves withal. Furthermore (for this is not to be omitted) the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art, which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament, that 
c Chrysost. Homil. 50. in Matth. iuxta Edit. Graec. Nè existimes Sacerdotem esse, qui hoc facit, sed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] then followeth of Baptism, Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  Man is not to think it is the hand of the Priest, but of Christ himself, that reacheth it unto him; seeing immediately 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. Thus far concerning the judgement of Senses, which hath been formerly proved (at large) both by 
* See above. c. 3. §. 7.  Scriptures, and 
* Ibid. in the Chapters following.  Fathers; we draw nearer our mark, which is your Transubstantiation.   

Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers, in urging other Figurative Sayings, and Phrases of the Fathers, of Bread Changed, Transmuted, etc. into the Body of Christ, for proof of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense.  
SECT. VII.  
Such words as these, Bread is the Body of Christ; It is made the Body of Christ; It is Changed, Translated, Transmuted, Transelementated into the Body of Christ, are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity; which if they were literally meant, according to your Romish Sense, there ought to be no further Dispute. But if it may evidently appear, by the Idiom of speech of the same Fathers, that such their sayings are Tropical, and sometimes Hyperbolical, then shall we have just Cause to tax your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes (if not of more) in this, as in any other.  
For whensoever they find in any Father (as in 
c Eusebius Emiss. Ad est Substantia Panis, sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi. Hom. 5. Objected by Mr. Breerly. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2.  Eusebius) these words; The Bread is the Body of Christ, they object it for Transubstantiation; but Unconscionably. 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 been 
* See above, Book 2. throughout.  proved by Scriptures, and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech. Secondly, seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things, as Cyrill of Sacred Oil, saying, this is Charisma, the Gift of Grace; as he called also the Holy Kiss a 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill. sup.  Reconciliation, and others the like, as you have heard. Thirdly, seeing that you yourselves have renounced all proper Sense of all such Speeches, because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another; for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body, than we can say, An Egg is a Stone, as you have 
* See above, Book 2 c. 1. §. 4.  confessed. Again, Some Fathers say, Bread is made Flesh, as 
e Ambros. De Pa●e; Fit Corpus caro Christi. O●. by Bellar. lib. 2 de Euchar. c. 14. and by others.  S. Ambrose. objected; but Unconscionably, knowing First, that you yourselves are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread. Secondly, knowing the like Idiom of Fathers in their other speeches; Chrysost. saying that 
f Chrysost. Nos secum Christus in unam, ut ità dicam, massam reducit, neque id fide tantùm, sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit. In Math. 26. hom. 83. Ob. by Mr. Breerly. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd▪ 2.  Christ hath made us his own Body, not only in Faith, but in deed also: And Augustine saying that 
g Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Capite ●uo, quod ascendit in coelum, unus est Christus. Enarrat. in Psal. 127. Etin Psal. 26. Titulus Psalm● Omnes in illo, & Christi, & Christus sumus.  Christians themselves with their Head, which ascended into heaven, are one Christ: yea, and Pope 
h Leo, De homine Regenerato per Baptismum. Vt susceptus à Christo, & suscipiens Christum, non idem sit post Lavacrun, quod ante Baptismum fuit, sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat ●aro Crucifixi. Serm. de Passione. 14.  Leo, saying of the party Baptised, that He is not the same that he was before Baptism, by which (saith he) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified. Finally, Venerable Bede saith; 
i Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Name & nosipsius Corpus facti sumus, & quod accipimus, nos sumus.  We are made that Body which we receive. In all which the word [Made] you know, is far from that high strain of Transubstantiation. We draw yet nearer to the Scope.  
We may not deny, but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voices higher, unto the Preposition Trans; as 
k See above C. 4. §. 7.  Transit, Transmutatur, signifying a Change, and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ. Every such Instance is, in the opinion of your Doctors, a full demonstration of Transubstantiation itself; and all the wits of men cannot (saith one) Assoil such Objections. Wherein they show themselves altogether Unconscionable, as hath been partly declared in Answering your Objected Sayings of 
l See above C. 4. §. 2.  Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur; of 
m Ibid. at the Letter (r.)  Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus; of Cyrils' Trans-mutavit; and as now in this Section is to be manifested, in answering your other Objections to the full.  
The Father 
o Gregor. Nyssen. Quicquid assumenti conveniens est, & expetitum sit, ut Apostolus vult, qui hanc mensam nobis praeparavit, in id commutatur; infirmioribus olus, Infantibus Lac, etc. Lib. de vita Mosis. p. 509.  Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna, which satisfied every man's taste that received it, 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 Cardinal, to prove Transubstantiation; but First Unconscionably; because it is in itself (being literally understood) even in your own judgements, incredible: For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing? much less into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire? No. But as Manna did satisfy the bodily Appetite: so Christ's Body to the Faithful is food satisfying the Soul in the Spiritual and heavenly desire thereof. Secondly, Unconscionably objected, because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolical manner of speech likewise, saying that 
p Greg. Nyss. Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nost●um ingrediens totum in se transfert. Ob. by Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 10. §. Idem Greg.  Christ's Body doth change our Bodies into itself, which in the Literal Sense, according to your arguing, would prove a Transubstantiation of men's Bodies into Christ.  
Chrysostome is found admiring these mysteries, and is objected by Mr. 
q Mr. Breerly. Tract. 2. §. 4 Subd 2 p. 164.  Breerly, for proof of the wonderful Effects of this Sacrament. Why? what saith he? 
r Chrysost. Admiranda Mysteria— ut non solùm per dil●ctione●, sed reipsa in illam Carnem convertamur. Hom. 45. in joh.  We ourselves (saith he) are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ. Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen. Will your Disputers never learn the Hyperbolical language of ancient Fathers, especially when they speak of Sacramental, and mystical things? (more especially Chrysostome, who, when he falleth upon this Subject, doth almost altogether Rhetoricate:) but chiefly when they cannot be ignorant that such words of the Fathers, in the Literal strain, are utterly absurd. For what greater Absurdity than (as is now objected) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ? Now are we passed the limits of due Antiquity, you descend lower.  
Theophylact will say hard to us, who, speaking of this Sacrament, saith indeed that 
s Theoph. in Mar●. 14. Vocat hanc Conversionem Transelementationem, quae quidem vox nihil minùs significat, quam transubstantiatio: nam Transelementatio significat mutationem totius rei— ad ipsam materiam, quae ab Aristotele Elementum dicitur. Si mu●atio solius Formae, rectè dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transformatio, & mutatio, externae figurae transfiguratio, cur mutatio substantiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantiatio? Bella. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundo.  The Bread is Transelementated into the Body of Christ: which your Cardinal will have to be, in the same Father's sense, Equivalent with your Transubstantiation. Unconscionably, for doth not the same Father say likewise that 
t Theoph. in joh. 6. Qui me manducat, quodammodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  A Christian is in a manner Transelementated into Christ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spoke of 
u Isidor. Pelusiot. l. 3. Epist. 107. De recipiente semen, ut terra bona: Qui verbu recipit [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  Transelementing, in a sort, of the word of God into the good hearer. Again, Theophylact is objected, as saying, 
x Theoph in Mat. 26. Panis ineffabili modo transformatur— Panis quidem apparet, sed ca●●●st. Objected by Mr. Breerly Liturg. Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. As for [est caro] this Phrase hath been already answered. See above at (s)  The Bread is after an ineffable manner Transformed. It is true; He saith so: and so doth Hi●rome say that 
y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem, & benedixit, fregit, Transsigurans corpus suum in Panem: quod est Ecclesia praesens, quae frangitur in passionibus.  Christ in breaking Bread, did Transfigure, or Transform his Body into his Church broken with afflictions: and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 
z Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corporis, quam ut in id, quod su●imus, transeamus. De passi●…e Serm. 24.  We Christians, in communicating [Transimus] turn, or are Changed into Christ his Body. So these ancient Fathers.  
Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Unconscionably, and Impertinently? No, for Mr. Breerly, for a Close, desireth to be heard, and to try us with an Objection out of the Greek Church of these latter times, as followeth. 
a Mr. Breerly in his Apologic (of the first Edition) concerning the faith of the ancient Greek Church.  It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberg, Anno Domini 1584. entitled [Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. etc.] that the Greek Church at this day (although divided from the Latin) professeth to believe Transubstantiation. So he of the Patriarch Hieremias; which Patriarch, if we were alive, would very hardly contain himself from answering this your Brother with some indignation, calling him both rash and praecipitant; seeing that the same Patriarch expressly said that 
b Hier. Patriarch. Non enim hîc nominis tantùm communicatio est, sed rei identitas: etenim verè corpus & sanguis Christi mysteria sunt; non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur, sed nos in illa, melioribus praevalentibus. Which is his Answer in this point, to the Doctors of Wittemberge.  These Mysteries are not changed into humane Flesh.  
Mr. Breerly would think it an injury done unto himself, if we should praetermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory: for Doctor Humphrey (saith he) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation. So Mr. Breerly, who objected this in his Apology many years ago, and had a full Answer in an 
* Appeal. lib. 1. Ch. 2. §. 7. [The testimony itself, cited out of Greg. by Mr. Breerly, is answered in the first Book, concerning EATING.  Appeal made purposely in confutation of his whole Apology. The Sum of that Answer is this: Doctor Humphrey did not speak that, as grounded upon any Sentence of Gregory, but only upon the report of a Romish Legend (supposing it to be true) which in the judgement of Romish Doctors themselves (whose Testimonies are there cited) Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact, being in itself fond, filthy and frivolous; the Author whereof may seem to have a face of Ir●n, and a heart of Lead; and the Obiectour, namely Mr. Breerly (for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History) A Falsifier of his own promise. This Answer was home, one would think, and might justly have provoked him to satisfy for himself; if he could have found any error therein: yet notwithstanding, for want of better service, bringeth he in these Coleworts twice sod.  

CHALLENGE.  
What greater unconscionableness could your Disputers bewray, than by so torturing the Hyperbolical Figurative, and Sacramental Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proof of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ? insomuch that they must be consequently constrained, by the force of some Phrases, contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers, and to the Doctrine of your own Romish Church, to admit of three other Transubstantiations: viz. First, of Christ his Body into what soever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire. Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian. And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ; as the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce. In all which Objections they do but verify the Proverb: Qui nimis em●ngit, elicit sanguinem.    

Fiftly, the like unconscionableness of your Romish Disputers is unmasked, by laying open the Emphatical Speeches of the Fathers, concerning Baptism, answerable to their Sayings objected, for proof of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist.  
SECT. VIII.  
COncerning Baptism we have 
* See above in this Chap. §. 3. etc.  heard already, out of the Writings of Antiquity, as efficacious Terms, as you could object for the Eucharist. First of the Party Baptised, Changed into a new Creature. Secondly, that no Sensible thing is delivered in Baptism. Thirdly, that The Baptised is not the same, but changed into Christ his fl●sh. Fourthly, to think that It is not the Priest, but God that Baptizeth, who holdeth thy head. Lastly, Baptism (saith the Council of 
* Book 8. Ch. 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Baptisma non Corporis, sed mentis oculis considerandum. Apud Bini●m. lib. 3. Decret. Conc● Nic. de Baptismate.  Nice) is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body. Of these already, and hereafter much more in a General Synopsis reserved for the Eight Book.  

CHALLENGE.  
ONly give us lean to spur you a Question before we end this third Book. Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be, by your own Doctrine, except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be there remain only the Accidents thereof (this Position of the continuance of Only Accidents, without a Subject, being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation) Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto ever able to produce any one Testimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity, for proof of this one point, excepting only that of Cyril, which 
* See above, Ch. 4. §. 4.  hath been (as you have heard) egregiously abused and falsified? Learn you to Answer this Question, or else shame to object Antiquity any more; but rather confess your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe.  
We might enlarge ourselves in this point of your unconscionableness in objecting Testimonies of Fathers, for proof aswell of Transubstantiation, as of the other Articles abovementioned; but that they are to be presented in their proper places, to wit in the following Treatises, concerning Corporal Presence, Corporal Union, Corporal Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and the Divine Adoration thereof; so plainly that any man may be persuaded, our Opposites mean no good Faith, in arguing from the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
Hitherto of the First Romish Consequence.      

THE FOURTH BOOK,  
Treating of the second Romish Consequence, arising from the false Exposition of these words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY] called Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
THe Sacramental Presence hath a double Relation, one is in respect of the thing sensibly received, which is the Sacrament itself; the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant: Both which are to be distinctly considered, as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand, as also for Method's sake. The first is handled in this Book: the second in that which followeth.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the state of this point of Controversy:  
That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be only De modo, that is, of the manner of Being; yet may the Romish Doctrine be Heretical: and to hold the contrary is a pernicious Paradox.  

SECT. I.  
IT would be a wonder to us, to hear Any of our own profession to be so extremely Indifferent, concerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, as to think the Romish Sect therefore either Tolerable, or Reconciliable, upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo, (that is) of the manner of Being, and that consequently all Controversy about this is but vain jangling. Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts, to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon diverse Heresies, albeit their difference from the Orthodox profession were only De modo. As for example, First, The Gnostick taught man's soul to have its beginning by manner of Production, from the substance of God. The Catholics said nay, but by manner of Creation, of nothing. The Pelagians maintained a free will in spiritual Acts, from the grace of Nature. The Catholics nay; but by special grace of Christ, freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit. The Catharists held themselves pure, in a purity of an absolute perfection: The Catholics nay, but by an Inchoative, comparative, and imperfect perfection of purity. Furthermore against our Christian Faith, of believing God to be absolutely a Spirit; the Anthrepomorphites conceived of God, as of one (after the manner of men) consisting of Arms and Legs, etc.  
Not to be tedious. We come to the Sacraments. The Cataphrygae did not baptise in the name of the blessed Trinity, after the manner of the Catholics. The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese. To omit many others, take one poniard, which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes of the Cause (to wit) the heresy of the Capernaits, in the days of our Saviour Christ: who hearing his Sermon, teaching men to Eat his flesh; and conceiving thereby a carnal manner of Eating, irreconciliably contrary to the spiritual manner, which was believed by the true Disciples of Christ, departed from Christ, and Apostated from the Faith. And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaitical; her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious; her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous; and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church, is copiously declared in the Books following. For this present we are to exhibit the different, and contradictory manners, concerning the Presence of Christ herein.  
The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the judgement of Protestants. 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome.   

That Protestants, albeit they deny the Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament; yet hold they a true Presence thereof in diverse respects; according to the judgement of Antiquity.  
SECT. II.  
THere may be observed four kinds of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament: one is veritas Signi, that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body; the next is Veritas Revelationis, Truth of Revelation; the third is Veritas Obsignationis, that is, a Truth of Seal, for better assurance; the last is, Veritas Exhibitionis, the truth of Exhibiting, and deliverance of the Real Body of Christ to the faithful Communicants. The Truth of the Sign, in respect of the thing signified, is to be acknowledged so far, as in the Signs of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Real Body and Blood of Christ. which Truth and Reality is celebrated by us, and taught by ancient Fathers, in contradiction to Manichees, Marcionites, and other old Heretics; who held that Christ had in himself no true Body, but merely Fantastical, as you 
a Marcionitae, Manichaei, & alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse, sed phantasticum esse. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24 §. Resp. Argumentum.  yourselves well know. In confutation of which Heretics the Father Ignatius (as your 
b Ignatius (citante Theodoret. Dlal. 3.) Eucharistia est caro Christi. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 2. Hoc scripsit Ignatius contra Haereticos, qui negabant Christum habuisse carnem veram, sed tantùm visibilem & apparentem.— Observandum est Haereticos illos non tàm Sacramentum Euch. quam mysterium incarnationis oppugnâsse. [True, and the Argument of Ignatius was the same which Tert▪ used also against the same kind of Heretics. Lib. 4. in Martion. [Hoc est corpus meum] Id est, figura corporis mei: Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritas esset corpus. See this in the place of Tertullian at large.  Cardinal witnesseth) called the Eucharist itself, the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius, in the sense of Theodoret, (by whom he is cited, against the Heresy of his time) doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ, because (as the same Theodoret expounded himself) it is a true sign of the true and Real Body of Christ: and, as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himself [This is my Body] that is (saith he) This Bread is a Sign, or Figure of my Body. Now because it is not a Sign, which is not of some Truth, (
* See above Book 2. Chap. 2. at (a.)  for as much as there is not a figure of a figure) therefore Bread being a sign of Christ's Body, it must follow, that Christ had a true Body. This indeed is Theological arguing, by a true Sign of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretics, that denied the Truth of Christ's Body. Which controlleth the wisdom of your 
c Concilium dicit verò contineri corpus in Sacramento contra Sacramentarios, qui volunt Christum adesse in Signo, & Figurâ: signa enim veritati opponuntur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap 2.  Council of Trent, in condemning Protestants, as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament, because, they say, he is there present in a Sign. As though there were no Truth of being in a Sign, or Figure; which were to abolish all true Sacraments, which are true Figures, and Signs of the things which they represent.  
A second Truth and Reality in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis, as it is a sign, in respect of the Typical Signs of the same Body, and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testament; yet not absolutely in respect of the matter itself, but of the manner, because the faithful under the Law had the same faith in Christ, and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body, and Blood of Christ, but in a difference of manner. For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy Seat, but with different faces oppositely: so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body, but with diverse aspects. For the Rites of the old Testament were, as 
d Augustin. contra Faustum lib. 19 pag. 349. Tom. 6. Delirat, qui dicit mutatis Sacramentis res ipsas diversas esse, quas ritus Propheticus pronunciavit implendas, & quas ritus Euangelicus annunciavit im●●●tas.— aliter res annunciatur facienda, aliter facta.  Saint Augustine teacheth, Prophetical prenunciating, and foretelling the thing to come: but the rites of the new Testament are Historical, annunciating and revealing the thing done, the former showed, concerning Christ his Passion, rem faciendam, what should be; the latter rem factam, the thing done, and fulfilled. As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more real than the Truth of Prophecy, because it is a declaration of a real performance of that, which was promised: So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to contain in it a more real verity, than the levitical. Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called 
* Heb. 10.  Shadows, in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospel; according to the which difference Saint john the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet, in that he 
* joh. 1. 15.  foretold Christ, as now to come: but he was called more than a Prophet, as demonstrating and 
* Ibid. 29.  pointing him out to be now come. Which Contemplation occasioned diverse Fathers to speak so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament, as if the Truth were in these, and not in them, as 
e Origen. Hom. 7. in Numer. p. 195. Illa in aenigmate designari, quae nunc in nova lege in specie & veritate complentur. [Calling ours Truth, yet not simply, but comparatively: for a little after he confesseth that they received Eandem Escam; i. e. Christum] Objected by Mr. Breerley Liturg. Tract. 4. Sect. 2. Subd. 4  Origen did.  
Besides the former two, there is Veritas Obsignationis, a Truth sealed, which maketh this Sacrament more than a Sign, even a Seal of God's promises in Christ; for so the Apostle called Circumcision (albeit a Sacrament of the old Law) the 
* Rom. 4. 11.  Seal of Faith. But yet the print of that Seal was but dim, in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments; which because they confirm unto the faithful the Truth, which they present, are called by other ancient Fathers (as well as by 
f Aug. tom. 4. de Catechizand. rudib. c. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum.  Saint Augustine) visible Seals of divine things. So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Sign or signification, but under a Seal of Confirmation also: which inferreth a greater degree of real Truth, thereby represented unto us. This might have been the reason, why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be 
g Aug. tract. 50. in joh. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum: habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum & potum. Tom. 9  Present both in Baptism, and at receiving the Lord's Supper.  
A fourth Reason to be observed herein, as more special, is Veritas Exhibitionis, a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithful Communicants the thing signified, and sealed, which Christ expressed, when he delivered it to his Disciples, saying; [Take, eat, this is my Body given for you: and, this is my Blood shed for you.] Thus Christ, by himself; and so doth he to other faithful Communicants wheresoever, to the ends of the World, by his Ministers, as by his hands, through virtue of that Royal Command, [DO THIS.] Vain therefore is the Objection made by your 
h Athanas. apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est, cui dicit, sede à dexteris meis— per quod corpus Pontifex fuit, & dictus est, per id quod tradidit mysterium, dicens; Hoc est corpus meum. This was objected by Bellarmine l. 2. de Euch. c. 11.  Cardinal, in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius, to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers; As though there were not a Truth in a mystical, and sacramental deliverance of Christ his Body, except it were by a corporal, and material presence thereof: which is a transparent falsity, as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift, which by writing, seal, and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man; yet this far more effectually, as afterwards will appear. But first we are to manifest.   

That the Romish Disputers do odiously, slanderously, and unconscionably vilify the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS.  
SECT. III.  
BEllarmine, with others 
i Christus nihil est illis, nisi frustum panis, & vini portiuncula. Salmeron. Ies. in Epist. Pauli disput. 11. §. Septimo. Eucharistiam esse tantùm figuram haeresis estantiqua: haec Calvini haeresis. Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9 §. Quorundam. Malè cocta buccella, mysterium carnale, nihil divini portentat— Refigit (inquiunt) in memoriam Christi meritum, eiusque generi nostro collata beneficia. Augustum sanè! nihil deterius ipsa praestat oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi. Weston de 3. hominis officio c. 16. Patus putus panis pistorius, & merum meracum, sive vinum cauponarium. Espenc. de Adorat. lib. 5. c. 9 p. 188.  object against Protestants, saying, that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread, and pittance of Wine. And again; A morsel of Bread ill baked, by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ, and the benefits thereof. A goodly matter! so doth a Crucifix: and to make the Sacrament only a Sign is an ancient Heresy. So they.  
But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharistical Bread to be (more than bare Bread) a Sacramental sign; more, an Evangelicall sign; more, a sacred Seal; yet more, an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver? And have not these outrageous Spirits read your own Cardinal? witnessing that the Protestants teach that 
k Doect Calvinus Symbola, & corpus Christi, licet loco inter se plurimùm distent; tamen coniuncta esse, non solum ratione signi; quia unum est signum alterius; sed quia per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum, & sanguinem, quo animae nostrae verè alantur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1. Et Calvinus affirmat saepiùs, Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento, quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur, & communicatur substantialiter: sic enim loquitur, secundum substantiam, non modò secundum effectum. Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissime que percipi. Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp. 6. quaest. 3. punct. 1. §. 7. pag. 9 Idem Sadäel & Beza sentiunt. Idem ibid. Haec est eorum sententia; licèt Christi corpus corporaliter & essentialiter sit in coelo, nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi, spiritualiter, & sacramentaliter; spiritualiter quidem ore mentis, non dentis, id est, per fidem & coniunctionem, virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis: sacramentaliter etiam, ore quidem corporis sumendo, non ipsum quidem corpus eius, sed signum corporis eius, panem, & vinum, quae dicit esse sigilla certa, quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore & sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur. Valent. quo supra.  Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven, yet is it received in this Sacrament; first Sacramentally by Bodily mouths, in receiving the Bread, the sign of Christ his Body, and by which God doth truly, albeit Sacramentally, deliver unto the faithful the real body of Christ: and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soul by faith, and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Bellarmine, concerning Protestants, which is so plainly professed by 
l Calvin. in his Book entitled, Defensio Calvini de Sacramento. Augustana Confessio; [In sacrâ Coenâ verè dari cum pane & vino ipsum corpus Christi, & sanguinem,] Huic consensum nostrum praebemus. Absit verò! ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem; vel pias animas tanto privemus beneficio, Defence. pag. 28. Huius rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa & veritas coniuncta est, quod scilicet Christi carne, & sanguine animae nostrae pascantur. Ibid. pag. 44. Sacram unitatem, quam nos habemus, cum Christo sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse. Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cum dicimus, fremunt, quasi hac voce realem (ut vulgò vocant) tollamus. Nos verò, si reale pro vero accipiant, ac fallaci & imaginario opponunt, Barbarè loqui mallemus, quam pugnis materiam praebere. Scimus enim quae non deceant logomachiae Christi servos. Ibid. p. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldió quicquam sit commune, qui nudum signum docuit. Ibid. Defence. 2. pag. 35. Figuratam esse locutionem fatemur, modò non tollatut figurae veritas, hoc est, modò res quoque ipsa adsit. Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor, tamen substantialem praesentiam, quam imaginantur, repudio. Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse, luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum efit. Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius Dei, modus igitur edendi Patribus à nostro diversus, quia Substantialis hodiè manducatio, quae tunc esse non potuit, nempe, dùm carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit, ut vitam ab eius substantia hauriamus. Ibid. pag. 83.  Calvin himself, as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies, who hath not abandoned shamefastness itself.  

CHALLENGE.  
THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body; nor so maintained the propriety of a Sign, or Figure, as not to believe the thing signified to be exhibited unto us, as you have heard. With what black spot of malignity and falsehood than were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled, think you, who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using only bare Bread, which they notwithstanding teach and believe to be a Sacred Sign of the true Body of Christ, in opposition to Heretics; an Evangelicall Sign of the Body of the Messias crucified, against all jewish conceit; yea a Seal of Ratification; yea and also a Sacramental Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the souls of the faithful, by an happy and ineffable Conjunction; whereof more hereafter in the 
* In the fist Book throughout.  Book following, where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appear.  
And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction, by the confessed positions of Protestants, so are they much more by your own instance of a Crucifix: for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ, that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood (now waxen old) should in disdain thereof call it a wooden, or rotten Block: and not account them irreligious in so calling it? but why? only because it is a sign of Christ crucified. Notwithstanding, were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion, or Devotion affect, or Superstition adore, yet is it but a sign invented by man; And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramental Sign be, which only the God of Heaven and Earth could institute, and Christ hath ordained to his Church, far exceeding the property of a bare sign, as you have heard? A Father delivering by politic assurances under hand and seal a portion of Land, although an hundred miles distant, and conveying it to his son by Deed, if the son in scorn should term the same Deed or writing black Ink; the Seal greasy Wax; and the whole Act but a bare sign, were he not worthy not only to lose this fatherly benefit, but also to be deprived of all other the temporal Blessings of a Father, which he might otherwise hope to enjoy? yet such like have been your Calumnies, and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ. The Lord lay not them to your Charge.  
Now you, who so oppose against the Truth of the mystical Presence, will not conceal from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, which your Church doth so extremely dote on.     

CHAP. II.  

The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament.  
SECT. I.  
Our Method requireth to consult, in the first place, in all questions, with the words of Christ his Institution; but seeing that you can allege nothing for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament, but only a literal Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body;] which by Scriptures, Fathers, your own Principles, and by unanswerable Reasons hath been 
* Book 2.  proved to be most grossly false, we shall not need to insist further upon that; only we shall but put you in mind of Saint Paul's words, in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, to wit, The showing of Christ's death until his coming again: meaning corporally, at the last day. Which word [UNTIL] being spoken of a last day doth exclude your coming again of Christ in his Corporal Presence every day; for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming, and not of the manner thereof; albeit other Scripture teacheth, that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility. We go on.  
In the Eucharist (saith your 
m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contine●i verè, realitèr, substantialitèr corpus, & sanguinem Christi Anathema sit. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis contineri. Greg. Valent. Tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 3. p. 1.  Council of Trent) is contained truly, really, and substantially the Body, and blood of Christ: and they account him Accursed, whosoever shall not believe this. By all which is signified a Corporal manner of presence (excepting only Relation to place) which we say is, in many respects, impossible, as we shall prove; but first we are to remove a Millstone, for so you esteem an Objection, which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporal Presence, de facto, from (as you say) Miracles manifesting the same.   

The pretended principal Romish Demonstration of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament, taken from pretended 
n Supremuslocus detur miraculis; veluti testimonijs ipsius Dei. ●ozius de signis Eccles. l. 14. c. 7. p. 170.  Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh, and Blood, revealed to the World.  
SECT. II.  
TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seals of Divine Truth: if therefore you shall allege any such, for proof of a Corporal Presence, see they be true, else shall we judge them, not to be God's Seals, but the Devil's Counterfeits. Your Bozius, one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome (professedly studied in historical learning, and appointed to extract out of all Authors, whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes) after his diligent search into all ancient Records, as it were into the Warehouses of all ●orts of stuffs, having collected a packet of Appearances, useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandise to sale; telling us by the way of Preface, 
o Hi● ea tantummodò referemus, quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse, & oculi humani viderunt, & quod est omnium mirabilissimum videre adhuc possint panem conversum in ipsum carnem Christi. Bozius de Sig. Eccles. l. 14. c. 7.  that he will report only such Stories, whereby it is made Evident by God himself, that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist, even by the Testimony of men's eyes, that have seen it. A thing (saith he) most miraculous, which every one that hath eyes may yet see. So he, even as 
p Coccius Thesaur. Cathol. lib. 6. de Eucharistia.  Coccius before him in every particular: and after both Master 
* In the place below-cited.  Brereley thus prefacing; Miracles sent by God confirm the same, wherein at the breaking of the Host, sundry times great copy of blood issued out, as is testified by many Writers. We are now attentive to the Relation of your Orator and Others, and afterwards (as you shall perceive) to give that credit unto them, which the cause itself shall require. We will take their Relations according to the order of Times.  
1. Anno CCCC. Simon Metaphrastes 
q Simon Metaphrastes narrat, etc. Bozius ibid.  (saith Bozius) telleth in the days of Honorius the Emperor (for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite) that the Sacrament being propounded, presently [Infans visus est] a living Infant was seen by three old men on the Altar: and whilst the Priest divided the Bread, an Angel was seen, and seemed to divide, and cut in pieces the flesh of the Child, and so [Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est, & resipiscit.] The old Eremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh, repent.  
2. Anno 600. A woman (as 
r johannes, & Paulus Diaconus in vita Gregorij narrat, etc. Bozius ibid. and Coccius Thesaur. lib. 6. de Euch. art. 8. Anno 590. And Master Brerely Tract. 4. Sect. 3. Subd. 1. out of Paulus Diaconus de vita Greg. lib. 2. c. 41.  Bozius reporteth, and with him Coccius) had laughed to hear the Bread called the Body of Christ, which she herself had made with her own hands, and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory: who thereupon fell to prayer with the people, and by and by looking aside upon the Host, behold the forms of Bread were vanished, and he saw [Veram carnem] true flesh: Then the people wondered, the woman repented, and the Host, at the prayer of the Priest [in pristinam formam reversa est] Returned into its own shape again.  
3. Anno 800. 
s Ante Annos propè octingentos, ut narrat Pas●asius, quidem Presbyter, etc. Bozius ibid. & Coccius.  A certain Priest called Phlegis, being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist, not that he doubted thereof, but that he might receive some heavenly comfort [Divinitùs] from God, after prayers for this purpose, he saw (after Consecration, Puerum jesum, The Child jesus) in the Host, [& amplexatus est eum, & post multam deosculationem, etc.] he embraced him, and after much kissing of him, he desired to receive the Sacrament, and the Vision vanished, and he received it. So he. These two last, are also alleged by your Cardinal 
t Bellar. lib. 3. de Each. c. 8. Deus non est te●●is m●ndacij, etc.  Bellarmine.  
4. Not many years after a fourth in Italy, 
u Ex Guitmundo, & Lanfranco, Bozius & Coccius ibid.  A Priest saying Mass, and finding [Veram carnem super Altar, verumque sanguinem in Calais,] True flesh upon the Altar, and true Blood in the C●p, fearing to receive it, forthwith reported it to the Bishop, demanding what he should do; The Bishop consulteth with the other Bishops his Brethren, by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh, shut them up in the midst of the Altar, [Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit:] The Bishop decreed, that these should be perpetually reserved, and kept as most divine Relics.  
5. Anno 1050. 
a Tempore quo, urgente nefando Berengario, haec in controversiam sunt adducta, ut Deus adstipulatus intelligatur veritati, & refragatus errori, etc. Baron●… 1059. num. 20. ex Petro Damiano.  Cardinal Baronius will needs have you know, that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God, as the Bishop of Amalphi (saith he) witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath; That when he was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ, in the Sacrament, at the breaking of the Host [Rubra & perfecta caro inter eius manus apparuit, it a ut digitos eius ●r●entaret] Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands, insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith.  
6. Anno 1192. Behold an History (saith your 
b Quae admiranda hoc seculo in Slavorum Historiâ, authore Helmoldo Abbate, huius seculi narrantur fide dignissima, acc●pe. His farm diebus, etc. Baron. anno 1192, num. 20, and 21. Haec de Transubstantiatione: confutavi● item idem miraculum Haeresin nuper obortam ●egantium aquam vino mixtam mutari in sanguinem. Baron. ibid. num. 24.  Cardinal Baronius) most worthy of belief (you must believe it.) At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a young Girl then sick, and had washed his fingers in a pot of water, she observing it very diligently, willed them that were by to uncover the water, for I saw (said she) a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it: which being brought unto her to drink, all the water was turned into Blood, and the piece of the Host, albeit no bigger than a man's finger, was turned [In sanguineam carnem] into a bloody flesh. All that see it are in horror, the Priest himself, suspecting his own negligence, feareth, and wisheth that it may be burned. After was this made known, and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz. This Archbishop commandeth his Clergy to attend upon this, whilst it should be carried in public procession until they came into the Church of the blessed Virgin Mary where prayers are made by the Archbishop, that God would be pleased to retransform this [in primam substantiam panis, & vini] into the former substance of Bread and Wine: and so at length it came to pass. Thus far the Story. This (saith the same Cardinal) maketh for Transubstantiation, and confuteth the Heresy of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood. So he.  
7. Anno 1230. 
c Bozius quo supra ex Viliano.  A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts, and joining together again, an Abbatisse dareth the Priest a Viol to put the Blood in, which the third day after appeared to be flesh. This Flesh is still reserved in a Crystal glass in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence: and although the outward forms thereof be somewhat dark, yet are they to be seen of all Travellers. So he.  
8. Anno 1239. 
d Bezi●s quosupra.  In the Kingdom of Valentia [Verè memorabile] a thing truly memorable; In the time of the wars between the Christians and Mahometans there was seen of the Priest in the Altar pieces of the Host enclosed in linen, and sprinkled with drops of blood, which Host afterwards by advice was laid, with all reverence, on the back of a Mule to be carried to that place, wheresoever the Mule should make a stand. The Mule (although enticed often by Provande● to stand elsewhere) never made stay until he came to an Hospital of Dorchara, where falling down upon his knees (lest he might afterwards carry any thing less noble, and worthy than that Host) protenùs expiravit] he suddenly died.  
9 
e Bozius ibid. ex Viliano, etc.  Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Mass in the King's Chapel at Paris, and was now in elevating the Host, to show it unto the people, many of them presently saw [formosissimum puerum] a most beautiful Child; And out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosusemanavit] much blood issued out; so that this cannot be imputed to the Art of the Devil.  
10. Anno 1261. 
f Bozius ibid. and Onuphrius in vita Vrbani Quarti. Viuꝰ sanguis ex hostia manavit, & totam mappan, quam Corporale vocant, tinxit.  [Illustrissimum illud] The most famous, upon occasion whereof the Feast of Corpus Christi day was first instituted, which Panvinus mentioneth in the life of Pope Vrban the Fourth, when there issued out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosus] Abundance of Blood. So that it cannot be attributed to the cunning of the Devil.  
11. Anno 1273. 
g Bozius ibid.  A Miracle was seen at Picenum, where a woman reserved the Eucharist, which she should have eaten, and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recovering the love of her Husband by Magic; The Host she laid on Coals, and it presently turned into flesh: She was astonished, but concealed it by the space of seven years, at length she discovereth it to a Priest, he found this flesh being hid so long in a Dunghill [intactam, & illaesam] perfect, and entire: he published this Miracle, which moved infinite numbers to come and see it. And even now, after, it doth yet incite men to come and visit it, for the flesh is seen after so many years uncorrupt, to the eternal memory thereof.  
12. Anno 1510. 
h Bozius ibid.  At Knobloch, a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburg, one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved, he sold it to a jew, The jew pierced it through with a Dagger, and blood flowed out, etc. Most of all these are related by Master 
i Master Brerely in his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, pag. 188. & 399.  Brerely Priest; whereupon he maketh this Conclusion: Miracles showed by God (saith he) do forceably confirm the same, for at breaking of the Host at sundry times great copy and abundance of blood issued out, as hath been formerly testified. So they.  
It were pity, when as so many Countries have been graced with such Miracles, England should be thought unworthy of like honour; nay here also we hear there was (Anno 950.) at Canterbury 
* Master Fox Acts and Monuments, pag. 1115. ex Osberno, in vita Odonis.  a Miracle wrought for confirming diverse Clergy men (then wavering) in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, by a Bloody dropping of the Host at Mass.   

That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh, and true Blood of Christ, by the judgement of Romish Schoolmen.  
SECT. III.  
YOur Bellarmine, Baronius, Bozius, Mr. Breerly, and Coccius have, for proof of the Corporal presence of Christ, insisted upon Apparitions of (as they have said) true flesh, red flesh, perfect flesh of the Infant jesus; and the child jesus seen, embraced, and kissed in the Eucharist: of wine turned into Blood, of Drops of Blood, sprinkling drops of Blood, issuing out, and bloodying the fingers of the Priest, that saw it. But we rather believe your Schoolmen, of whom (besides many 
k Reverà videri Christum in specie pueri, aut carnis opinantur, sed cum dubitatione, Alensis, Gabriel, Palacius, Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 55. §. 2. pa. 710.  that doubted) diverse, together with Thomas Aquinas, with the Thomists, and other Authors, alleged by your jesuit, Suarez, denied all this, saying 
l Dicendum est in huiusmodi apparitione non videri Christum in se: ita Thomas & omnes Thomistae. Suarez. ibid. Quandò apparet talis species, quidam dicunt, quod est propria species Christi corporis, nec obstare dicunt, quod aliqua tantùm pa●s carnis, aut quod species pueri appareat, quià potest Christus in qua vult specie apparere in propria sive aliena: sed hoc est inconveniens, quia species Christi non potest in propria specie videri, nisi in uno loco, in quo definitive continetur: undè videatur in propria specie in coelis, non videtur in hoc Sacramento. Legitur quandoque multorum Episcoporum Concilio in pixide reservatum, quod nefas est de Christo in propria specie sentire. Aquinas. par. 3. cue 76. art. 8. Quis facile credat, quando visus est sanguis ab hostia sluere, illud esse sanguinem Christi? vel quando Calix visus est repleri Christi sanguine, ibi esse Christi sanguinem extra venas corporis, ita ut tangi, aut bibi possit? Et simile est, quandò appareat quasi frustum Carnis, quod illa fit vera Christi caro: nam per seize apparent indecentia, sive multo, sive parvo tempore duret. Et nulla est necessitas tot multiplicandi miracula. Experientia docet mutari, & tabescere id quod videbatur caro, & sanguis, quod non potest ulla ratione carni Christi attribui. Dicendum est id, quod in huiu●m●di Apparitionibus videtur, non solùm non esse ca●nem & sanguinem Christi, sed non esse verum sanguinem, ●ut veram carnem, sed colore tantum, & figurâ. Suarez jesuit. quo suprà. And the jesuit Sillivitius Senensis, Moral. quaest. Tom. 1. Tract. 4. cap. 4. & 5. Num. 142. & 101. In istis apparitionibus non videtur caro & sanguis in se, sed tan●ùm figura & colour illam referens.  That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh, nor true blood of Christ at all. Their Reasons; First, Because Christ (say they) cannot appear in his own proper form in two places at once. Secondly, Because it were heinous wickedness to enclose Christ in a Box, appearing in his own form. Thirdly, Because Christ's Blood to issue, and sprinkle out of his veins, who can easily believe? Fourthly, Because it were undecency to reserve such Relics, experience teaching that they do putrify. Thus your own Schoolmen produced, and approved by Suarez the jesuit, whose Conclusion and Resolution is, that The flesh thus appearing is not only not the fl●sh of Christ, but even no true flesh at all, but only a colour, and Sign thereof. So they. Do you not then see the different faith of your own Historians, and of your own Divines? namely that those Historians as unclean beasts swallow down at the first whatsoever cometh into their Maws; but those your Divines, like more clean creatures, do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood, by sound reason and judgement, and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat liars; the Reporters uncredible Writers; and the Believers of them stark Fools.   

That the Romish Answer, to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments, or Illusions, is Unsufficient.  
SECT. IV.  
ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh (say 
m Quamvis non fiat ●t vera ca●o Christi, vel reverà vera car● (ut respondent Thomistae) sed tantum colour, & figura cius, tamen quod sit ext●ema species, sive imago divinitùs facta, sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 55. Sect. 2.  some of your Doctors) yet such Apparitions, being miraculously wrought, are sufficient Demonstrations that Christ's Flesh is in the Eucharist. But why should not we yield more credit to those Schoolmen? who say 
n Alens. Gabriel, Palacius dicunt quod miracula fiunt veris, & non apparentibus signis & figuris— Asserunt talem apparitionem non esse factam virtute Dei, sed Daemonis. Suarez. Ibid. [Where he addeth; Hoc ab iis gratis dictum est.]  True miracles use to be made in true signs, and not in such as seem only so to be; because seeming signs are wrought by the Art of the Devil. And we take it from the Assurance, which your jesuit giveth us, that 
o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum, ut argenti, auri, ●pularum, quemadmodum peritissimi Sculptores & Pictores varias formas, & figuras rerum ità fingunt, ut interdum verè esse videantur. Sed verè & propriè miraculum id dicitur opus, quod omnis naturae creatae vim atque potentiam excedit. Et una differentia, qua vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni, haec est, quòd falsa sunt phantastica, & simulata, ideoque non diuturna: vel sunt planè inutitila. Perer. Ies Ex●. 7. Disp. 4. Num. 34. & D. 5. N. 36, 38. Tertia ratio sumi potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis, ex dignitate personae corpus assumentis: quae cum sit veritas, non decuit ut in eius opere aliqua fictio insit. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 5 Art. 2.  Devils and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes: and that true Miracles are to be discerned from false, in that false Miracles carry only a likeness of things, and are unprofitable. Furthermore, your P Aquinas proveth against the Heretics, from Sense, that Christ had a true Body, Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person, who is Truth, that there should be any fiction in any work of his. Thus stand you still confuted by your own domestical witnesses.  
We may add this Reason, why there could be no Resemblances of Truth, because all the personal Apparitions are said to be of an Infant, and of the Child jesus; albeit Christ, at his ascension out of this world 
* Baron. Ann. 34.  was 34. years of age: and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. years old! as if your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had beheld Christ, with the Magis, in Bethlehem, at the time of his birth; and not in Bethaven, with his Disciples, at the instant of his Ascension.   

Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions; and of their Complices.  
SECT. V.  
THe first Apparition of flesh abovementioned was not before the days of the Emperor Arcadius, which was about the year 395. The second not until 700. years after Christ; nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the days of Antiquity, within the compass of so long a time; excepting that of one Marcus, recorded by 
p Irenaeus adversus Haereses. lib. 1. ca 9 Marcus purpureum & rubicundum apparere facit, ut putaretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem.  Irenaeus, who feigned to Make the mixed wine in the Cup, through his Invocation to seem red, that it might be thought, that grace had infused Blood into the Cup: which the same Father noteth to have been done by Magic; at what time there were daily Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion, and on the other side diverse Ranks of Heretics, as namely Valentinians, Manichees, Marcionites, and others, who all denied, that Christ had any corporal, or Bodily Substance at all. Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in aftertimes, in Churches established in Christian Religion, and no such one heard of in these days of Antiquity, when there seemed to be a far more necessary use of them, both for confirming Proselytes in the faith, and reducing Heretics from their Error? (that Apparition only of Marcus excepted, which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolical Art of Magic.)  
As for the Reporters, much need not to be said of them: Simon Metaphrastes is the first, who was of that small Credit with your Cardinal that, in Answer to an Objection from the same Author, he said; 
q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 5. §. Neque. And Baronius: Si qua fides adhibenda est Metaphrasti, qui nullam hîc meretur fidem. Ann. 44. num. 38.  I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith. And if the Foreman of the inquest be of no better esteem, what shall one then think of the whole Pack? As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius (objected by your 
* Coccius Thesaur. Cath. de Eucharistia.  Coccius) writing the life of Basil, and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh, we make no more account of it, then do your two 
r Sed haud dubio falsa, vel supposititia. Lib. de Script. Eccles. Tit. Amphilochius; & Card. Baron. ad Ann. 378. Num. 10.  Cardinals, by whom it is rejected as Supposititious and Bastardly. But the Suggesters of these Apparitions, what were they? (a matter observable) ordinarily Priests, together with either old men, women, and sometimes young Girls, who (wheresoever superstition reigneth) are known to be most prone thereunto. That we say nothing of the lewd juggle of your Priest's, who in other kinds have been often discovered amongst us, and in other Countries.  
We conclude. A true Miracle, for Confirmation of Religion (we are sure) is Divinum opus, the Infidel Magicians being enforced to confess as much, saying, 
* Exod. 8. 19  Digitus Dei hic est. And as sure are we that a feigned miracle (although it be in behalf of Religion) is impious and blasphemous against God, who being the God of Truth, neither will, nor can be glorified by a lie: 
* job. 13. 7.  Hath God need of a Lie? (saith holy job.) We right willingly acknowledge, that diverse Miracles have been wrought, for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: but to be itself the true and substantial flesh of Christ, not one. When a 
* Socrat. Hist. lib. 7. c. 17.  jew, that had been once Baptised by one Bishop, betook himself to another Bishop, to be again Baptised of him, in hope of profi●, The Water in the Font presently vanished away. 
s Aug. de Civit. lib. 22. cap. 8. Medicum podag●icum non solùm dolore, quo ultra solitum cruciabatur: verunetiam podagrâ caruisse, nec amplius quamdiu vixisset pedes doluisse.  S. Augustine telleth of a Physician, who was vexed extremely with the Gout, and at his Baptism was freed from all pain, and so continued all his life long. 
t Baron. Ann. 984. Num. 19  Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little well, prepared for men of age to be Baptised in, and after that it was held for drowned, in the opinion of all bystanders, at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottom as whole and sound as it was before. These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the matter, which was the water of Baptism, but of the nature of the Sacrament itself, albeit void of the Corporal presence of Christ. Not to tell you (which your 
u Tanta fuit Evangelii authoritas, ut etiam codices ipsi miracula ediderint: ut Greg. Turonensis in vitâ Patrum narrat de S. Gallo, qui Evangeliorum codice accepto civitatis incendium restinxit: ut & S. Martinus, Ecclesia S. Anastasiae slagrante, teste Nicephoro, li. 5. cap. 22. Durant. de Ritib. lib. 2. c. 23. Num. 22.  Durantus will have you to know) of Miracles, wrought by the Book of the Gospel, for the extinguishing of Fires. This first Obstacle being removed out of the way, our passage will be so much the more easier in the following Discourse.    

CHAP. III.  

That the Romish manner of the Corporal Presence of Christ, in the Sacrament, is manifoldly Impossible.  
SECT. I.  
NO sooner do you hear Protestants talk of the Impossibility of your manner of Presence, which your Church prescribeth, but you presently cry out upon them, as upon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotency of God, as if they meant 
x Absit ut fidelis quispiam aurem accommodet impijs Sacramentarijs, qui excoecatâ ment omnipotentiam Christi in hoc Sacramento vel comprehendere detrectant: quod tanquam pestem lethalem vitare, & intellectum nostrum in obsequium Christi captivare debemus. Theologi Colon in Provinc. Conc. Tract. de Sacram. Euch. fol. 92.  To tie God to the Rules of Nature, as your Authors are pleased to suggest. We hold it necessary therefore to remove this scandal, thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon, before we can conveniently proceed to the main matter; and this we shall endeavour to do by certain Propositions.   

That, by the judgement of ancient Fathers, some things (by reason of Contradiction in them) may be called Impossible, without the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God; yea, with th' great advancement thereof.  
SECT. II.  
THis Proposition acordeth to the judgement of Ancient Fathers, showing that 
y Aug. de Civit. l. 5. c. 10. Dicitur Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult, non faciendo quod non vult: quod si accideret, nequaquam esset omnipotens: unde proptereà quaedam non potest, quia est omnipotens: non potest mori, non peccare, non falli. Ambros. lib. 6. Epist. 37. ad Chromat. Non posse mori, non infirmitatis est, sed virtutis. Chrysost. in joh. Nihil impotentius quam hoc posse. Add hereunto Theod. Dial 3. c. 4. Impossibilia sunt omnipotenti Deo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Sic posse, esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: vel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God cannot do something, even because he is omnipotent, as not die, not sin, not lie, because such Acts proceed not from power, but from impotency, and infirmity. So the Fathers.  
It is not long since you have been taught by an exceeding worthy Scholar, that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of God's omnipotency to have been anciently 
z Casaub. Exercit. 3●… ad Baron. An. 91. Num. 91. Scitum est piorum Patrum, Omnipotentiam esse Asylum Haereticorum, quo se recipiant, ubi rationibus fuerint victi. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sic Ariani ab Orthodoxis convicti, Christum Deum non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eò confugiebant, ut docerent per omnipotentiam Dei hoc esse factum: qui error confutatur ab Augustino, qu. 79. Vct. & novi Test. Potentia (inquiunt) Dei haec est, ut falsa sint vera: mendacis est, ut falsum dicat verum, quod Deo non competit.  The Sanctuary of Heretics. And they give an instance in the Arrians, who denying Christ to have been God eternal, believed him to have been created God in time; as if it were possible there should be a made God, whose property is to be eternal. Their only pretence was God's Omnipotency, to make false things true: wherein they proved themselves the greatest Liars. Take unto you a second Proposition.   

II. That the Doctrine of the same Impossibility (by reason of Contradiction) doth magnify the power of God, by the universal consent of Romish Doctors; and their diverse examples of Impossibility, concerning a Body.  
SECT. III.  
YOur own Jesuits do lay this for a ground: 
a Dicendun, Deum omnia posse facere, quae ullo modo fiant. Omnes Theologi dicunt, Deum esse omnipotentem, quià potest id omne, quod non implicat contradictionem, quae ponit esse & non esse simul: & proindè si illud fieret, fieret aliquid, cuius esse esset non esse, etc. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 2 §. Alio igitur. Idem. Adversarij conveniunt in hoc, id non posse fieri, quod implicat contradictionem. Ibid. Ipsa contradictio consistit in esse, & non esse. Si Deus haberet esse coniunctum cum non esse, non esset Deus: Si non esset Deus, non esset Omnipotens. Quare posse facere quod implica● contradictionem, est Deum posse non esse omnipotentem. Maldon. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch. qu. 1. p. 153. & Perer. Ies. in Gen. 17 initio.  All Divines affirm (say they) that God is omnipotent, because he can do any thing that implieth not contradiction; for that Contradiction both affirmeth and denyeth the same thing, making it to be, and not to be that it is. But God, who is Being in himself, cannot make a thing jointly to be and not to be. This is a Contradiction, and were not Omnipotency but Impotency; not an effect, but a defect. To conclude. Every thing either is, or is not: take away this Principle (say you) and farewell all learning and knowledge. So you, and that, without contradiction, most truly.  
As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi, and Doctrine, so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi, by examples of Impossibilities, because of Contradiction: namely, that it is 
b I. Impossibile est Deum posse contineri in aliquo loco. Greg. de Valent. Ies. II. Fieri non potest divinâ virtute, ut spiritus existat more corporum divisibiliter. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14. §. Respondeo ad. III. Non potest corpus praedicari de pane, quia ita disparatum affirmarctur de disparato; quod implicat contradictionem. Bell. quo supra. IU. Impossibile, idem esse praesens duobus temporibus simul, cum tempora fluunt. Bel. Ib. V. Rem eandem produci bis, aut ter in diversis locis non habet duo substantialia, nec substantialiter diversa: proinde non potest to● novis productionibus produci. Vasq. Ies. in 1. Thom. To. 2. disp. 76. c. 6. VI. Impossibile est per divinam potentiam quantitati, ut corpus quantum non sitaptum occupare locum. Suarez Ies. To 3. disp. 48. §. 1 p. 583. VII. Fieri non potest, quòd corpus Christi, ut sit in Sacramento, ex uno in alium locum venerit, ita enim fieret, ut à coelo fidelibus abesset, quoniam nihil movetur, nisi locum deserat è quo movetur. Catechis. Rom. de Euch. nu. 31. p. 187. VIII. Dicere Deum facta infecta reddere, quis non videt idem esse, ac dicere Deum posse facere, ut quae vera, non sint vera. Salmeron. Ies. in 2. Tim. 2. Disp. 3.  Impossible for God to be contained in one place: Secondly, for a Spirit to be divided into parts: Thirdly, for Bread to be the Body of Christ, at the same instant when it is Bread: Fourthly, for the same thing to be present together at diverse times: Fiftly, for one thing to be twice produced in diverse places at once: Sixtly, for a Body, having quantity, not to be able to possess a place: Seaventhly, It is impossible for Christ his Body, as it is in the Sacrament, to come from one place into another: Eighthly, Impossible it is to undo that which is once done; because this were to make that which is true to be false. So your Jesuits, with others.   

III. That the Doctrine of Calvin (who is most traduced in this point) acordeth to the former judgement of ancient Fathers.  
SECT. IV.  
IT is no new Calumny, which you have against Calvin, as if he had impugned the Omnipotency of God, in this Question of the Sacrament; which Calvin himself did refute in his life-time, professing, that he is far from subiecting the power of God to man's reason, or to the order of nature; and believing, that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all natural principles, that Christ doth feed men's souls with his Blood. But his only exception is against them, who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction, which is no better than infirmity itself. 
c Calumniatur (Westphalus) a Nobis in dubium vocari Dei omnipotentiam— at rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo, nos quoque fatemur; verùm inde si quis coelum conversum esse in terram colligat, ridiculus erit veritatis aestimator. Calv. in Admonit. ad Westphal.— Rursus. Nos ita addictos rationi humanae esse iactant, ut nihilo plus tribuamus Dei potentiae quam naturae ordo patitur, & dictat communis sensus. A tam improbis Calumnijs provoco ad Doctrinam ipsam, quam tradidi, quae satis dilucidè ostendit hoc mysterium minimè rationis modo metiri, nec naturae legibus subijci; obsecro an ex Physicis didicimus Christum perinde animas nostras ex coelo pascere carne suâ, quod naturaliter non fieri omnes dicunt? Dicent; doctrina nostra fidei alis superato mundo transcendit coelos. Cur (inquiunt) non faciat Deus, ut corpus idem plura, & diversa loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur▪ Insane, quid à Deo postulas, ut carnem faciat non carnem? perinde, ac si instes, ut lucem faciat tenebras— Convertet quidem quando volet lucem in tenebras, & tenebras in lucem, sed quòd exigis ut lux tenebrae sint, & non differant quid aliud quam ordinem Sapientiae pervertis? & eadem est carnis conditio, ut in uno certo laco sit, & sua dimensione constet. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 24. item Beza adversus Hess●usium.  We (saith he) are not so addicted to natural reason, as to attribute nothing to the power of God, which exceedeth the order of nature, for we confess that our souls are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physical or natural understanding: but that one should be in diverse places at once, and not contained in any, is no less absurdity then to call light darkness. God indeed can when he will turn light into darkness; but to say light is darkness, is a perverting of the order of God's wisdom. So Calvin, and Beza accordingly with him.  
And so say we, that it is possible for Christ, (as God) if he were so pleased, to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham; for there is involved no Contradiction in this. But to make Bread to be flesh, while it is Bread, is a Contradiction in itself, and as much as to say Bread is no Bread; and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotency of Christ, we judge this saying properly taken to be Impossible.    

CHAP. IU.  
That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth, against that which Christ called [CORPUS MEUM, MY BODY] imply six Contradictions.  
The first Romish Contradiction, in making it Borne, and not borne of a Virgin.  

SECT. I.  
THe Catholic Faith hath always taught, concerning the Body of Christ, That it was borne of the Virgin Mary: Secondly, that this, so borne, was, and is but One: Thirdly, that this one is Finite: Fourthly, that this finite is Organical, and consisting of distinct parts: Fiftly, that this Organical is now Perfect, and endued with all Absoluteness, that ever any humane body can be capable of. Sixtly, that this Perfect is now also Glorious, and no more subject to vilification, or indignity here on earth. But your now Romish Doctrine, touching Corporal Presence in this Sacrament, doth imply Contradictions, touching each of these, as now we are to manifest, beginning at the first.  
Our Apostolical Article, concerning the Body of Christ, is expressly this; He was borne of the Virgin Mary: which is the ancientest Article of Faith, concerning Christ, that is read of in the Book of God: The seed of the woman, etc. Gen. 3. to show that it was by propagation. But your Roman Article, of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament, is, that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread, as we have already 
* See above Book 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. C. 2.  proved, and as all substantial Conversions do show, whether they be natural, or miraculous. When the substance of Air is naturally changed into the substance of Water, this water is made of Air: when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine, the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water: when the Body of Lot's Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh.  

CHALLENGE.  
Do you then believe your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that it is the substantial Change (by the operative words of Consecration) of Bread into a Body which you call the Body of Christ? then is this Body not borne, but made; nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin, but by Production, and Transubstantiation from Bread: which differences, Borne of the Virgin Mary, and not borne of the Virgin Mary, are plainly contradictory. which was the cause that Augustine (as 
f Bertram. de corpore Domini, pag. 61. Ponamusunum testimonium Augustini, quod dictorum fidem nostrorum ponat, in fermone ad populum: potest (inquit) animo cuiuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri, Dominus noste● jesus Christus accepit carnem de Virgin Maria, lactatus est Infans, etc. Quomodo panis corpus eius, & calix sanguis? Is●a, fratres, ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quiain eye aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem. Ista venerabilis Author dicens, inst●uit nos quid de proprio Domini Corpore, quod de Maria n●tum est,— & nunc sedet ad dextram Patris, & quid de isto, quod supra Altar ponirur sentire debemus: Illud integrum est, neque ulla sectione dividitur, Hoc autem figura, quia Sacramentum.  Bertram showeth) distinguished between the Body borne of the Virgin, and that which is on the Altar, as between Aliud, and Aliud; one, and another thing. And this Argument hath been fortified 
* Lib. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2.  before, and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine 
* Lib. 4. Chap. 7. §. 6.  afterwards.    

The second Romish Contradiction, to the overthrowing of that, which Christ called [MY BODY:] by making one Body of Christ, not one, but many.  
SECT. II.  
YOur Profession standeth thus: 
g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3.  The Body of Christ, albeit now in Heaven, yet is (say you) substantially in many places here on earth, even wheresoever the Host is consecrated. So you. Next your Master 
h M. Brerely in his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, pag. 150. Because Calvin. Instit. 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith: Etsi incredibile videtur, ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro, ut sit nobis in cibum, etc.  Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to profess a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in diverse places at once, contrary to Master Calvin's plain and express profession in the same Chapter; where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madness, saying thus: 
i The same Calvin in the same Chap. 17. §. 24. Cur (inquiunt) non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur, ut modo, & specie careat? Insane, quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse, & non carnem? perinde ac si instes, ut lucem simul lucem faciat, ac tenebras. Ibidem §. 26. Corpus Christi, ex quo resurrexit, non Aristoteles, sed Spiritus sanctu● finitum esse tradit, & coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem. Et §. 30. Cuius ●rgo amentiae est, coelum terrae potius miscere, quam non extrahere Christi corpus è coelestisanctuario?  To seek, that Christ his Body should be in many places at once, is no less madness than to require, that God should make his body to be flesh, and not to be flesh at one time; whereas not Aristotle, but the Spirit of God (saith he) hath taught us, that this his body is to be contained in Heaven until the last day. Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church, which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament, except it be local on earth, As if (saith he) she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven. And at last, after that he had said, 
k As for the objected sentence, he explicateth himself, §. 31. Christus illis praesens non est, nisi ad nos descendat, quasi v●rò si nos ad se evehat, non aequè eius potiamur praesentia. & §. 36. ut Christum illig rite apprehendant, piae animae in coelum erigantur necesse ●st. [As untruly also doth he allege Bucer, Beza, and Farel p. 237. who had the same sense with Calvin. Master Fox said that Christ if he list might be on earth, but he said not so of and in the same time.]  Christ his Body is united to the soul of the Communicant, he so explaineth himself, that he meant a spiritual Union: so that it doth fully appear, that Master Brerely in this point (as usually in many others) allegeth Calvins' testimony, against Calvins' sense; and his own conscience.  
It is irksome to see the fury, wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants, amongst whom we see again your Master 
l See in the former Allegation.  Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the presence of Christ's Body in Heaven, and in Earth at one time. Although, notwithstanding, 
m Fieri posse, ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluribus locis simul, praeter hunc A postatam nemoinficiatus est, quod cum ●redere noluit, tollit ab omnipotenti virtute. Salmer. Ies. tom. 9 tract. 23. pag. 173.  your jesuit Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza, for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once; whom therefore he calleth an Apostata: and whom 
n Beza cum adversarijs congressus, ubi Calvini mysteria non posse● defendere, in eam prorupit Blasphemiam, ut Deum neget omnipotentem: disertè enim scribit, Deum non posse efficere, ut Corpus aliquod, manente substantia, sit absque ●oco, vel in pluribus locis simul; Illud enim Angeli axioma [apud Deum nihil est impossibile] non sine exception● accipiendum esse, quod factum fieri nequit infectum— O argutos Philosophos! qui Dei Maiestatem ad suas physicas regulas non erub●scunt revocare Prateol. Elench. Haeres. lib 2. Tit. Bezanitae.  another termeth for the same cause, Blasphemous, as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotency of God. Whereas, according to our former Proposition, it is rather to defend it, because God is the God of Truth (which is but one) and Truth is without that Contradiction, which is necessarily employed in your Doctrine of the Local presence of any one Body in many places at once, as in the next place is to be evinced.   

That the same Second Romish Contradiction, holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once, is proved, by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time, to be a making One, not One.  
SECT. III.  
IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas, (the chiefest Doctor, that ever professed in the Romish School) 
o Catholiciisti cum Thoma in quartum distinct. 14. art. 2. hanc rationem, cur non possit corpus Christi localiter esse, etc.— Quod si verò non possit corpus Christi localitèr esse in diversis locis, quia divideretur à seipso, profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione: qui licet dicat hoc non esse per l●ci occupationem, tamen dicit, per realem & veram praesentiam in pluribus Hostijs, sive Altaribus: quae realis praesentia in ●ot Altaribus, & non locis intermedijs, non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem r●i. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici, atque in cis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localitèr; quià (inquiunt) unum est illud, quod indivisum in se est, & divisum à quocunqu● alio. ●ellar. quò suprà.  It is not possible by any Miracle, that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once, because it includeth a Contradiction, by making it not one; for one is that, which is not divided from itself. So he, together with others whom you call Catholics, who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in diverse places at once. Which although he speak concerning the local manner of being; yet his Reason (as 
* See the former testimony.  your Cardinal confesseth) doth as well concern your Sacramental manner of being on earth. And Aquinas his reason being this, [Vnum] One (saith he) is that, which is not divided from itself: but, to be in diverse places at once, doth divide one from itself, and consequently maketh it not to be One: which being a Contradiction, doth infer an Impossibility. So he▪ Earnestly have we sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument, as we think: And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say, but that the 
p Duplex est divisio, una intrinseca, in se, altera extrinseca, & accidentalis in respectu ●oci. Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis, non tollitur indivisio in se, sed extrinseca, in respectu ●oci, ut ●ùm Deus sit unus, est in diversis ●ocis, & anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una. Bellar. ibid.  Being in a place is not the essential property of a thing, and therefore can be no more said to divide the body from itself, than it can be said to divide God, who is every where, or the soul of man, which is one in every part, or member of the Body. So he. We throughout this whole Tractate, wherein we dispute of the existence of a Body in a place, do not tie ourselves every where to the precise Acception of place, as it is defined to be Superficies, etc. but as it signifieth one space or distinct ubi, from another, which we call here, and there. we return to your Cardinal's Answer.  

CHALLENGE.  
AN answer you have heard from your Cardinal, unworthy any man of judgement, because of a Triple falsity therein. First in the Antecedent, and Assertion, saying that Being in a place or space is not inseparable from a Body. Secondly in the ground of that, because Place is not of the essence of a Body. Thirdly in his Instances, which he insisteth upon (for example sake) which are both Heterogenies. Contrary to this Assertion, we have already proved the necessity of the local being of a Body, wheresoever it is; and now we confirm it, by the Assertion of One, than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate, and accomplished with Philosophical learning; even 
q Si dicas, corpus est hic, & ibi idem, ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa: principio primo pierce, & immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi: est autem continui●as affectus consequens immediatè unitatem; Contradictiones enim sunt. julius' Scal. Exercit. 5. qu. 6.  julius Scaliger by name, who hath concluded, as a principle infallible, that Continuity being an immediate affection, and property of Unity, One body can not be said to be in two places, as here, and there, without dividing itself from itself. So he. Certainly, because Place being the Terminus (to wit that, which doth confine the Body that is in it) it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once, than it is for an Unity to be a multitude, or many. Which truth, if that you should need any further proof, may seem to be confirmed in this, that your Disputers are driven to so miserable straits, as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplify a Possibility of the being of a Body in diverse places at once, but only Man's soul, which is a spirit; and God himself, the Spirit of Spirits, of both which 
* See below Chap. 4 §. 2. and Chap. 5. §. 2.  hereafter. Only you are to observe, that the Cardinal's Argument, in proving Space to be separable from a Body, because it is not of the Essence of a Body, is, in itself, a Non sequitur, as may appear in the Adjunct of Time, which although it be not of the Essence of any thing, yet is it impossible for any thing to be without time, or yet to be in two different times together.    

The same second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture, by an Argument Angelical.  
SECT. IV.  
MAth. 28. 6. The Angel speaking to the woman, that sought Christ in the grave, said; He is not here, for he is risen, and gone into Galilee: which is as much, as to have said, he could not be in both places at once; an Argument Angelical. But you answer that it was spoken Morally. How? (we beseech you) as if one should say (saith your 
r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum— Sed optima est sol●tio, moraliter intelligi, ut si quis dicat, talis homo non sede● ad mensam, coenatus est enim. Bellar. lib. 3● de Euch. cap. 4.  Cardinal) Such a man sitteth not at table, for he hath supped: what fond trifling is this, and wilful perverting the Truth of God? for this your Argument, A man sitteth not at table, for he hath supped, is scarce a probable Consequence, that a man is risen from the table, as soon as he hath supped. Contrarily, the Angel's Logic is not by a Peradventure, but necessary not imaginary, but historical; not conjectural but dogmatiticall, and demonstrative. For better explanation whereof, we may turn the Causal word (FOR) into an Illative [THEREFORE,] because it is all one (as you know) to say he is not here in the Grave [For] he is risen out of the Grave, And to say, He is risen out of the grave, [Therefore] he is not here in the Grave. Understand then, first, that the matter subject of this Argument being no moral arbitrary Act of man's will; but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead, (which is a fundamental Article of Christian Faith, yea, and as it were the foundation of all other Articles, without which, as the Apostle saith, 
* 1. Cor. 15. 14.  Our Faith were vain) the Angel must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically; which is the reason that he is so instant, and urgent, saying to the woman, Come, and see the place, where the Lord was laid. Which he addeth (saith your 
s Videlz. Ad comprobandum dictum [Non est hîc.] Salmer. Jes. Tom. 11. tract. 9 pag. 72.  jesuit) for confirmation of that, which he had said, [He is not here.] And as much as if he had said (saith Anselm) 
t Quasi dicat, si verbo non credatis, vacuo sepulchro cr●datis. Anselm.  If you believe not my word, give credit to the empty Sepulchre, in satisfying your own sight. Therefore was it demonstrative. And again, the Angel putting them to make use both of his ●aying, and their own seeing; Go ye (saith he) and tell his Disciples: And they went (saith the Text) to bring his Disciples word. Therefore was his Argument Doctrinal, such whereby he thought so fully to persuade them that they might inform others in an Infallible Truth. It were injury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ; 
* Marc. 26. 12.  The Poor you shall have always with you, but me you shall not always have. The light, which will expel all Romish darkness out of every corner of exception to the contrary, is, first if you shall say, that Christ did not speak of his bodily Presence; 
u Aug. tractat. 50. in joh. Pauperes habebitis semper vobiscum, me autem non habebitis] loquebatur de praesentia corporis: habebitis, secundùm providentiam, secundùm Maiestatem, & invisibilem gratiam— secundùm carnem verò, quam verbum assumpsit, secundùm id, quod de Virgin natum est, etc. non habebitis. quare quoniam conversatus est cum Discipulis quadragin●a diebus aseendit in coelu●, & non est hîc.  He spoke (saith Augustine) of his bodily presence, in saying, you shall not have me always with you. Secondly, if you answer, that Christ denied not absolutely his Corporal presence, but only the manner of his presence on earth, in his visible shape: Augustine will reform you, showing, that Christ, in saying You shall not have me; by [Me] meant absolutely his Body, as it is distinguished from his Godhead, namely, You shall have me, according to my Majesty, and my providence, and invisible grace (all spiritual:) but according to my flesh, even that flesh, which was borne of the Virgin Mary [you shall not have me.] Thirdly, If you reason, saying; But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth, and there in Heaven at one instant? Augustine will confute you, who ask, why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence, giveth only this reason, because he ascended into Heaven, and (as alluding to the former words of the Angel) addeth, And he is not here. So raw therefore, so vain, and perverse is that Answer of Moral, and Civil reasoning, which your Cardinal obtruded upon his Readers, against an Argument both so Angelical, and Evangelicall.   

That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture, Act. 9 is frivolous.  
SECT. V.  
CHrist (Acts 9) appeared to Saint Paul, than Saul, when he was in his way to Damascus, etc. whence your Cardinal 
a Simul in summo coelo, & in aëre vicino terrae. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. §. Secundum etc.  laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ, at one instant, (to wit) in Heaven with the Saints, and in the Air unto Saul. First, because the light in the Air Struck Saul blind. Secondly, because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ, which he heard. Thirdly, because Saul asked saying; Lord, who ar● thou? and heard and understood the voice. Fourthly, Because Saul was thereby made a witness of seeing Christ risen from the dead. And therefore (saith he) was this Apparition in the Air. Every objection may receive its opposition. To the first, thus: Did none of you ever know a man's eyes so dazzled with the brightness of the Sunbeams on earth, that he could not see for awhile; and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere? So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven work upon Saul on earth.  
To the second, thus. Have you not read of a voice from Heaven, john 12. 29. which some heard articulately, and said, An Angel speaketh, and the common people said, It thundereth? because (as your 
b Tolet. Ies. in eum locum.  jesuit confesseth) they heard it but confusedly.  
To the third, thus: Men hear, and hear not, so far as God is pleased to reveal, or not to reveal himself, or his word and voice, yea or any sight unto them; for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened, and Majesty of Christ, when others wanted that sight.  
To the fourth, thus: The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection, as were the eyes of Saint Stephen, Acts 7. who saw him; and so much more, because he was both made blind by the brightness of that sight of Christ, and after healed in the Name of Christ.  
If any desire to know the judgement of ancient Fathers, in this Case, your Cardinal leaveth him to seek it where he shall please. Sure we are that 
c Aug. in Psal. 54. & Tract. 1. in joh. Caput in coelis, cuius membra calcabantur in terra.  Augustine, 
d Ambros. in 1. Cor. 15. Apparuit ei primo in coelo.  Ambrose, Pope 
e Greg. Moral. Hom. 34. in Evang. ad finem. Persecutorem de coelo allocutus.  Gregory the first, and 
f Isid. Pelus. lib. 1. Epist. 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Theophylact. in in Act. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Isidore Pelusiota do expressly affirm that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [de Coelo] from Heaven. And if all this were true that hath been objected, that Christ appeared in the Air, yet is your Consequence but lame, that therefore he was bodily also in Heaven, if we may believe your jesuit Lorinus: 
g Potuittantisper de coelo descendisse. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 9  Because Christ (saith he) might for so short a time have descended from Heaven. By all which you may perceive, that your Cardinal, for all his arguing about the Air, hath been (as the Proverb is) but Beating the Air. And as lank and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by (as he saith) Apparitions of Christ unto diverse here on earth, when as yet he was certainly in Heaven: for it is not certain, that he appeared personally to any here on earth, if the position of your Evangelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good, who held it 
* See above Chap. 2 Sect. 3.  Impossible for Christ to appear here on earth, in his proper shape, in two places at once: which showeth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather only Visions, without any personal appearing. We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinal Bellarmine, whom you have heard contending so urgently for proof of the visible Presence of Christ in diverse places at once; and what like Esteem you have of your great Professor Suarez, who now cometh concluding as followeth. 
h Concludo, Christi corpus tantùm esse in coelo & in Eucharistia; seclusoque ●odem Eucharistiae mysterio, non solùm non esset corpus ubique, sed neque etiam esset al●●ubi, nisi in coelo: & contrarium asserere esse● magna temeritas fine fundamento, & contra omnes Theologos. Suarez Ies. Tom. 1. in Thom. quast. 14. Art. 1. Disp. 34. §. 4.  The Body of Christ, except it's being in the mystery of the Eucharist, is no where but only in Heaven: and to affirm the contrary were a great rashness without ground; and contrary to all Divines. So he. We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chair, and both of the same Society of the Jesuits, the one for Rome, the other for Spain, in this their Contradiction, that we may consult with Antiquity itself.   

That the Opinion of the Being of a Body, in many places at once; implieth a Contradiction, is secondly proved by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, thereby distinguishing Christ his two natures, Godhead and Manhood, one from another, by Circumscription and Incircumscription.  
SECT. VI  
ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time: yea (say you) they did so, but meaning Impossible, according to the course of nature, but not absolutely Impossible, as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once. This is your only Answer, and the Answer of every one of your Answerers, whereat we should wonder, but that they have given us so often experience, what little conscience they make, how true their Answers be, so that they may be known to have answered: otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility; and that this is most evident by the Heresy which they did impugn; and also by their manner of confuting the same. The Eutychian Heretics (you 
a Alf●ns. de Castro c●nt. Haeres. Eutych.  know) confounded the properties of Christ's humane nature with his Godhead, pretending (as you do) the Omnipotency of Christ, for the patronising of their heresy, As thinking thereby (thus saith 
b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem, & alterius substantiae quam sit nostra caro: ●…maginantur se per haec Deu● magnifacere, cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant.  Theodoret, out of Amphilochius) To magnify the Lord Christ, whereas this was indeed (as the same Father saith) to accuse God of falsehood. You may hear the same voice sound out of the Roman Chair. Pope 
c Leo Papa Epist. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsi●●e in●elligo spiritum falsi●atis, ut dùm affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei maiestate sentire, si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat, etc.  Leo, speaking of Eutyches, the Author of that heresy, saith that He affirmed, that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ, by denying his humane nature; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have been seduced by the spirit of falsity. Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers, in confuting an heresy founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency, did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible, which they withstood, as will now more lively appear by the Testimonies of themselves. Theodoret against this Heretic argueth thus: 
d Theod. Dial. 3. l. 3. ex Euseb. Emis. (Contra eos, qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem.) Hos di●●re necesse est vel divinae naturae manus & pedes, & alias corporis partes tributas esse, vel fateri corpus mansisse in suae naturae finibus. Atqui divina natura simplex est & incomposita, corpus autem compositum & in multas partes divisum: non est ergo mutatu● in naturam divinitatis, & quidem immortale factum, & divinâ naturâ plenum; sed tamen corpus, quod propriam habet Circumscriptionem.  The Body of Christ, being a compounded thing, cannot be changed into a divine nature, because it hath Circumscription. This had been no good reasoning, except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility. 
e Vigil. lib. 4. con. Eutych. Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae, & loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis suae. Hec fides est confessio Catholica, quam Apostoli tradidetunt, Martyrs roboraverunt, & fideles nunc usque custodiunt. Et paulò superius. Quia nunc in coelo est, non est utique in terra.  Vigilius (anciently Bishop of Trent) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent, who against the same Heretic, distinguishing the two natures of Christ, his humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place; the divine by being unlocable, doubted not to infer, saying of his Bodily nature: It being now in heaven is not at all on earth. And, lest that any might think this was but his own private opinion, he averreth saying; This is the Catholic profession taught by the Apostles, confirmed by Martyrs, and hitherto held of the faithful. So Fulgentius upon the same distinction maketh the same Conclusion, saying of his Bodily substance, that therefore 
f Fulgent. de persona Christi, ad Trasmund. l. 2, c. 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Patre. Vnus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo, cum esset in terra; & derelinquens terram, cum ascendisset in Coelum.  Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven; and going to Heaven it left the Earth. Damascen had to deal with the forenamed Heretic, and professing to deliver the substantial difference of both natures, he differenceth them by these contrary Charters, 
g Damascen. de fide Orthodoxa lib. 3. cap. 3. Earum naturarum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astruimus salvari: nam creatum; mansit creatum; increatum, increatum: mortale manebat mortale; immortal, immortal: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  Created, not Created; Capable of mortality, and not capable of mortality; circumscribed, and not circumscribed; and Invisible in itself, and visible: which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist, by your doctrine, not Capable of Circumscription, because whole in the whole host, and in every part thereof, and to the very Angels of God Invisible.  
Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages, to inquire of Fathers, who had conflicts also with Heretics, who gainsaid the Truth of either nature. Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven, to prove that he was truly man, as God, because his Godhead was never out of Heaven, being 
h Athanas. part. 2. Adversus eos qui nullum non miraculum imminuunt, eo quòd carnem negant: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Vndeterminate in place, and uncircumscribed, even then, when it was Hypostatically united with the Body, being on earth. Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth. His Argument is taken from Circumscription; even as 
i Nazian. Epist. 1. ad Cledon. Hominem & Deum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nazianzen also doth characterise them. Augustine falling upon such Heretics, as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sun, and in the Moon, at once, (which you yourselves will confess could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature) giveth them first this Caveat: 
k Aug. Epist. 57 ad Dardan. [After his Caveat; Cavendum ne ità divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut corporis veritatem auferamus.] Tolle spatium corporibus, & n●squàm erunt, & quià nusquàm erunt, non erunt. Et paulòpost. Cum carnis substantijs immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit: Et aliquantò post. Distantibus spatijs non corpora simul esse possunt. Idem contra Faustum Manich. lib. 2. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam spiritualem pati nullo modo Christus potuit: secundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole & luna esse non potuit.  You may not (saith he) so defend the Deity of Christ, as to defraud the Truth of his humanity: then he addeth (as if none could feign a presence of a Body without determination in space or place) Bodies cannot be without space. And again, 
l Ambros. in Luc. 24. Stephanus non super terram te quaesivit, qui te stantem ad dextram Dei vidit.  A Body cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another. And what else doth that saying of Ambrose imply, spoken as to Christ? Stephen (saith he) who saw thee in Heaven, sought thee not upon earth.  
Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father, whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon; he is now about to deliver his judgement so freely and plainly, as if he had meant to stop the mouths of all our Opposites in the same Answer, which he maketh against certain Heretics, who held that God's nature is a Substance, which can receive division and partition: If God (saith 
m Cyril. Alex. Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Trinit. Si verè Sectionem & partitionem divina natura (ut illi dicunt) reciperet, & intelligeretur ut corpus: si autem hoc, & in loco omninò, & quantitate; & si quanta facta esset, non eff●…geret Circumscriptionem. fol. 89.  Cyrill) should be divisible, as a Body, then should it be contained in place, and then should it have Quantity, and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed. Will you now say (which hitherto hath been your only Answer to other Fathers) that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible, that Quantity should be without Circumscription, but only according to the Course of nature? then might the Heretics, whom Cyrill confuted, have made the same Answer, and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had been of no force. What shall we say? must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing, that your Romish Masters (forsooth) may be deemed the only Doctors, even then, when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretics, which they devise for themselves? but you must pardon us, if we believe that Cyrill (seeing he durst say that God himself, if he were a Body, must be in a place, as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing 
* See hereafter, Ch. 3. Sect. 3.  Christ's Body consisting of Quantity, albeit not Circumscribed in place.  

CHALLENGE.  
THese so many and manifest proofs of the ancient Fathers, concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place, may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Presence, and that all your Objections, out of them, are but so many forged, and forced Illusions.  
We conclude. If Christ himself gave a Caveat, not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world, after his Resurrection; 
* Mat. 24. 23.  Behold here is Christ, and behold there is Christ: then doubtless much less credit is to be given to your Church, which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ, and a There is Christ, in the same instant; as we shall further more confirm by like verdict of Antiquity, when we shall hear the Fathers prove both that 
* See Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Angels, and all created Spirits are finite Creatures, and not Gods, even because they are contained in one place: and also that the holy 
* Chap. 6. Sect. 2.  Ghost is God, and no finite Creature, because it is in diverse places at once. But we must handle our matters in order.    

That the Romish Doctors (in their Objections) have no solid proof of the Existence of one Body in diverse places at once: from the judgement of Antiquity.  
SECT. VII.  
IT is a kind of Morosity, and Perverseness in our Opposites, to object those testimonies, which have their Answers, as it were tongues in their mouths, ready to confute their Objections. For 
s Chrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerdotio; O miraculum! O Dei benignitatem! qui cum patre ●ursum sedet, & eodem tempore omnium manibus pertractatur. Obijcit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 22. not considering what went before these words, in the same place, where Chrysostome will not have his hearer believe, that the Priest and People communicating do not [in terris consistere, sed potius in coelum transferri.] then followeth, O miraculum, etc.— adest ●n●m Sacerdos non igne●… gestans, sed Spiritum Sanctum.  Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ, at one and the same time, sitting with his Father in Heaven, is here handled of Communicants on earth; than he doth say of the Priest and People communicating, that They do not consist or stay on earth, but are transported into Heaven. And again, a little after the words objected, The Priest (saith he) is here present, not carrying the fire, but the holy Ghost. These and the like sayings of Chrysostome do verify the Censure of your 
* See. B. 3. Ch. 4. §. 6.  Senensis upon him, that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperboles. Another Objection is commonly made out of 
t Chrysost. ad populum Antioch: hom. 2. Helisaeus▪ Melotem accepit (Heliae) erat posthac duplex Elias, sursum Elias, deorsum Elias. Then applying this to the Sacrament; Helias nempe melotem Disclpulis suis reliquit: filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem dimisit; sed Elias quidem exutus, Christus autem & ipsam nobis reliquit, & ipsam ascendens habuit.  Chrysostome, of a double Elias, one above and another below (meaning, by Elias below, the sheepskin, or mantle of Elias, received by Helisaeus,) namely, that Christ ascending into Heaven, in his own flesh, left the same, but as Elias did his Mantle, being called the other Elias, to wit, figuratively: so the Sacrament, a token of Christ's flesh, is called his flesh. Which must needs be a true Answer, unless you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited, as a double Elias; so consequently a double Christ. As for the next 
* Greg. Nyssen.— Vnu●… Christi corpus per totum orbem tot fidelium Millibus impertiri, etc. Alleged by Mr. Breerly, Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. p. 149.  Testimony, it is no more than which every Christian must confess, namely, that it is the same whole, & undivided Christ, which is spiritually received of all Christians, wheresoever, and whensoever throughout the world: the same we say Obiectively, although not Subiectively; as the sixth Book Chap. 6. and §. 3. will demonstrate.   

That your most plausible Objection taken out of Augustine, concerning Christ his Carrying himself in his own hands, is but Sophistical.  
SECT. VIII.  

a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal. 33. Conc. 1. [Efferebatur in manibus eius] Hoc quomodò possit fieri●n homine, quis intelligat? manibus alienis portatur quis; suis autem nemo portatur. Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundum literam non invenimus: in Christo autem invenimus, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait, [Hoc est corpus meum:] fer●bat enem corpus in manibus suis, etc.  AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalm, and falling upon a Translation, where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these (by interpretation) He carried himself in his own hands; saith that these words could not be understood of David, or yet of any other man literally: for [Quomodo fieri potest?] (saith he) How could that be etc. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ, at what time he said of the Eucharist, [This is my Body.] This is the testimony which not only your 
b Obijcit Bell. Vox [Quodammodo] Signi, non propriâ specie, sed alienâ, nee modo usitato, sed extraordinariè: satis est, quod non figuratè significatur, L. 2. de Euch cap. 24.  Cardinal, but all other your Disputers, upon this subject, do so ostentatively embrace, and as it were hug in their arms as a witness, which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant; which therefore, above all other, they dictate to their Novices, and furnish them therewith, as with Armour of proof against all Opposites, especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture.  
Contrarily we complain of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunity, in urging a testimony, which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech, to show that it is not Scripture at all, and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence, even out of Augustine himself.  

THE FIRST CHALLENGE,  
Showing, that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture.  
Protestant's (you know) allow of no Authentical Scripture of the old Testament, which is not according to the Original, namely, the Hebrew text; and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latin Translation, as of the only Authentical. But in neither of them are these words, viz. [He was carried in his own hands:] but only that David, now playing the Madman, slipped, or fell into the hands of others, as your 
c Tostatus Abulensis. [Et collabebatur inter manus eorum:] Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se, unt insanum. Com. in cum locum.  Abulensis truly observeth. So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints err, in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and so impossible it is for you to ground the objected sentence upon divine Scripture, even in your own judgement.   

THE SECOND CHALLENGE,  
Showing, that the Romanists cannot stand to the [QVOMODO] of Augustine.  
THis word [Quomodo, How] implying it to be impossible for David, or any other man to carry himself in his own hands, excepting Christ, as you defend, must argue either an absolute Impossibility, or not: if it intent an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his own hands, in a literal sense, then could not Christ, as man, be carried in his own hands: and if it do not intimate an absolute Impossibility, then might David or any other man, by the power of God, have carried himself in his own hands. So that whether thus, or so, you will make Augustine contradict himself, if his words be taken in the Preciseness and strictness of that which is a Literal sense.   

THE THIRD CHALLENGE,  
Showing that Augustine in another word following, to wit, [QVODAMMODO] doth answer Saint Augustine himself to his own formerly objected word [QVOMODO.]  
SAint Augustine after he had said Quomodo, How? (a word seeming to signify an Impossibility) left that it, being taken absolutely, might imply a direct carrying of himself in his hands at his Supper, he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after, saying; [Quodammodò, etc.] that is, After a certain manner Christ carried himself in his own hands. Which is a modification, and indeed a Correction of the excess of his former sentence. Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his [Quodammodo] and what ●his manner of Christ's carrying himself was, in the judgement of Saint Augustine.   

THE FOURTH CHALLENGE,  
Showing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners, concerning Christ in this Sacrament.  
AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ [HOC EST CORPUS MEUM] properly, you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative sense. Secondly, against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ, by Transubstantiation, he hath acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the Continuance of Bread. Thirdly, Against your Corporal Existence of Christ in many places at once, in this Sacrament, or elsewhere without dimension of Place, or Space, he hath already contradicted you in both, holding them Impossible: and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth, because it is in Heaven. Fourthly, Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally, he will 
* See the fifth Book C. 5. §. 2. and C. 6. §. 3.  renounce hereafter, as an execrable Imagination. Wherefore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporal Existence in this Sacrament, it is Incredible he could have resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporal carrying of his Body properly in his own hands.   

THE FIFTH CHALLENGE,  
Showing that the [QVODAMMODO] of Saint Augustine is the same manner, which the Protestants do teach.  
Do you then seek after the manner, which Augustine believed? what need you? having learned it of Augustine himself, by his Secundùm quendam modum, (where he saith) this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ: what, literally? Nay; but (for so he saith) 
a August. Sicut secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis, Corpus Christi est; ita Sacramentum fidei fides est. See above §. 8. at (a.)  As Baptism (the Sacrament of Faith) is called Faith. And if you have not the leisure to look for Augustine's judgement in his writings, you might have found it in your own Book of Decrees, set out by 
b Decret. part 3. de Consecr. dictinct. 2. C. Hoc est. Sicut ergo caelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, illius uz. quod, etc.— vocaturque immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio: non rei verirate, sed significante mysterio. [Observe that in the words, coelestis panis, qui Caro Christi est, the word caro is by the Gloss in Gratian interpreted Species panis, at the letter (f) Caro, id est species panis, to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's flesh to be the Body of Christ.  Gratian, where Augustine is alleged to say, that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ; as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion. Dare you say, that the Priest's Oblation is properly, and literally in strict sense the Passion of Christ? or that Aug. meant any such a Manner? You dare not, yet if you should, your 
c Glossa. ibid. [Coeleste, etc.] Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè representat Christi carnem, Christi caro vocatur: unde dicitur suo modo, non reiveritate, sed significante mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus: i Significat.  Romish Gloss in that place would presently reprove you saying, that by this comparison is meant, that The Sacrament, representing the Body of Christ, is therefore called Christ's flesh, not in verity of the thing, but in a mystery (namely) as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion. In a word rightly might 
d Calvin. Admonit. ult. ad Westphal. Augustinum totum esse nostrum, omnes libri clamant.  Calvin say, speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament: All the Books of Augustine (upon this subject) proclaim that he is of our profession. Much more, concerning Christ his not being corporally here on earth, will, by the judgement of Augustine and other Fathers, be found in the fifth, sixth, and seventh Books; besides that which they affirm in this Book, in the thirteenth, and sixteenth Sections following.   

THE sixth CHALLENGE,  
In general, concluding the main Point.  
BY this time we think you may discern between plain dealing, and false juggling: for your Disputers have usually alleged, for defence of your Transubstantiation, and Corporal Presence in the Sacrament, the sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons and Exhortations, wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoric in Figurative, and Hyperbolical speeches, as hath been confessed by your own Doctors; and proved by many their like sayings concerning other Sacramental Rites; but especially of the Sacrament of Baptism: whereas our proofs arise directly from the testimonies of the Fathers, which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputations, in confutation of many, and main Heresies, where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logic, for discerning Truth from Error; and also of Grammar; we mean the Exactness, and propriety of speech void of Amphibologies, Hyperboles, and Ambiguities, whereby the minds of their Hearers, or Readers might be perplexed, and the Truth darkened. This one consideration we judge to be of necessary importance. And thus much concerning the judgement of ancient Fathers, touching this second Contradiction.    

That (thirdly) the Contradiction, and consequently the Impossibility of the Being of one Body in diverse places at once, is evicted by two sound Reasons; the first taken from Contradictory Relations.  
SECT. IX.  
YOu have already 
* See above Chap. 4. § 3.  heard of the Antecedent, which was granted by Aquinas, viz. It implieth a Contradiction, to say a Body is corporally in two places at once, because this maketh that one Body not to be one. Which being confessed, you have also heard your Cardinal making this Consequence, viz. by the same reason it must follow, that it is absolutely Impossible. But beside, there are Actions and Qualities, whereof some are Relatives, and have respect to some place, and others are Absolutes. Of the Relatives you have determined that 
e Vnum corpus in diversis locis positum unum habet esse substantiale, sed multa habet esse localia: ex quo fit, ut omnia multiplicari debeant, quae consequuntur esse locale: illa autem non multiplicantur, quae aliunde proveniunt, Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur, propter dimensiones locorum. Itaque erit idem corpus sursum, & deorsum, propinquum, & remotum, poterit moveri in locum, & quiescere in alio loco, nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio. Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentia, quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem, eodem tempore, modo, loco. Ac ne id mirum videatur, Anima humana, quae tota est in toto corpore, & quolibet membro Corporis, certè, ut est in capite, est remota à terra, ut in pedibus propinqua, ut in brachio quiescere dicitur, & ut in altero motum movere. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum.  One Body (say you) as it is in divers places at once might be below, and above, on the right hand, and on the left, behind, and before itself, may move, and not move, at the same instant, without Contradiction: because it is so said in diverse Respects, namely of diverse places, as the soul of man in diverse parts of the Body. So you.  
These are but Capricious Chimeras and mongrel fancies of addle brains, who disputing of Bodily Locality can find no example, within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Creatures, but only Man's soul, which is a Spirit: which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section. In the Interim know you, that although Relations do sometimes take away Contradictions, where they are appliable: As namely, for the same Body to be high, and low in respect of its own diverse parts, to wit, high in respect of the head, and low in respect of the heel, wherein there is no comparison of any whole, or part with itself: yet if any should say as much of the same Body, whether whole, or part, as thus: The same whole head goeth before, and after itself: or, the same one finger is longer, and shorter than itself; he may justly be suspected to be besides himself: all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves, (and consequently Impossible) as for a man to say, he is elder, and younger than himself. You 
* See above Chap. 4. §. 3.  will say, (and it is your common Sanctuary) that place is not essential to a Body, and therefore separable from a Body; so that a man may be in two places at once. And you may as well say, that because Time is not of the essence of a man, some man may have a Being without any time, or else in two times at once. Finally, this your Subtlety would have been judged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophy, to hold true in Divinity (to wit) that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it, and another thing on the left, it is Circumscribed in place. Whereby he demonstrateth the truth of Christ's Body, because it is Circumscribed: and that it is circumscribed, because it is written of him, that 
f Theod. Dial. 2: cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The sheep shall stand on his right hand, and the goats on the left. Nor do you your-selves teach, nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand, or his left, as he is present in this Sacrament. One word more. The Fathers, who were many, that distinguished the nature of Christ's manhood from his Godhead, because the first is Circumscribed, and the other is not circumscribed, would never yield to either of both, that it is both crucified and not crucified; as you do to Christ's body, teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven, when it is Uncircumscribed, as it is on many Altars upon earth.   

That (fourthly) a Contradiction, (and consequently an Impossibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once) is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions, which are void of Relation to place.  
SECT. X.  
Were it possible, that Actions and Qualities, which have respect to Place, might avoid the Contradiction; yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place, it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so, as will appear by your own Resolutions. For your Cardinal, and your jesuit Suarez, with diverse others have thus 
g Corpus Christi, in diversislocis positum, habet unum substantiale, & quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicantur respectu diversorum locorum, unde quae recipiuntur à corpore, sive Actiones sint, sive Qualitates, sive quaecunque alia, non multiplicantur. Ratio, quia corpus unum est, non multa; ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calesiat, in alio erit calidum: si in uno loco vulneretur, in altero erit vulneratum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij, ut amoris, & odij, assensus, diffensus, non possunt competere uno subiecto in diversis locis, quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentia naturali, ut à principio agente, & eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus contrarios— Ratio; inter actus contrarios— tantam esse repugnantiam, ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subiecto, & loco, quia sese omninò destruunt ex parte obiecti, Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. ●8. §. 2. §. Atque.  determined, that such Actions and Qualities as are real in a Body, without any relation to place, may not be said to be multiplied in respect of diverse places, wherein the same Body is supposed to be: (As for example) the same Body to be hot in some Country, and cold in another at the same time; wounded, and not wounded; passable, and not passable. And the like may be said of Love, and Hatred, which are vital Actions, proceeding naturally from the Subject. So that the Body, which in one place is affected with love, cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever. So your own Disputers.  
But have they any reason for these points? Yes they have, (See the Margin) For your Cardinal denying that the same Body, in respect of diverse places, may be hot, and not hot at the same time, giveth us this reason: Because (saith he) it is one Body, and not many. So he. A reason Infallible. Your jesuit Suarez also, denying that the same party can love, and hate, consent, and descent at the same time, in respect of diverse places, yieldeth this reason; Because (saith he) these repugnant affections belonging to one subject, cannot by the omnipotency of God be together in the same, because they destroy one another. Aquinas, and other Schoolmen 
* Quicquid pertinet ad Christum secundùm quod in se est, id potest ei tribui in propriâ specie, & in hoc Sacra mento existenti, ut vivere, mori, dolere, animatum esse. Aquin. p. 3. q. 81. art 4. Cum Thoma consentiunt Scotus, Alcisidorus, Aegidius, Petrus à Soto, & huic favet Innocentius. Suarez quo supra p. 602.  denying that the same Body can be said to grieve, and not to grieve, both at once, in respect of diverse places of being, propoundeth the like Reason; Because Grief being in the same man, as he is a man, cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him; lest we should make a man not to be himself. Lastly, your Cardinal 
h Putatur à quibusdam vetustioribus Theologis Christum propter varias eius existentias simul mortalem, & immortalem, passibilem, & impassibilem se repraesentare. Alij huic se sententiae opposuêre tempore Berengarij, quia viderunt maximè intelligentiae repugnare, ut idem corpus sit simul mortale, & immortal. Alan. Card. de Euch. Sacram. lib. 1. pag. 451.  Alan denying that the same Body, in respect of diverse places, can be said to be Mortal, and Immortal, Passable, and impassable expresseth this reason, which (he saith) was used of old: Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man. Enough, enough.  

CHALLENGE.  
WE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions, as sufficient Reasons, and as absolute Confessions as can be desired, which will be as so many Poniards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause, to give it a deadly wound. As first this: 
* See in this Book Chap. 7. §. 3. and 4.  you teach that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no natural faculty, either of motion, of sense, of Appetite, or of Understanding, all which notwithstanding he hath in all perfection in heaven. But to understand, and not to understand, to have, and not to have an Appetite, you will confess to be as absolute Qualities, and Acts Contradictory, free from respect to place, as are those which you have allowed, to wit, Grieve, and not grieve, love, and not love, alive and not alive: because man hath an appetite and Desire, an Act of understanding in himself, not as he is in one place more than in another. Seeing therefore you have been enforced by infallible Principles of sound learning to hold it Impossible for one to love, and hate; and to have contrary passions together, because they are Contradictories, and would infer, that one man should be, and not be himself. Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to yourselves. Can there be a stronger Argument than this, to persuade Christians, that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions, to believe lies? of which kind this, of teaching a Body to be in diverse places at once, is not the least.     

CHAP. V.  

A Confutation of the first Romish Reason; obtruded for proof of a Possibility of existence of a Body in diverse places at once, taken from the nature either of a Voice, or Colour.  
SECT. I.  
MAster 
a In his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass: where he hath other as Idle reasons as this.  Brerely thus: The difficulty may be better conceived, rather than directly proved, by an example of the same word: the which, being once uttered, is thereupon at one instant in the several hearing of sundry persons, and that not as a distinct noise confusedly multiplied in the ●…re, but as one and the same peculiar word, distinguished by the selfsame syllables wherein it was uttered. So he, and your Doctor Wright 
b In his Book of the Real Presence, tract. 2 §. 4. Sobbed. 1. p. 149.  before him.  

CHALLENGE.  
But the Doctor was answered, that the Example is many thousand miles remote from the Cause, for our Question is of the Presence of the same Body in diverse places at once. We say, the same Body; but this your Example of Word, or Voice, which you Both call the same, is not individually the same in every man's hearing, as is here affirmed, but only the same in kind, by a multiplication of the sounds, and words uttered, as Philosophy teacheth. Like as we see in throwing a stone into the water, it maketh at the first a Circle, and circle multiplieth upon circle, till the last come to a large Circumference: Even so the 
* Verbum, quasi a●rem verberans. Cic.  word, by voice breaking the Air, doth make in the Air Circle upon circle, till it come to the ears of the hearers; every of the parts of the Circle being articulated through the multiplication of the first form, the diverse ears doc no more receive the same individual voice, than they do● the same individual Air, whereby the voice is conveyed. So that this Example is no more, in Effect, than to prove the same Body in diverse places at once, by the sound of a word in many men's ●ares; which is not individually the same, and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous.  
Thus was that Doctor answered, when he confessed of the voice of the Preacher in the Pulpit, which is received by multitudes of hearers, and of his other Example of a colour of a red Cow by multiplication of its forms seen of thousand men's eyes at once, that it is not Numerically the same. Take unto you a clear Example and Apposite, when in a lookingglass, broken into many pieces, you see many faces, (all of them being but so many multiplied and reflected Images of one face) you may see, that every Image in every broken piece of the glass is not individually the same: wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebank tricks, devised to delude men, that love darkness better than light. It might seem superstitious diligence to confute such sottishness with the serious judgement of any grave Father; otherwise 
c Greg. Naz. Orat. 51. Vnius corporis locus duorum, aut plurium non est capax: sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gregory Nazianzen is at hand, ready to tell you, that there is as great a difference between Bodies, and Voices, and Sights; as there is betwixt Bodies, and Spirits; so that whereas two Bodies cannot be in one place, yet voices, and sights [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are by an Incorporeal manner apprehended, so that the same Ear is capable of many voices, and the same sight of many Visibles.    

A Confutation of their second, and third Reasons, taken from the Similitude of man's Soul, or Presence of God, devised to demonstrate a no- Contradiction of a body's Being in two places at once.  
SECT. II.  
TWo other 
d Argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei, & animae ratio. nalis. Deus est unus in infinitis locis indivisibilis, & anima humana est tota in qualibet par●e corporis. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 3.  Instances you have, whereby to maintain your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once; one is in man's Soul, the other in God himself. First, we will inquire into the nature of the soul. Our exception against a Bodies being in diverse places at once, is by reason of the distance between place and place, for it is far less than imaginable that one Body should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spain, and at Paris in France; and yet not to be in the intermediate Space between both, which divideth Toledo from Paris. But the Condition of the Soul is utterly different, for it is in the Bodily members, not as a Body in diverse places, but as a form in its own matter; nor having Quantity and extension, (the unseperable properties of a Body) but by a formal perfection, As containing the Body, and not contained thereof, 
e Anima est in corpore, ut continens, non ut contenta. Aquin. 1. qu. 52. 〈◊〉.  saith your Aquinas. For the Soul is so in the head and foot, that it is aswell in the parts and members between both; and therefore, not being possibly severed from them, cannot be said to be divided from itself. Insomuch that if any member of the Body (as for example the hand) should be cut off, and divided from the Body, the Soul being indivisible ceaseth to be therein. So utterly dissonant is the Souls being in diverse places.  
Nay and your Cardinal having 
* See above Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  confessed already, that It is not possible by any divine power, that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body; doth hereby as fully confute himself, as if he had said, there is no comparison to be made between Body and Spirit, in respect of Local being: how much less between it and God the Father of all Spirits, who cannot be so in many places at once, that he is not likewise both in every intermediate space, between place and place, and also in all places without them: this being the property of his infiniteness to contain all places, and not to be contained of any. And therefore cannot this manner of presence, without irreligious impiety, be applied to any creature; which notwithstanding, 
f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco tàm circumscriptiuè quam definitiuè, id requirere, ut non sit alibi; dicere possumus daritertium modum existendi in loco, nimirùm, per solam praesentiam, quomodò Deus est in loco. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 4. §. Altero.  your Cardinal blusheth not to do in that manner, as was hitherto (we think) never imagined by any Divine before him, namely, a manner of being of a Body in a place, which is neither Circumscriptively, as natural Bodies are, nor Definitively, that is, so that being in one place, it is not at the same time in another, as Angels and Spirits are; but a third, how? By only presence after the manner as God is in place. So he. O golden Divine! for who knoweth not that Existence in place only by presence is a property of Divine infiniteness, which being attributed to any thing, that is not God, doth equal the creature with the Creator.   

A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Man's Soul, and God himself, by Ancient Fathers, in their Doctrine concerning Angels, and Men's Spirits.  
SECT. III.  
ANcient Fathers (we trow) were profoundly learned both in Philosophical, and in Theological Mysteries, who notwithstanding (as your 
g job 1. 6. [Cum venissent & astitissent Angeli, etc.] Origen. Athanas. Greg. Nazianz. tanquàm dogma fidei tradunt, Angelos moveri localiter, neque omnibus locis praesentes, sed esse cuique locum suum, & spatium praefinitum cum illud necessario requiratur, ut ab uno loco in locum alium veniant. Simili ratione confirmat hanc veri●atem Tert. Apol. c. 22. Chryso. Hom. in Heb. 1. Ambros. l. 1. de Sp. S. c. 10. Damasc. l. 2. de fide c. 3. Nazian. Orat. 2. de Theol. Athanas. Epist. ad Serap. Teste Pined● jes. in cundem locum joh.  jesuit witnesseth) held it as a Doctrine of Faith, that Angels, which are Spirits, have every one their own definite places and space, and that they cannot be in diverse places, but by moving from one place to another, which cannot be said of any Body that (as you say) is without motion in diverse places at once. Surely, if ever such strange and paraphysicall, nay more than hyperphysical Croche●s had entered into the minds of ancient Fathers, we should have heard you allege, at least some one of them, if not for proof, yet in pretext and colour of patronising these your repugnant Paradoxes, concerning a Body taking the right hand, or left of itself, and the like,— Velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur Species.  
For your better satisfaction, we shall allege some Testimonies, which may sufficiently declare their judgement of an Impossibility of a Spirit's being in diverse places at one time, whether we consider the Spirits of Angels, or of men; yea or the humane Spirit or soul of Christ. Of Angels, Damascen; 
h Damascen. Orthod. fid. l. 1. c. 17. & l. 3. c. 7. Angelus dicitur esse in loco, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deus autem ubique existens, corpora verò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  They are so circumscribed in the place where they work, that they cannot possibly be in more places at once. Athanasius, 
i Athanas. Tom. 1. Epist. ad Serap. p. 201. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  As the Holy Ghost filleth all places, so Angels are contained in a certain place. Accordingly Ambrose: 
k Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 10. Seraphim quod iubetur exequitur, Spiritus quod vult dividit: Seraphim de loco ad locum transit, non cnim complet omnia, sed ipsum repletur a Spiritu.  Herein do Angels differ from the holy Ghost, which filleth all things, that the S●raphims do move from place to place. Pope Gregory would be heard speak: 
l Greg. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 3. Angeli, ut & nos, loco circumscribuntur: comparatione quidem corporum nostrorum Spiritus sunt, comparatione Dei incircumscripti, corpus sunt.  Angels are circumscribed, being, in respect of our Bodies, Spirits: but, in comparison of the uncircumscribed God, they are to be esteemed as Bodies. So they. Our next speculation must be touching the souls of Saints departed. The Author set out by yourselves, in the name of Athanasius, unto this Objection; How do the souls of Saints so often appear at one moment of time in the Sepulchers, as they seem to have done? Answereth that They are not the same Saints, but rather visions, and adumbrations of them, by transfigurations of Angels. He giveth his Reason, why he thinketh the other impossible, 
m Athanas. qu●st. ad Antioch. 26. Quomodò (cedo mihi) una existens Petri aut Pauli anima, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apparere in ●●o monumento, & in mille templis per totum mundum, nè● Angelus potest? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Edit. Paris. Anno 1627.  Because it is proper (saith he) to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once. So he. And if the Fathers shall say, in effect, as much of the humane soul of Christ, you (we should think) would require no more. Tertull●an among his many divine Answers, to prove Christ to be God, he urgeth the Arian Heretics with this one, as not the least: 
n Tert. de Trinit. circiter medium. Si homo tantummodò Christus, quomodò adest ubique invocatus? cum haec non hominis natura sit, sed Dei, ut adesse possit in omni loco▪ si homo tan●ummodò Christus, cur & Mediator invocatur? etc.  Because Christ is present in all places, where he is invocated upon, which is a power not incident unto man, but proper to the nature of God. So he. How like you this? And Augustine may not be thought to descent, when in arguing he took as granted, that the 
o Aug. Epist. 57 ad Dardan. [M●cum ●ris in Paradiso.] Non ex bis verbis in coelo existimandus Paradisus, neque enim in ●pso die futurus erat in coelo ho no Christus, sed in inferno secundù● animam, & in sepulch●o secundùm carnem.  Soul of Christ, when it departed this life, could not be in Heaven, and in hell at once.  
As for the Being of God in diverse places at once, which was your Cardinal's instance, for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places, without Contradiction of making One not One, by dividing it from itself; we know not whether rather to censure it egregiously absurd, or extremely impious; seeing that the Being of God in diverse places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's infiniteness of Being in whatsoever place: which is (as your own School might have taught him) so, as 
p Aquinas 1. qu. 52 Art 2.  Containing all places, and not contained in any: which the Fathers have as fully declared, in making Being in all places, as filling them with his presence, to be the property of his Deity. Such than is the impiety of your arguing; by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Body, by the manner of Being of a Soul or Spirit, denied by 
q Nazian. Orat. 51 cont. Apollinar. Obijcientem: Duo perfecta non continebat Christus, uz. divinitatem & humanitatem. Resp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  Nazianzen; and manner of the Being of a Creature, by the manner of the Being of God the Creator, exceedeth all Absurdities that can be named. The holy Fathers have something more to 
* Below Chap. 6. Sect. 2.  say to you; but first we are willing to hear what you can say for yourselves.   

A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence; why they need not yield to these Reasons, whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossly Unreasonable.  
SECT. IV.  
MYsteries of Faith, (saith your 
r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs, etc.  Cardinal) which exceed man's understanding, are only to be apprehended by Faith. Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation, of the Resurrection, of the Creation, and of Eternity itself; and so ought this, concerning the Presence of Christ his Body, notwithstanding any Objection from Reason. So you. We answer. Some of these former Mysteries we confess to be such as exceed man's understanding, yet such again they are, as are not contrary to understanding, though above it; that is to say, such (and this you will confess with us) as admit not Contradiction in themselves: for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinity there is One God, and Three Persons, because the Essence of the Godhead is common to each person: or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person, and two natures; no more than to say, that in one man there is one person, and two essential parts, one his Body, the other his Spirit: or in the Resurrection to believe the same that was created, might be restored to life, more than to believe that one grain of Corn dying, might revive again: or in the Creation to believe that something may be made of nothing, than to say that a blind man was made to see. As for the last Objection, saying that 
s Aeternitas est instans Durationis. Bellar. ibid. §. Quin●um.  Eternity is the instant of Duration, it is an atheological Paradox: for Eternity is Duration itself, without beginning, or ending; which is conceived without Contradiction.  
In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considerable than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought, whilst they are constrained, for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense, to pose us with spiritual Mysteries, which are Objects only of Faith, by reason of the infiniteness of their properties; and therefore may well exceed the reach of man's wit, and apprehension, without any prejudice unto Truth, by contradiction: as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes, and never any more to discern any sensible things, by sensible means. By which manner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles against Infidels, for proof of the Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ's Body; all the Reasons of Fathers against Heretics, in distinguishing of the Properties of the divine and humane nature of Christ in himself, and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits by Circumscription, and Spirits from God by Determination in one place; and lastly your own Consequences of many confessed Impossibilities concerning Place, (as the Impossibility that God should be contained in Place, as for one Body having Quantity to be incapable of a Place, and the like) are all utterly made void. For to what end were any of these, if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth?    

CHAP. VI  

The third Romish Contradiction, against the words of Christ [MY BODY,] is by making a Body Finite, to be a Body not finite.  
SECT. I.  
IF (as you have said) the Body of Christ is, or may be at one time in so many places, then may it be in mo●, and consequently everywhere at one instant. This Consequence your ancient Schoolmen taught, and your jesuit 
a Quasi non possit creatura esse ubique hoc (inquam) non obstat, nam omnipotentiam illi intellexerunt prorsus naturalem, quia si non alienâ virtute, sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens, haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit. Are nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae convenire arbitramur, Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de vera Christi present. in Euch. c. 12. §. Quaesanè. pag. 241.  Valentia doth seem to avow, saying, What hindereth that a Body may be [Vbique] every where at once, not by its natural power, but by the omnipotency of God? So he. This we say is to make a finite infinite; and your old Schooledoctors are hereunto witnesses, who have judged it 
b Veterum Theologorum apud D. Thomam ratio haec est, si idem corpus possit esse in duobus locis simul, potest in pluribus, atque adeo ubique— Et unà cum codem Thoma dicunt, Haereticum esse affirmare, corpus Christi esse poss● in duobus locis simul, quia ubique esse, est proprium Deo. Teste Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 75. Art. 1. disp. 48. Sect. 4.  Heretical, to say, that the Body of Christ can be in diverse places at once; because than he may be in infinite. So they. And hear you what your Cardinal Bellarmine hath publicly taught? To say (
c Dicere corpus Christi esse, vel esse posse in Infinitis locis simul, immensitatem divinam requirit. Bellar. lib. 3. de Christio. c. 18.  saith he) that the Body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, is to ascribe an Immensity and infiniteness unto it (namely, that) which is proper unto God. So he, and so also your other Doctors, to whom the Evidence of Truth commandeth us to assent.  
For what greater Heresy can there be against that Article of our Faith, concerning the Deity, and Godhead of Christ begotten, not made, than to believe that there can be a made God? for so doubtless do they (whosoever they be) that think a finite Body may be made Infinite.  

CHALLENGE.  
YOu understand the Argument, viz. To believe that Christ his Body may be every where, is a flat Heresy: but to affirm, that the same Body is in many places at once, doth consequently infer that it may be every where (as hath been directly professed.) Ergo your Doctrine of attributing to the Body of Christ an Existence, in many places at once, is by the confessed general grounds of Christianity plainly Heretical. And from this our Conclusion your Aquinas will in no wise dissent, who himself concludeth 
d Aquinas 1. q. 52. art. 2. Deus est essentia infinita, ideo non solùm in pluribus locis est, sed ubique. Angelus quia est virtutis finitae non se extendit nisi ad unum determinatum— undè sequitur quòd non sit ubique, neque in pluribus locis, sed in uno loco tantùm.  That the Angel is not in diverse places at once, because an Angel is a finite creature, and therefore of a finite power and operation; it being proper to God to be in many places at once. So he.    

That, by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, the Being in diverse places at once inferreth an Infiniteness proper unto God: which without Heresy cannot be ascribed to any humane Body; Proved from the manner of Existence of the Holy Ghost.  
SECT. II.  
STill you maintain the Real and Corporal presence of Christ his Body in so many places, as there are consecrated Hosts at one time in the whole world, be they ten thousand times ten Millions of Millions, or how many soever: which, say we, is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite. For Aquinas (as your 
e Vnum corpus esse ubique affirmare est Haereticum. Thomas. Quia Catholici ex hac proprietate essendi ubique dicunt antiquos Patres sufficienter probasse Spiritus Sancti Diviniratem, ut patet ex Augustino, Fulgent. Ambrosio, Basil. Teste Suarez. Ies. Tun. 3. disp. 48. Sect. 4. Rat. 1.  jesuit witnesseth) held it Heretical, to affirm One Body to be every where, because this is a Divine property, by which the Fathers did sufficiently prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, (namely) Augustine, Fulgentius, Ambrose, and Basil. So he.  
But how did the Fathers prove this, think you? it were good, that where your own Authors be silent, we heard some of themselves speak. 
f Fulgent. ad Trasimund. lib. 2. pag. 325. Spiritus Sancti in nobis habitatio non localis est, inhabitat enim Trinitas in suis fidelibus, sicut tota in cunctis: nec per separatos homines, & separata loca particularitèr separatur.  Fulgentius his reason is, Because the Spirit of God dwelleth wholly in all the faithful separated in diverse places. 
g Basil. de Sp. Sancto cap. 22. sub finem. Reliquae virtutes omnes in loco circumscriptae esse creduntur, nam Angelus qui astabat Cornelio non erat in eodem loco, quo cum astaret Philippo: neque qui locutus est Zachariae ab Altari per idem tempus etiam in coelo suam implebat stationem. At Spiritus (Sanctus) simul & in Abaccuc operatus, & in Daniele in Babylonia creditus, & in Catarcta cum jeremia, & cum Ezechiele in Chobar; Spiritus enim Domini replevit orbem terrarum, [Quo ibo à Spiritu tuo?] Et Propheta; Quon●am ego, inquit, vobiscum sum, & Spiritus meusstat in medio vestri.  Basil thus: The Angel, that was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philip, nor was he then in Heaven, when he was with Zachary at the Altar: But the Holy Ghost was together with the Prophet Daniel in Babylon, with jeremy in the Dungeon, and with Ezekiel in Chobar. 
h Ambros. de Spirit. Sancto l. 1. c. 7. cum igitur omnis creatura certis naturae suae circumscripta limitibus, siquidem & illa invisibilia opera, quae non queunt locis & finibus compre● hendi, substantiae tamen suae proprietate clauduntur, quomo. dò quis audeat creaturam Spi. Sanctum appellare, qui non habet circumscriptan & determinatam naturam?— Ideò cum Dominus servos suos Apostolos destinare voluit, ut agnosceremus aliam esse naturam, aliud gratiam spiritualem, alios aliò destinabat, quia simul omnes esse ubique non poterant; dedit autem Spirit. Sanctum, qui licet separatis Apostolis inseperabilis gratiae mun●s infunderet: quis igitur dubitat, quin divinum sit quod infunditur, simul pluribus, nec videtur? corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis, & tenetur.  Ambrose thus: Because the Apostles could not all be every where, Christ severed them, giving them all the Holy Ghost, which was inseparable in them: none therefore can doubt but it is a Divine Essence. 
i Aug cont. Maxim. Axian. Epist. l. 3. c. 21. cum sic laudetis Sp. Sanctum, ut in sanctific and is fidelibus ubique praesentem esse dicatis, tamen negare audeatis esse Deum? [The Vbique spoken of the faithful hath the sense of Vbicunque, because the number of the faithful is but finite, and their places distinct, here and there, and not absolutely everywhere.]  Augustine confuteth an Arian Bishop, thus: You that praise the holy Spirit, in sanctifying his faithful wheresoever they are, how can you deny him to be God? 
k Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit. Sancto, Hieron. interpret, (extat in Biblioth. S. Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 679.) Iose Spiritus Sanctus, si unus esset de creaturis, saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam— Spiritus autem Sanctus cum in pluribus sit, non habet substantiam circumscriptam. [And he proveth it is Pluribus, idem in Prophetis & Apostolis, etc.]  Didymus of Alexandria (whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master, for the understanding of Scripture) thus: The Holy Ghost (seeing it is in many places at once) may not be thought to be a Creature. Lastly upon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria maketh the same Conclusion: 
l Cyril. Alex. de Spirit. Sancto (quod non est Creatura.) Quum in loco & circumscriptione intelligant quae facta sunt, Spi. autem Sanctus non sit, de quo psallit David, Quo ibo à Spiritu tuo?  The Spirit of God is no Creature (saith he) because things created are in one place, but of the Spirit of God it is written, Whither shall I go from thy presence? So these holy Fathers, every one Gatholique, without exception.  

CHALLENGE.  
ASyllogisme from these premises will set all strait. To ascribe to a Body an Omni-presency, and power of being every where, is Heretical. But to say that a Body is in diverse places at once, doth consequently infer a power of being in every place (as it doth in demonstrating the Holy Ghost to be a divine Spirit.) Therefore to attribute to a Body, a Being in diverse places at once, is a Doctrine Heretical, and implieth a Contradiction, by affirming a Finite thing to be infinite. Add but hereunto the former 
* See above Chap. 5. & 6.  Testimonies of Fathers, who have distinguished the humane nature of Christ from his Godhead, and their denying of all Possibilities of Existence of Angels in two places at once: and your Consciences must needs tell you, that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have believed your Romish Article of a Corporal Presence in every Host consecrated at onetime, on diverse Altars in your several Churches. What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in diverse places at once? Surely (that which hath been plentifully proved already) that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine, as in natural Philosophy, because (as this whole Discourse showeth) they have verified that saying of Aristotle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.     

CHAP. VII.  

Of the (fourth) Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ [MY BODY] by teaching it to be Organical, and not Organical; Divisible, and Indivisible.  
SECT. I.  
THe Question is not now of the Mystical presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament, which we with the Fathers, especially 
a Greg. Nyssen. in Orat. Catech. C. 37. Per totum orbem ●ide lium millibus uno die impertitur, totumque cuiusque per partem evadat, & in seipso totum permaneat, etc. Objected by Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. Subdiv. 1. [Answered before, Chap. 4. Sect. 7.]  Greg. Nyssen confess to be whole, as well in a part of Bread consecrated, as in the whole loaf; even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny, as in a shilling. But neither he, nor any Father ever said that a little Host (which boast you call Christ) is equal with a great Host; No, for the Fathers in the Council of 
* See below, Ch. 10.  Nice absolutely denied this: nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Host, as your Fathers of 
* See Sect. 3. following.  Trent have taught, because no such part can resemble Totum Christum, whole Christ Sacramentally, which is not of sufficient bigness to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment; thereby to resemble the Spiritual nourishment of our Souls, which is the Body of Christ. So that all you have said maketh just nothing for the Corporal, and material Presence of Christ's Body, which we further impugn.   

That it is necessary the Body of Christ (wheresoever) consist of distinct members and proportions of a Body.  
SECT. II.  
THe Body of Christ (as we profess) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts, an head exposed to pricking with thorns, a face to buffers, a back to scourges, eyes to visible noddings and mockings, ears to blasphemies, hands and feet to piercing with nails. This is that Body which we confess to be the Body of Christ, and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament, in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of diverse parts, distinct one from another. Two of your 
b Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt corpori Christi naturalitèr & inseperabiliter— & Christus corpus suum carnem vocat, joh. 6. At certè substantia sinè quantitate & complexione quadam accidentium caro dici non potest— Denique in corpore Christi eius animainest: atqui anima in corpore esse nequit, nisi disposito & organizato. Secundò extensum esse in se, & partem habere extra partem, & proindè situm quendam intrinsecum & ordinem habere, & dispositionem partium, omninò essentiale magnitudini est. Quid enim linea nisi extensio in longitudinem? etc. Si tollas igitur extensionem, & parts, tollis paritèr magnitudinem. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 5. Tollere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis confusionem, ut ibi sit nasus, ubi oculus; & manus, etc. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 3. p. 444.  Cardinals do both answer that Quantity, magnitude, proportion, and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament: or else (saith one) If the Nose should stand where the Eye is, and the Eye where the Nose is, it should be a confused Monster. So they. So necessary it is; even in your own faith, that the Body of Christ consist of Organical parts, distinct one from another.   

That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporal Presence of a Body of Christ, withal the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Host.  
SECT. III.  
THe Canons of that 
c Totus & integer Christus sub specie panis, & sub qualibet eius speciei parte inest. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula. Catech. R●. de Euch. num. 29.  Council of Trent decreed, as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation, to believe, That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Host; whereby is meant (saith your 
d In singulis partibus continuis, quantum vis minimis, & ejusdem quantitatis. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. D. 52. Sect. 2. p. 679.  jesuit) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Host. So he. But we demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts, which you say are Unseparably united to a Body? You distinguish, that the 
e Respondeo, quod est difficillimum, ob humani ingenij imbecilitatem. Dico corpus Domini habere partem extrà partem, si vox [extrà] dicat habitudinem ad subiectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad obiectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad locum. Resp. nego consequentiam, quià distinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis: at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis, sed impediri potest. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. Ca 7. Negatur esse impossibile, corpus quantum in indivisibili puncto collocari: quin potius impossibile est corpus Christi esse totum in toto, quùm sit etiam in punctis & terminis, quibus partes specierum Sacramentalium continuantur. Suarez quo supra p. ●83.  Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in itself; but in respect of the Place, or of the forms of Bread, under which it is, the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome. The exact discussion of this one point will in itself illuminate the eyes of any Reader, to discern between the Spirit of Truth, and of Error; namely, to know, that there cannot be a greater Contradiction (and consequently Impossibility) than for a Body, consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts, such as are Hands, Legs, Eyes, and other Organical members, to have Being any where without Extension, Commensuration, and distinct Proportion of the same to the space, wherein it is, as the Propositions following will prove.    

That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new, and contrary to the nature of an Organical and humane Body, in the judgement of Romish Doctors of latter times.  
SECT. IV.  
ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned, and Ancient Schoolmen, who (as your 
a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisilibus specierum panis esse negarunt Albertus, Scotus, Aegidius— quia videtur impossibile, in se corpus extensum, & magnae molis cum tota organizatione, & figura in puncto collocari. Suarez quo supra. p. 683.  jesuit testifieth) Thought it impossible, that a Body that hath extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuits (as ancient) unto 
b Opinio antiqua, quae fuit Durandi, dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non haberequantitatem. Fundamentum huius opinionis fuit, quod essentia quantitatis est, habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se, fieri aurem non possit, ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas, in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte. Teste Maldonat. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch. c. 8. Arg. p. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5.  Durand, and 
c Occam, & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia: ●ed ita, ut nulla sit figura, nec distinctio partium. Sic Occam. Bellar. ibid. §. At.  Occam. Now what greater injury can there be, than, after that it was lawful for a thousand, and four hundreth years since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to profess (with your ancient Schoolmen) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Host; to impose upon men's consciences, as an Article of Faith, so fond and so palpable a figment. That which seemed to the abovenamed Durand, and Occam such an Opinion, whence (as they thought) it must needs follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confounded with the legs: which (as your Cardinal Alan truly said) were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether 
* See above in this Chapter, Sect. 2.  monstrous.   

That the Organical parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places, wherein they are; is proved by the confessed Romish Principle itself.  
SECT. V.  
THe reason, which your 
* See above, Sect. 2.  Cardinal layeth down to prove it necessary, that Christ his Body should have in itself (according to the nature of a Body, distinct parts of head and eyes, and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soul, he taketh from Magnitude, which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length, breadth, and depth: this (saith he) is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its own intrinsical disposition, in itself; but not so (saith he) in regard of the place.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis your own Reason may we justly retort upon yourselves, proving, that if the natural disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in itself, it must be so likewise in respect of place, and space; because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ (as you have confessed) stand thus, that one is an extension in Length, another in Breadth, the third in Depth, and each of these three are distinct one from another. Well then, The arm must be here, and thus far longer than the foot, the leg here, and thus far thicker than the finger, the hand here, and thus far broader than the toe, and accordingly distinctly in other parts. But Hîc, and Hucusque; here and There, thus far, and so far, being Relatives of space, and place, do demonstratively show that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body, which they have in themselves divisibly, the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi, place, or space, wherein the Body is. If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematical, or Fantastical body of Christ, you must deny the Article of Trent, until you can believe, and make good, that a part of a divisible Body, longer or shorter, broader or narrower, can be (and that equally) in one indivisible point.  
This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body, (as you confess it to be) now in Heaven, possessing a Real place in the said proportion of Spaces of length, and breadth, as it had here upon earth, which it doth by the natural Magnitude, or Quantity thereof. But the said natural magnitude, or quantity of the said Body of Christ is (according to your own general Doctrine) in this Sacrament. Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space.  
We should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations, if that the necessity of the Cause (by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession) did not enforce us hereunto; Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousness, who writing of this divine Sacrament, and seeing it to be round, solid, broken, moulded, in the one kind; and liquid, frozen, and souring in the other, do attribute all these to Quantities, and Qualities, and Accidents, without any other subject at all. So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to believe, in effect, that the Cup is filled with Mathematical lines, the Mouse eating the Host is fed with colours, and forms: that it is Coldness that freezeth, and Roundness which weigheth down, and falleth to the ground; as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadows, armed with Idaea's, fed with Abstracts, augmented with Fancies, second Intentions, and Individual Vagues, and consisting wholly of Chimaeras.    

That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. VI  
IF this your profession had been a Catholic Doctrine, doubtless Saint Augustine (who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery) would not have oppugned it, as he did, when unto that Question of Volusianus (whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin) he answered, 
d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum, quantumcunque corpus, vel quantulum●unque corpusculum loci occupet spacium, cundemque locum sic occupet, ut in nulla eius parte sit totum necesse est: longè alia natura est animae, quam corporis, quanto magis Dei? l. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian: [Whose question to S. Augustine was; Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit?]  That every body, be it greater or less, wheresoever it is, must needs fill that space wherein it is, so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof. So he: which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent, for here is express mention of Relation to place and space.  
And whereas for usual colour of a Possibility, that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Host, you have objected the Example of Man's Soul, which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body: S. Augustine (as if he had foreseen your mystery of Error) preoccupateth, saying, 
a In eo, quod dicitur Deus ubique carnali cogitationi resistendum est, & men's ● Corporis sensibus amovenda, ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi, ut aër, aut lux: omnis enim huiusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte, quam in roto: sed ita potius, ut est magna sapientia etiam in homine, cuius corpus est parvum.— Nam si duo fint homines aequaliter sapientes, quorum alter est corpore grandior, non plus sapiuntambo, quam singuli; sic in minore corpore non minor est sanitas, cum minora, & maiora corpora tam sana sint.— Dispar est profecto in membrorum molibus quantitas: sed par est in disparatis sanitas— quae non quantitas, sed qualitas est. Non potuit ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod Qualitas. Aug. Ep. 57 ad Dardan.  The nature of a Soul is far different from the nature of a Body. And again the same holy Father, seeking to find out some Similitude, whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of place, in the end saith, that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof: and he doth instance in Wisdom, which (saith he) is as great in a little man as in a great man; but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Privilege, for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude, In all such Quantity, or magnitude (saith he) there is less in the part, then there is in the whole. And by this same Maxim (concerning whole in respect of Place) he distinguisheth the Godhead from the Manhood, by which you have confounded them. And yet again elsewhere (as though he thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted, or rather derided) he will further have you not to be so Childish, as not to know, that 
b Idem. Minor est unus digitus, quam tota manus, & minor est digitus unus quam duo; & alibi est iste digitus, alibi ille, alibi coetera manus— Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis— sed etiam aeris partes suos implent locos— Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram, alia per aliam, & maior per maiorem, per minorem autem minor. Idem. To. 6. Ep. fundamenti. c. 16.  The little finger is less than the whole hand, and one finger is less than two, and that one finger is one where, and the other another where. Upon which where, and where, being notes of distinct places, we may ask, where are your Disputers now? Nay yet furthermore, passing from grosser Bodies, he saith as much of Air, yea, and of the most subtle of subtils, the light of the Sun; one part whereof (saith he) cometh in at one Window, another at another window, yet so, that the less passeth through the less, and the greater through the greater.  
Moreover, if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had believed that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Host, he would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretic for believing 
c Adiungebat (Haereticus) omne illud, quod in Domino palpari potuit, post resurrectionem in subtilitatem aliquam esse red actam. Greg. Exposi. Moral. li. 14. c. 31.  The Body of Christ to have been brought into such a subtlety, that is cannot be felt. But a greater subtlety there cannot be, than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point. Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholic Doctor in the Church within the compass of the twelve hundred years after Christ, and then shall we conceive better of your Cause. And lest you may talk (as you use) of one body penetrating another, we say unto you, as Damascen said unto his Reader, that 
d Damascen. lib. 1. de Orthodox. fide. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This is impossible, but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder.   

That the Romish Objections, against our former Tenet, are feeble and vain.  
SECT. VII.  
IT is ordinarily in the mouths of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the doors being shut; his coming out of the grave, when it was covered with a stone; his birth from his mother, her womb being shut; besides the miraculous passing of a Camel through the Eye of a needle, spoken of by Christ; all Miraculous indeed, as we, with many holy 
* Chrysost. Nazia●z. Aug. Ambros.  Fathers, do willingly Confess. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did pass through the substantial dimensions of the Body of the Doors, Stone, and womb, and consequently confuteth all this, which hath been spoken of the Organical proportions of a body, in respect of space, or place. So you. We grant unto you as much as these Fathers speak, in noting each of these to have been the Acts, and works of Omnipotency, but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all, or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christ's body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your 
e Durand. Disp. 44. qu. 6. [Whom you therefore reject.] Teste Suarez. Tom. 2. Disp. 48. qu. 54. Art. 4. §. 5.  Durand as incredible, as unto us.  
The principal Testimony which is insisted upon, concerning the passing of Christ through the Doors, is the saying of Chrysostome, viz. 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. 87. in job. 21. [but according to the Latin Edition. Hom. 86. super joh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Martyr in the Disp. at Oxon. fol 60.]  Christ's Body was thin, or small, changed from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] that is, it's Thickness, impalpable unto mortal man's hand, but only by divine permission and dispensation. So he. And this is alleged for proof of a Possibility of his now Corporal Presence in the Sacrament, void of palpability: never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperboles, wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome, even in the point in question: who elsewhere speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein 
* Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.  Giveth his Body both to be felt and seen; whereas every Priest's hands and eyes can testify the Contrary. For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Door, should not always have been palpable in itself? The Fathers of the General Council at Ephesus would have protested against this; whose Resolution is, that 
g Conc. Ephes. Tom. 5. C. 1. Anathem. 3. Non alienum est ab illo corpus, quod sibi univit, quod ubique palpabile, & aspectabile existit.  The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable: but you will ask then, how could it pass through either Stones, or Doors, without penetration of Dimensions, or else by an extreme tenuity of the Body itself? We answer, the divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yield a passage, the Thickness of his Body continuing the same. We have Jerome for the first part teaching. 
h Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori.  The Creature (saith he) yielded to the Creator: and ancient 
i I●stin. quaest. & Resp. ad Orthodox. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  justine, for the second, saying that The passage of Christ through the Doors was, by his Divine power, above nature, in his unaltred Body; which Body consisteth of thick parts. He proceedeth, showing how; even as was his walking upon the Water, by divine power working upon the water, without any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Peter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water.  
Each of which sayings of the Fathers, professing a Body of Christ palpable, whether Thin with Chrysostome, or Thick with justine, do confute your Tridentine Faith in believing a Body of Christ whole in the whole, and whole in every least part of the Host, as unpalpable to man as you have said it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtlety, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian Heretics, who (as your 
k Aquinas. par. 3. qu. 54. art. 2. Respondeo. Vide corpus Christi non habuisse partes corporis naturales, pertinet ad errorem Eutychij, qui dicebat corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria impalpabile, & ventis aëreque subtilius: Et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipulorum palpantium, omne illud, quod in to palpari potuit, in aliquam subtilitatem redegit, ut Greg. exponit, Moral. lib. 14. cap. 31.  Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have been as subtle as the air, and as the wind impalpable; as did also the 
l Prateol. Elench. Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani.— Dicebant corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impalpabile esse & invisible; imò aere & vento subtilius: de qua haeresi Grego●ius Eutychium convincit.  Eunomians, and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great.  
Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when we answer, that Christ in his Birth opened the womb of his Mother, although without violation of her sacred vessel, we are therefore presently branded by your 
m Bellar. l●de notis Eccles. cap. 9 Saunder. de visib. Monarch. li. 7. pag. 321. Maldon. Ies. Com. in Luc. 2. 23.  Disputers with the black mark of the Heresy of those wicked Spirits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginity. Which objection nothing but personal malice could make, or Impudence defend, as the Obiecters themselves well knew, one of them confessing, that diverse Fathers in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applied to the Virgin Mary, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord; did teach that 
n Docue●unt— solum Christum aperuisse vulvam. Mald. in Luc 2.  Christ alone did properly open the womb of a woman, who only found it shut▪ He 
o Origen in hunc locum. Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi. Ambr. & Greg. Nyssen. in testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis, Epiphan. Heres. 78. Hier. si. 2. cont. Pelag. Theophylact. & Euseb. [That which he addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous, even as his Imputation to Protestants, saying, that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth; is slanderous:] and Jansenius Conco. cap. 13.— Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum propriè pertinuisse asserunt. Theophyl. & Ambros. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit. Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14. in Luc. And Beatus Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi (before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors, and their Index Expur●at.) durst say; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit; Mariam patefacti corporis lege peperisse.  reckoneth for this opinion these holy Fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Hierome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So he. A fair company of fellow Heretics with Protestants, we trow: to whom the same jesuit joineth diverse Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti, & Catholici. Thus your own spirit of Contradiction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresy, maintained the Miracle, and defended the Integrity of that sanctified womb of the Blessed Virgin, (to wit) that the Virginal cell might be said to open itself, which was shut in respect of other women (who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the birth) being preserved from all hurtful violence, either from within or from without; which could not be without a Miracle.  
Furthermore harken to the answer of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall find your own Doctrine to smell rank of the Heresy of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the forecited ancient Fathers; for your forenamed 
a Apud Maldon. Ies. in Luc. 2. Id Patres dixisse ardore abreptos disputationis contra Marcionitas, ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere viderentur, si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse.  jesuit telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom he himself approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, speak it in the heat of Dispute against the Heretical Marcionites, who denied that Christ had any true Body; because that else the said Fathers should seem to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeal, and only imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the judgement of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Fantastical. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be added to the rest, who in an Epistle calmly, and as it were in a cool blood, teacheth that 
b Ibid. Pelusiot. lib. 1. Epist. 23. Aperire vulvam (Luc. 2.) non dicitur de quovis primogenito [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Christ is the only he, who by his birth opened his Mother's womb, and left it shut & sealed up again. And maketh bold to term them unlearned, that think the contrary: who living above a thousand years ago, is therefore so much the more competent a witness of the Catholic truth.  
As for the entrance of the 
* Math. 19 24.  Camel, (which is said of Christ) to pass through the eye of a needle: the subtlety of your Objection is not so needle-sharpe, but that it may be easily blunted, for Christ spoke by way of comparison, and employed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility, Thus; as it is simply Impossible for a Camel (be it Rope, or be it Beast) to pass through the eye of a Needle, retaining the same dimension and property: so is it Impossible for a Richman, so long as he hath on him a great Bunch or grossness of confidence in his riches, and worldly affections, to enter into the Kingdom of God. Although otherwise, as it is possible for God, by his miraculous power so to contract the Camel, that it may pass through the Needle's eye; so is it as possible by his omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling Bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Richman, that he, being truly mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himself, and at length enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  

CHALLENGE.  
SHall not then the novelty of your Romish Article, which was not so much as believed of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianity? Shall not your Contradiction to your own Romish Principle? Shall not the express Testimony of S. Augustine, who as he was universally acknowledged to be a Catholic Father; so was he never condemned by any other Catholic Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily Parts according to proportionable dimensions of Space? Finally, shall not the affinity, which your opinion bathe with damnable heresies, persuade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith?     

CHAP. VIII.  

Of the fifth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ [MY BODY] as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect, by making it most Imperfect.  
SECT. I.  
NOne will think we need to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church; the Absurdities which we have already heard professed therein, under the testifications of your own Disputers, having been so marvailously and palpably absurd, as hath been shown. Among which we may reckon this, that followeth, as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporal Presence (to wit)   

That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine, teaching a Body of Christ, now glorified, to be destitute of natural and voluntary motion of Sense, and of Understanding.  
SECT. II.  
Catholic Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ, after the Resurrection, but that he was able naturally of himself, as he was man, to perform the perfect Acts, which other men can, who are of right constitution of Body, and of sound understanding; such as are the functions of judgement, and reason, and of appetite, sense, & motion, according to the liberty of his own will. This Doctrine was above 1000 year's Catholic. But your now Roman faith is to believe, as followeth in the conclusions set down by your jesuit Suarez, 
a Suarez. Ies. Dico secundò corpus Christi, ut est in hoc Sacramento, potest per se moveri localiter à Deo: loquor de potentia Dei absoluta. Nam iuxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus, nec moveri nisi motis illis— neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem. In tertiam Tho. qu. 76 Art. 7. disp. 32. Conc. 2. & Conclude. 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moverilocaliter ab intrinseco à propria anima, & interna virtute motiva naturali, neque per se, neque per accidens. Loquor de naturali virtute, non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem. Ratio, quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica, quae habent extensionem in locum: Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento— multo minus potest movere species Sacramenta●es, quas nec physic● contegere possit, neque ad motum voluntatis movere. Ibid. conclus. ult. Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtute extrinseca moveri per Accidens, quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri, ut a Sacerdote, Elevando. Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus nominales ci●atidicunt posse Christum, ut est in hoc Sacramento, ut Deum audire, etc. Alij hoc negant. Sunt nonnulli, quinegant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ, ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat, autalia. Dico, non potest nat●raliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum; Ita tenet Thomas & alij Authores— quia sensus cius non potest recipere has species ab obiectis externis, quia hic actus est materialis, & extensus suânaturâ— Quamvis potentia absoluta potest— Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus & appetitu sentiente, quia nòn uti phan●asmatibus, nec actum secundum elicere, quia hic actus est materialis, & nisi à materiali & extenso principio non potest intellectus eius, secl●so miraculo,— acquirere novas species, nec prius exquisitis uti, quia intellectus hoc non potest facere, nisi simul phantasia operetur cum intellectu: non loquor de speciebus infusis. Haec Suarez in 3. Tho. qu. 76. Art. 7. disp. 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Sillivitius Senens. Ies. Moral. quaest. To. 1. Tract 4. 5. nu. 1 39 & 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se, nec possunt actiones sensuum convenire Christo naturaliter, quia hae exercentur, per species in substantia divisibili. At Christi corpus est in sacramento indivisibiliter, etc.  without (as he saith) the contradiction of any Divine in your Church. First, that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no power naturally of himself to move himself. And this your own daily experience hath brought you unto; whilst believing Christ's Corporal presence in the Host, you shut him up in a Box, where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion, as any other unconsecrated Bread; which being put together with it lieth so long, until they both equally wax mouldy, putrifye, and engender worms. Secondly, that Christ in himself, as being in this Sacrament, hath no natural faculty of sense, nor ability (without a miracle) to hear or see, etc. Thirdly, That he is void of all sensible appetite. Lastly, that (without some miraculous power) he cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present, nor yet remember any notions past. So he.   

That this is a new, brutish, and barbarous Doctrine, destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition.  
SECT. III.  
HAve you any Text, yea or yet pretext either of Scripture, or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception? Certainly Scripture telleth us, that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense, and Agility; and his soul in judgement, and Capacity. Nor can you show any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ, who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dream▪ or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection: we say no one Father, or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian, and false faith. You must therefore derive this from him, whom Christ calleth the Father of lies. We shall give you good reason for this our Declamation.   

That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Majestical Body of Christ.  
SECT. IV.  
What is this, which we have heard? Christ his humanity▪ after his Resurrection, not to have so much Capacity, as a Child? which is (as he is here) to understand or imagine any thing done? not thè power of a Mole, or Mouse; which is to hear, or see? not the faculty of a little Aut, so as to move itself? as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body, & humane nature of Christ: which being once 
* 1. Cor. 15. 44.  sown in infirmity, is, (as the Scripture saith) since risen in power. Do you hear? In power, saith the spirit of God, showing that Infirmity is changed into Potency, in the Body of every Christian: and you have turned power into infirmity, even in Christ himself, whom you have now transformed into an 
* Psal. 116.  Idol having eyes, and seeth not, ears, and heareth not, feet, and walketh not, heart, and imagineth not: and yet this you profess to adore, as the person of the Son of God. O the strength of Satanical Delusion!   

That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your own Principle.  
SECT. V.  
REmember your 
* See above Chap. 4. §. 10.  former general Principle, which we acknowledged to be sound and true, viz. All such Actions, and Qualities, which are real in any Body without any relation to place, cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of diverse places, wherein a Body is supposed to be. As for Example: The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar, and hot in another, wounded, and whole, in joy, and grief, dead, and alive at the same time. The reason. These are impossible (say you) because of Contradiction: for, that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties, it is repugnant to the understanding of man. So you; which is an infallible Truth, when the Modus, or Manner of a thing is compared to itself, and not to any thing else: it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be only one, the same jesuit cannot be sick in japan, and sound and in health at Rome, in the same instant.  

CHALLENGE.  
NOw say (we beseech you) is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time, as he is in Heaven, intelligent, and sensitive; and as on earth ignorant, and senseless? Or powerful to move of himself, on the throne of Majesty; and absolutely Impotent, as he is on the Altar? because these Attributes, of Christ being Intelligent, and potent equally have no Relation to place. Notwithstanding all which you shame not to profess a senseless, ignorant, and feeble Christ. O come out of Babylon, and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries!     

CHAP. IX.  

The sixth kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ [MY BODY] as it is now most Glorious, by making it most Inglorious.  
SECT. I.  
BEfore we proceed in discovering the ugliness of the Romish Doctrine in this point, we are willing to hear your 
a In his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 1.  Master Brerely his preface in your defence: The carnal man (saith he) is not for all this satisfied, but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd, and undecent indignities: Calvin saying, That he rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ, And Doctor Willet saith: That they are unseemly, and against the dignity of the glorious and impassable Body of Christ. So he, at once relating, and rejecting their opinions.   

That the Indignities, whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject, by the Romish Doctrine, are most vile, and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ.  
SECT. II.  
ALl Christian Creeds tell us, that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God, that is, in perfection of glory. But your jesuit Suarez delivereth it in the general Doctrine of the Romish Divines; 
d Suarez Ies. Dicendum tamdiu conservari Christum praesentem sub speciebus, quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent, ut sub iis possit substantia panis, & vini conservari. Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis, & Catholicis Scriptoribus. D. Thoma, etc. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum, qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere▪ si in lutum cadan● species. In tertia●… Th●. qu. 75. Art. 1. Disp. 46. §. Dicendum. Sect. 8. Rursus q. 76. Disp. 54 §. 2. Christus non recedit ex hoc Sacramento, donec in Accidentibus talis fia● Alteratio, quae ad corrumpendum panem & vinum sufficeret▪ §. Dico secundo. Rursus, Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutinantur, antèquam alterentur, est contra generale principium. §. Tertio.  That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the forms of Bread and wine, wheresoever, until they be corrupted. And this he calleth a General Principle in your Romish profession. Insomuch, that the Body of Christ is moved, wheresoever the forms of Bread are moved, be it into the dirt, or into the Dunghill. Secondly, that according to your 
e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveriab eo, qui potest species consec●…tas secundum locum mutare. Suarez Tom. 3. quaest. 76. Disp. 2. art. 7. And, Ad motum specierum movetur Christus. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19 Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram, etc. D●cret. D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam. Nunquid caden●e sacramento cadit corpus Christi? Dic quod sit. Glossa ibid. And Bozius l. 14. de signis Eccles. cap. 7. telleth of a woman, that ●id it in a Dunghill. See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  Romish Decrees, and public Missals, the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant; yea, and you have 
f A Naus●abundis èxpuitur. Suarez, quo supra. Si quis stomacho ●vomit illas species, corpus Christi evomit— si species possint discerni ab aliis, debent cum reverentiasumi, & cremari▪ & cine●es i●xta Al●are recondi. Gloss. Decret. quo supra, & Summa Angel. Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147.  Cases about the vomiting of it, whether upon weakness of 
g Si fiat fiaus●a Sacerdoti per muscam incidentem— si aliquid venenosum incideret in calicem, vel quod provocaret vomitu●…, tum etc. Missal Rom. decreet & iussu Pij V. Pont. Edit. in instruct. ante Missam, p. 35. In hac parte distinctionis ponitur poe●it●…tia corpus Christi vomentibus. Decret. de Consecr●t. quo supra.  Stomach, or of 
h Si quis per ebrietatem, vel voracitatem Eucharistiam ●vomu●rit▪ 40. di●bus poeniteat. Decret. ibid. D●cunt isti, quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem▪ quod falsum est, cum species intrant: quamdiu enim species manent, Christus later integer sub iis, & sic potest ●vomi.  Drunkenness. Next that it is devoured of Mice, and blown away with wind, for we read of your Church Cases also for these in your 
* Si hostia consecrata dispar●at velcasu aliquo, vel vento, vel a mur● accepta, ut nequeat repe●iti, altera consecretur. Missal. Rom. quo supra p. 32.  Missals. We thirdly demand whether you think it possible for meat, that is undigested by reason of man's infirmity, to descend raw through the Body into the Draught (which in other meats is known sometime to be certain:) you falling into this speculation, tell us concerning the Egestion, that it is held 
i A muribus comeditur, quia Denominationes, qua tantùm indicant motum local●m per terminum ●ius, propriètribuuntur corpori Christi, à quocunque fiant, huiusmodi est commestio. Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 76. Disp. 54. p. 706.  Probable that the Body of Christ doth not pass with the forms into the Draught in that Case. So you: affirming this to be but only Probable, whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the form of Bread, so long as it is uncorrupt (which is your 
k Si autem species illae transeant per stomachum indigestae, per aliquam infirmitatem, tunc sunt extia proprietatem refectionis, etiamsi vadant in sec●ssum, non est ibi corpus Domini. Et hanc opinionem Boetius dicit esse probabi●em▪ S●…ia Angel. quosupra.  general Tenet) they must hold that the same Body in the like case of man's bodily infirmity doth pass by Egestion in like sort into the siege. For if (as you do also say) the same Body of Christ hath been once hidden in a 
* See above in this Book Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  Dunghill, why may you not as wickedly believe, that it may pass into the Draught?   

That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures, and judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. III.  
HOly Writ teacheth us, that there is as great difference between the humiliation of Christ, when he was on earth, and his now Exaltation in glory, in Heaven, as there is between Shame, and Glory, it being now 
* 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2 8, 9  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] A Body of Glory. Now for you to believe and profess the personal burning, devouring, regorging, yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill, and the like, are such execrable speeches, as that we stand astonished with horror to hear them, thinking that we have heard, in these, the scoffs, reproaches, and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion, rather than the opinion of any, that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians.  
If this had been the ancient Faith, some Fathers doubtless upon some occasion, by some one sentence or other would have revealed their judgement therein: from whose divers and copious Volumes neither do you allege, nor we read any one word of man's spewing up, or Mice eating, or so much as the wind blowing away the Body of Christ; much less of the other baseness spoken of. But chose 
l Origen. in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit, & in secessum s●…m eijcitur.  Origen and 
* Cyril. Hier. Catech. Mystag. 5. p. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. Hom. de Euch. in Lucam: Num vides panem? num vides vinum? sicut re●…qui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit, sic ne cogites [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]  Cyrill, distinguishing between the spiritual Bread, which is the Real Body of Christ, and the Bread Sacramental, say That not that Body, but this Bread goeth into the Draught. Which to affirm of Christ's Body, were an Assertion abominable.   

That the Romish Answers, for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion, are but false and fond.  
SECT. IV.  
IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd, but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it: the like may be said of our Romish Opposites, whereof we have given you diverse Instances throughout this whole Treatise, as in the most particulars, so for the point now in Question. And although many of your Disputers have for modesty's sake passed by it, yet have two among you (as it were putting on Vizards on their faces) come in with two fanatical 
m Card. Bellar. and Master Brerely in places above-cited.  Answers. Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body, whilst he was in the world: 
n Non nulli vix ferre possunt Christum quoque modo includi in paruâ pixide, cadere in terram, comburi, rodi à bestia— Annon' credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero? cundem potuisse in via cadere, humi jacuisse, & remoto miraculo à bestia morderi & comburi potwisle? si ita pati potuit in propria specie, cur mirum videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus? Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 10 §. Denique.  Many (saith your Cardinal) can scarce endure to hear that Christ is included in a Box, fallen to the earth, burnt, or eaten of beasts: as though we do not read, that Christ was included in the womb of the Virgin, lay upon the earth, and might without any miracle have been eaten of beasts, why may not such things now happen unto him, but [sine laesione] without any hurt at all? So he.  
join with this the Determination of your 
o Aquinas. Etiamsi canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, part. 3. qu. 80. art. 3.  School; That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still, although the Host be eaten with Dogs. But Master Brerely more cunningly, that he might not disguise your opinions, but also make Protestants odious, (if it might be) for their exceptions against them, doth readily tell us, that Pagans, jews, and Heretics conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion, as against Christ his Incarnation, and his Crucifying. So he. Both which Answers are but mere tergiversations, by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ: That, then in the state of his humiliation, with This, which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory. We therefore rejoin, as followeth.  
Your Disputers have so answered, as if Christ his Incarnation in the womb of a Virgin, his Conversation upon earth, and his Passion upon the Cross were not objects of Indignity, notwithstanding the Spirit of God, hath blazed them to the world to have been the Indignities of all Indignities, Thus: 
* Phil. 2. 6.  Who being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, yet [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] made himself of no reputation, but took upon him the form of a servant (such was his Incarnation) and became obedient to death, even (spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof) The [shameful] death of the Cross. Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of God's grace, and mercy, or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man, as it is written 
* joh. 3. 16.  God so loved the world, that he sent his Son, (namely to suffer) that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. How could your Answerers but know, that it was not the observation of the indignities, which Christ suffered, that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans, jews, and Heretics: but their faithlessness in taking such scandal thereat, as to deprive themselves, by their Infidelity, of all hope of life by Christ crucified. Harken furthermore.   

That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities; and that the comparing both the Estates (in your answering) is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion.  
SECT. V.  
THis Disproportion between Christ his estate in the days of his flesh in this world, and his now present Condition at the right hand of God, is as extremely disproportionable as is 
* 1. Cor. 15.  Mortality, and Immortality, Shame and Glory, Misery and Blessedness, Earth and Heaven; that being his state of humiliation, and this chose of his exaltation, as all Christians know, and profess. And although the Body of Christ now in eternal Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporal injuries, yet may Moral and Spiritual abasements be offered unto Christ, as well in the Opinion, as in the Practice of men. Of the opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ, whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally: for the Practice you may set before you the Corinthians, who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemn him, and were made guilty of high Profanation against the glorious Body of Christ. And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ, by murdering his Saints on earth, complained off by his voice from Heaven; 
* Act. 9 4.  Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?  
Your Cardinal, in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ, by putting him in a Box, and of being Eaten with Worms, and the like; opposed (as you have heard) saying, Why may not such things now happen unto him but [sine laesione] that is, without any hurt? We answer that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis, that is, hurt of the Body; yet should there be thereby, in the opinion of men, laesio dignitatis, that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity, which is set forth in Scripture, and which our Article of faith, concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven, teacheth us to be in all Celestial glory and Majesty. This your Aquinas well saw, when in regard of Indignity he judged it 
a Nefas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixide includi putare. Aquin. part. 3. quest. 76. art. 8.  An heinous wickedness for any to think Christ should be enclosed in a Box, appearing in his proper form. And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another form, more than when that one, and the same Person is imprisoned, whether open faced, or covered, whether in the day, or in the night, it mattereth not much, for still the same person is shut up in Prison? Again, if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity, why do your Jesuits, in a point of Opinion, deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant, because of the 
* See hereafter Book 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 1.  Indignity against his Majesty.  
Come we to the point of Practice. Let this be our lesson; when there is Reverence in the use of a thing, then there may be Irreverence, and Indignity in the abuse thereof. But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaved, and the Laics abstain from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence. The first, lest some part of the Host (which you believe to be the body of Christ) should hang on the Priest's Beard; the second, lest any whit of Christ's Blood in the Cup should be split. But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice, Worms, and sometimes (as your own 
* See above in this Book Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  stories have related) kept close in a Dunghill? One word more. If these seem not sufficiently indigne, because there is not Laesio corporis; Hurt of the Body (this being your only Evasion) what will you say of your framing a Christ unto yourselves, who as he is in this Sacrament, Is (you say) without power of motion of sense, and of understanding? Why, my Masters, can there be Lameness, Blindness, Deafness, and Impotency itself, without Hurt of the same party so maimed? etc. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill.  

THE GENERAL CHALLENGE.  
THese above specified Six Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized, the profession of Primitive Fathers testified, Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged, and the Principles of your own Romish learning in most points confirmed; your Abrenunciation of your so many Gross Errors may be as necessary, as your persisting therein will be damnable. Before we can end, we are to consult with the Fathers of the Council of Nice, especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be known to appeal to that Council.     

CHAP. X.  

Of the Canon of the Council of Nice, objected for proof of a Corporal Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist.  
SECT. I.  
THis (as it is delivered by your 
a Concilij verba. Iterùm etiam hîc in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem & calicem, sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] à Sacerdotibus immolatum: & pretiosum eius corpus & sanguinem verè nos sumentes, credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola. Propter hoc enim neque mulcum accipimus, sed parum, ut sciamus, non ad satietatem, sed ad sanctificationem offerri, Vt resert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10.  Cardinal, taken out, as he saith, of the Vatican Library) standeth thus: Let us not here in this divine Table be in humbleness intent unto the Bread, and Cup which is set before us, but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lamb of God set upon that Table: The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the World, offered unbloodily of the Priest. And we receiving truly his Body and Blood, let us think these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection. For this Cause do we receive not much, but little, that we may understand this is not to satisfy, but to sanctify. So the Canon.   

The General approbation of this Canon by Both sides.  
SECT. II.  
SCarce is there any one Romish Author, handling this Controversy, who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice, for the countenancing of your Romish Mass. Contrarily Protestant's (as they are set down by our 
b Hunc canonem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero, & aliis.— Martinus Bucerus dixit; Ità in Domino sentio: & in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei. Manu meâ scripsi. Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell. de Coena Domini, pag. 152. He himself assenting unto the same.  Zanchy, and your 
c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in acts eiusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis, etc. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij, ut Occolampadius, Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus, Klebitius: & nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam, etc. Bellar. ibid.  Bellarmine) in great numbers (among whom are Luther and Calvin) with joint consent approve of this Canon; one of them (Bucer by name) subscribing unto it with his own hand, in these words: So I think in the Lord, and I wish to appear in this mind before the Tribunal Seat of God. So they. The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our pains.   

The state of the Difference, concerning this Canon.  
SECT. III.  
THis (as is propounded by your Cardinal) standeth thus. 
d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum, ut distinguitur contra symbola. Bellar quo supra.— Illi (Protestants) quasi admoneant, nè quaerendum Christum in Altati lapideo. Sed ment conscendamus ad coelum, in coelo situm Agnum.— At vult Concilium, ut ad sacram ipsam mésam attendamus: sed in ipsa non tàm Symbola, quam quae sub illis latent consideremus. Ibidem per tótum.  All (saith he) by the Lamb understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signs upon the Altar. Next. But the Protestants think (saith he) that the Council admonisheth not to seek Christ on the Altar, but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith, as sitting at the right hand of God. But we all say (saith he) that the Council would have us to attend unto the holy Table (meaning the Altar below) yet so, that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols, and Signs, as that which lieth hid under them, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ. So he. The difference then between him and us is no less than the distance between Aloft and Under, that is, between Heaven above, and Earth below. Let us set forward in our progress, but with easy, and even paces; to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofs, and rottenness of your Objections.   

That the Nicene Council is marvellously prejudicial to your Romish Defence: proved by five Observations; Three here.  
SECT. IV.  
FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon. First is the nomination of Bread. Secondly, the mention of two Tables. Thirdly, the admonition to lift up our minds. Fourthly, the expression of the Reason thereof. Fiftly, the Confirmation of the same Reason.  
First, That, which the Council would that men be not too intent unto, they call Bread after Consecration; for the Error, which they would have avoided, was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament (according to your Cardinal's 
e jubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis & vini; quasi ibi nihil sit, nisi quod oculi renuntiant. Bellar. quo supra.  Gloss) and then was it after Consecration, because they needed not to have persuaded any to have too mean an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated; which you yourselves hold to be a common and profane thing: or else the Error must have been (as indeed it was) too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread, which must needs be so, because it was consecrated, and notwithstanding it being so consecrated, in the Canon it is called Bread. which your Fathers of the Council of Trent would not have endured, especially seeing that we find that your 
f Nic. Cabasila. Latini dicunt eos, qui panem & vinum nominant, & tanquàm nondùm sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba [Hoc est corpus meum] rem supervacuam facere. Expos. Liturg. cap. 29.  Latin Church was offended with the late Greek Church, for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the terms of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words [This is my Body,] by you called the words of Consecration. Besides they so call them Bread and Wine, as they name them Symbols and Signs, which properly they could not be, until after Consecration.  
Secondly, the 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Nicen.  Canon expressly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables, in respect of place; the one, as Here; being as much as to say, This Table: and the other opposed hereunto is instiled, That Table. And, of this Table Here, the Council forbiddeth Christians to look Too attentively to the thing set before us: But contrarily, concerning That other Table, they command men to Lift up their minds aloft. And not thus only, but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects. The Object of the First Table, Here, they name Bread, and the Cup; the objects of sense: And the other object, opposed to this, is that on the other Table, expressed to be the Lamb of God, the object of our minds.  
Thirdly, the Admonition or Caution, which the Council giveth concerning the Bread, is, not to be too intent to it: but touching the Lamb of Christ, they command us to lift up our minds aloft; for so the word 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth signify, not to be used (we think) for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the matter before us, as your Cardinal fancieth: but for looking up aloft unto the Lamb of God in Heaven, according to the Catholic fence of those words, 
* See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 7.  SURSUM CORDA!   

The next two proofs out of the same Canon of Nice, to manifest our Protestant profession touching the question in hand.  
Our next two proofs out of the Canon are these. First is their Reason of the former Caution: the Second, the Confirmation of that Reason: both are expressly set down in the Canon itself. Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us? It followeth; Because they are not ordained to satisfy our natural man, namely, by a full eating and Drinking: but for a Sacramental participation of the Body, and Blood of Christ, to the sanctifying of our souls: whereas your Church doth attribute to that, which you eat in this Sacrament, a power of sanctifying the Body by its Bodily touch. But much more will the next proof undermine your defence.  
To confirm their Reason, why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the natural man, they add saying; For this cause we receive not much, but little: which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine; and not of the Body, and Blood of Christ. As your general Roman Catechism (if you have not already learned it) will now teach you to believe, saying that 
i Catechis. Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Sacramento non dicimus, ut parvus aut magnus est, sed ut substantia est. Tract. de Euch. num. 36.  Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament. And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist, that he eat a little of Christ's Body, or a little Christ, but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more, sometime less. Nor this only, but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that, whereof if much were taken (saith it) it might satiate the natural man. So the Canon. But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfy the natural man, you yourselves will testify in your Bookcases and Missals, 
* See the fifth Book Chap. 6. Sect. 1. & 2.  acknowledging men Drunk with the Sacrament, even unto vomiting with the one part thereof; and also making mention of Men, and Mice being fed and nourished with the other. So then the natural man may be satiated with this Sacrament; but with what therein? The Body and Blood of Christ? you abhor to think that; with Accidents? You may be ashamed to affirm it, as from the judgement of Antiquity, seeing you were never able hitherto justly to produce one Father for proof of the Existence of Accidents without their Subjects: or of nourishing a substance by mere Accidents. Wherefore until you can prove some one of all these, give us leave to believe, that all were of the mind of that one 
k Gregor. Nyssen. Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat? In Orat. de vita Mosis, p. 509.  Father, who held it Impossible for an Incorporeal, or notbodily thing to be food to a bodily substance. And so much the rather, because the Fathers have manifoldly 
* See above Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. & 10. etc.  acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the substance of Bread. Wherefore the Reasoning of the Council, touching the Eucharist, was like as if one should say of Baptism; We take not too much, but little, lest it might be thought to have been ordained not for a Sacramental means of sanctifying the Soul, but for the cleansing of the Flesh. None is so stupid as not to understand, by Much and Little, the substance of water.  
And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice, you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Council held at Toledo in Spain, Anno 693. who show this Reason, why they 
l Conc. Tolet. 16. Anno 693. Can. 6. Integrum panem esse sumendum— nequo grande allquid, sed modica tantum oblato, secundùm id quod Ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat: cuius reliquiae aut ad conservandum modico loculo absque aliqua iniuria Sacrificijs consecretur; aut si sum endum fuerit necessarium, non ventrem illius, qui sumpserit, gravis sarciminis onere premat, nec quid indigesticè vadat, sed animum alimoniâ spirituali reficiat.  Take little portions of the Host (namely, say they) lest otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed, and overcharged; and lest it may pass into the Draught, but that it may be nourishment for the soul. Hereby plainly teaching, concerning the consecrated matter, that were it so much as could burden the belly, it would through the superfluity thereof go into the Draught: whereas, if Less, it would serve as well, or better for a Sacramental use, to the replenishing of our souls in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ. But you are not so far bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much, which stuffeth, and after passeth into the Draught, to be Christ's Body; and you may swear that the Fathers meant not mere 
* See above Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10.  Accidents. For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance, through the Muchness thereof, either to satiate the natural appetite, in feeding, or to over-charge the Belly by weight, in pressing it down to the Draught. Never did any Father father such an Imagination. What can be, if this be not true reasoning, and consequently a full confuration of your Roman Faith. Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained, concerning the not seeking Christ, Here, on this Table, is sufficient of itself to batter down your Assertion by a fivefold force. First, by proof of no Transubstantiation of Bread; Secondly, no Corporal Presence of Christ's Body; Thirdly, no Corporal Conjunction with the Bodies of the Communicants; and (consequently) Fourthly, no proper Sacrifice thereof; And lastly, no Divine Adoration due unto it. Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avaunt.   

Your Objections, from the former Canon, answered.  
SECT. V.  
FIrst you 
m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei sicum esse in sacra mensa, & eundem agnum opponit symbolis, declarat agnum propriè esse in mensa: & non solùm ut per symbola repraesentatur. 2. Agnus dicitur à Sacerdotum manibus immolari, quod non fit in coelo: neque enim tàm longas manus habent Sacerdotes, ut ad coelum pertingant 3. Dicimur verè sumere corpus Christi, & quòd non solùm corde sed & corpore sumitur, prebatur: quià corpus & sanguis Domini dicuntur esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola, quià cum nostris corporibus coniunguntur. Si autem sola esset animorum coniunctio, solus animus resurrecturus significaretur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10.  Object, that The Lamb is said to be placed on the Table, mistaking what Table is meant; for the Canon specifying two Tables, one Here, which is of the Eucharist, and another That Table, namely in Heaven, saith that Christ is placed on That Table, according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven. Secondly, he is said (say you) to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest; which cannot be done, as he is in Heaven. The words of the Canon, truly resolved, do cashier this Objection, as thus: The Lamb of God set at that Table (namely in Heaven) is sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here, to wit, on the Table below (representatively) as hereafter the Catholic Fathers themselves will show. And these two may easily consist, without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as far as the highest Heavens; as your Cardinal pleasantly objecteth. Thirdly, you allege; We are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ. As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramental, that is Figurative Receiving; and more especially (which 
* See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  hath been both proved, and confessed) a Real, and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually, without any Corporal Conjunction.  
But it is added (saith he) that These (namely, the Body and Blood of Christ) are Symbols of our Resurrection; which is by reason that our Bodies are joined with the Body of Christ: otherwise if our Conjunction were only of our souls, only the Resurrection of our souls should be signified thereby. So he, that's to say, as successesly as in the former.  
For the word, HAEC, These, (which are called Symbols of our Resurrection) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ, immediately spoken of, and placed on the Table in Heaven (which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies: because, 
* 1. Cor. 1. 15.  If Christ be risen, then must they that are Christ's also rise again. Or else the word, These, may have relation to the more remote (after the manner of the greeks) to wit, Bread and Cup on the first Table, because (as immediately followeth) they are these whereof not much, but little is taken; as you have heard. Which other 
* See below Book 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 6.  Fathers will show to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection, without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies, more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptism, which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection; as doth also your jesuit 
m Ad futuram resurrectionem, per Baptismi Sacramentum, ius & pignus accepimus. Coster. Institut. Christ. l. 4. c. 4 See more in the Book following. Chap. 8. Sect. 6.  Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection. (But this our Conjunction with Christ is the subject matter of the fifth Book.) Lastly, how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, is plentifully resolved in 
* Chap. 5. Sect.  the sixth Book.     

THE FIFTH BOOK,  
Treating of the third Romish Doctrinal Consequence, arising from your depraved Sense of the Words of Christ's Institution [THIS IS MY BODY:] concerning the manner of the present Union of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers, by Eating, etc.  

CHAP. I.  

The state of the Question.  
SECT. I.  
A Christian man consisting of two men, the Outward, or bodily; and the Inward, which is, Spiritual; this Sacrament, accordingly, consisteth of two parts, Earthly and Heavenly: as Irenaeus spoke of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine, as the visible Signs and Objects of Sense; and of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the Spiritual part. Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Union of a Christian; the one Sacramental, by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, united to man's body, in his Taking, Eating, digesting, till at length it be transubstantiated into him, by being substantially incorporated in his flesh. The other, which is the Spiritual, and Souls food, is the Body and Blood of the Lord (therefore called Spiritual, because it is the Object of Faith) by an Union wrought by God's Spirit, and man's faith; which (as hath been professed by Protestants) is most Real and Ineffable.  
But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Real Union of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants, as is Corporal; which you call [Per contactum] by Bodily touch, so long as the forms of Bread and Wine remain uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers.  
Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Union to be an Orthodox truth. Secondly, to impugn your Romish Union, as Capernaitical (that is) Heretical. And thirdly, to determine the Point, by comparing them both together. Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Preparations following.   

That Protestants profess not only a Figurative and Sacramental Participation and Communion with Christ's Body; but also a spiritually- Real.  
SECT. II.  
ALl the Books of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement, violent, and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries, as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Union with Christ's body than only Sacramental, and Figurative. For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apology of 
a Calvin. in hijs libris, uz. Consensio in re Sacramentaria: & Defensio contra Westphalium: & Explicatio de vera participatione coenae Dom.  Him, who hath been most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause: to show, first, what he held not; and than what he held.  
If you shall ask Calvin what he liked not, he will answer you, 
i Fateor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae. Substantian Christi animae nostrae pascuntur: sed secundum virtutem, non secundùm substantiam.  I do abhor your gross Doctrine of Corporal Presence. And 
ii Signum tantùm porrigi, centies contrà. Quasi verò cum Swinckfeldio quicquam nobis common.—  I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiving only of a Figure, in this Sacrament. What then did he hold? 
iii In Catechismo disserui, non solum beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena; sed substantiuè participes, in unam cum eo vitam coalescimus.— Figurata locutio, fa●eor, ●…odò non tollatur re● veritas.  Our Catechism teacheth (saith he) not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein, but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our souls. And with Swinckfeldius, maintaining only a Figurative perception, we have nothing to do. If you further demand what is the Feeding, whereby we are united to Christ's body, in this Sacrament? he tells you that it is (IU) Not carnal, but Spiritual, and Real; and so Real, that the soul is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh, by the powerful work of the Spirit of God; as the body is nourished with the corporal Element of Bread in this Sacrament. If you exact an Expression of this spiritual Union, to know the manner, he acknowledgeth it to be 
v Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus, quod & naturae sins, & sensus nostri modum exsuperat: quòd Christi caro nobis fit communis, & nobis in alimentum datur.— Modus incomprehensibilis.  above Reason. 
(VI) Neque enim tantùm dico, applicari merita, sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas, non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur. Vim carnis suae vivificans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transfundit. Spiritualem dicimus, non carnalem, quamvis realem, ut haec vox, pro vera, contra fallacem sumitur: non secundùm substantiam, quamvis ex eius substantia vita in animas nostras profl●it.   
If further you desire to understand, whether he were not Singular in this opinion, he hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants, professing not to descent one Syllable from the 
vi Si nos in consensu, quem continet Augustana Confessio, complex●s esse dixi, non est quòd qui● me astutiae insimulet. Verbulum in ea Confession (qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit) non extat doctrinae nostrae contrarium. De Philippo Melanct●one, eius Authore, viro spectatae pietatis, dico, non magis me à Philippo, quam à proprijs visce●ibus divelli posse. Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae B●cerum sensis●e, luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit. Lutherus, meae s●nt●ntiae non ignarus, propiâ tn. manu non gravatus est me saluta●e. Quum Marpurgi essem, dimidia conciliatio facta est: ab eo conventu digressus affirmat eodem, quo ante, loco, Occolampadium & Zuinglium habere, quos illic fratum loco posthà● fore sanctè pollicitus est. Hacte●●s Calvinus.  Augustane Confession, as agreeing with him in judgement herein. Accordingly our Church of England (in the 28. Article) saith that To such as worthily, and with faith receive this Sacrament, The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, which Body is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a spiritual and heavenly manner, the mean whereby is Faith.   

That the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soul.  
SECT. III.  
What need we seek into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers, which are many, in this point of Dispute, having before us the judgement of your 
b Summus Salvator hoc Sacramentum volu●t esse tanquàm sp●…ualem anima●um cibum, quo alantur & conforten●ur viventes vita ill●us, quo dixit, [Qui manducat me, etc. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13 c. 2.  Fathers of the Council of Trent, and of your 
c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam. Catech. Trid. de Euch. num. 29.  Roman Catechism, authorized by the same Council? both which affirm that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spiritual food of man's soul. In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spiritual in your Pope's 
d Decret. ex Ambros. De mysterijs. Corpus Christi est corpus spirituale. Dist. 2. C. In illo.  Decree.   

That the Spiritual feeding and Union with Christ's Body is more excellent and Real than the Corporal Conjunction can be.  
SECT. IV.  
THe soul of man being the most essential and substantial part of man (because a Spirit immortal) and the flesh of Christ being the most substantial of all food; and therefore called, as of ancient 
e Ambros. lib. 5. de Sacram c. 4.  Fathers, so even by your Fathers of 
f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialem freq●ēter accipiant. Sess 13. c. 8.  Trent, supersubstantial Bread; it must necessarily follow, that as it is named by Christ 
* Jo●. 6. 32.  The true Bread, and the Life thereby (which is the effect of the spiritual Eating thereof) is the most true and Real Life, because Everlasting: So the Union spiritual, which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding, is the most Real and true Union, as may sufficiently appear by Analogy. To wit, that Bread and Wine being the most vital nourishments, for the conservation of man's bodily essence, are therefore chosen (as the Fathers teach) to represent and exhibit unto him (although, in themselves, but Signs and Symbols) the very Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Real nourishments in this Sacrament.  
And such as is our food, such must be our Union, by feeding thereon; which we say is by Faith, in this Sacrament: and you may not gainsay it, who, to comfort your Disciples, are 
g Alanus, & alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt, quandò re-ipsà non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum, ad perficiendam hanc unionem, sufficere quòd hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur, quià hoc satis est, ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum, & uniatur illi. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. pag. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto, eti●msi non sacramentaliter. Acosta Ies. de Indorum salute lib. 6. c. 7. Verè & spiritualiter sumunt, qui fide tenent, sub illis speciebus verum esse corpus Christi, & simul ipsum desiderio recipiendi ardeant. Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 29.  taught to instruct them, that even without this Sacrament the spiritual Union may be presented to the soul of man, with the Body of Christ; and that as a sufficient means of uniting him to Christ, by a spiritual manner of Eating. And this (you say) is To receive Christ his Body truly; albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire. So you. Whence you perceive our Inference, viz. If our spiritual Union with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith, and Desire, without this Sacrament: then, in our Sacramental eating thereof, may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire; the Sacrament itself being a Seal of this our Christian Faith.    

CHAP. II.  

That only the Godly faithful Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and thereby united to Christ, in the judgement of Protestants.  
SECT. I.  
Our Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus: The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spiritual manner, even by faith: wherein the wicked, and such as are void of faith, eat it not; although they do visibly press with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof. But your Romish Church flatly otherwise, as you all know; and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master 
h M. Brerely Tract. 2. Sect. 5. Sub. 2.  Brereley endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side, whom he hath alleged with like faithfulness, as he hath cited Master Calvin: than whom he could not have, in this case, a greater Adversary. For although Calvin grant, with all Protestants, that the wicked and faithless receive truly, by way of Sacrament, the Body of Christ; yet doth he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporal conjunction or Union with Christ, because the Union, which we have (
i Calvin. Epist. 372. ●et in the same Epistle he saith of Papists, Damnantur, qui dicunt Iudam non minùs corporis Christi participem fuisse, quam Petrum. In his Institut. lib. 4. c. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio. §. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant, quo praesentem amplexentur. §. 12. Vinculum coniunctionis est Spiritus Christi. §. 13. Non carnalis. §. 16. Non contactu. §. 33. Impij & scelerati non edunt Christi corpus, qui Iunt ab eo alieni, quià ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non minùs spiritualis res est, quam salus aeterna. Vnde colligimus, quòd quicunque va●ui sunt spiritu Christi, carnem Christi non posse edere magis quam vinum bibere, ●ui non coniunctus est sapor.— Aliud tamen est offerri, aliud recipi.— spiritualem cibum omnibus porrigit Christus, etiam indignis; at non absque fide recipitur. §. 34. Saepiùs, fateor, occurrit ápud Augustinum istaloquendi forma, Comedi corpus Christi ab infidelibus, sed seipsum explicat, etc. Haec Calvinus.  saith he) is Only spiritual; only with the soul; only with the heart; only by faith: and although it be offered to the wicked, to be really received, yet do they not receive it, because they are Carnal. Their only Receiving therefore is but Sacramental. So Mr. Calvin.  
It had been good that your Priest had suspected his judgement, and (as well in this Case, as in others) by doubting his own eyesight had borrowed your 
k Sextum eorum Pronunciatum est, Improbos non suscipere corpus Christi, licet symbola suscipiant. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 33. & Beza. Teste. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1 §. Porrò.  Cardinal his Spectacles: then would he have clearly perceived that (together with other Protestants) Calvin held that The wicked, although they receive the Symbols and outward Signs of Christ's body, yet the body itself they do not receive. So your Cardinal, of the Doctrine of Protestants. For although, indeed, Calvin said that The wicked eat the Body of Christ: yet, explaining himself, he added these two words [In Sacramento, that is, Sacramentally;] which in Calvins' style is always taken for Symbolically only. As for the consent of Protestants herein, we put it to your great Cardinal and Champion, their greatest Adversary, to express. 
l Ex Vbiquitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse verèmanducari ore corporali, sed solum ore spirituali per fidem: est ipsissima sententia Sacr●mentariorum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch c. 17. §. Secundo ex.  He joineth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent, for denying the Oral and Corporal Eating thereof; and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith. Yet left any may say, that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby; you may have a Similitude to illustrate your judgements, as thus: The same outward word, concerning justification by Christ, cometh to the ears of both unbelievers and Believers. But the Believers only are capable of justification.   

That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and thereby United unto him; in the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. II.  
CHrist, speaking of that which is the most Real Eating, saith joh. 6. [He that eateth me remaineth in me, and shall live for ever.] Upon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth; 
m Hieron. in Malach. 1. Immundi mundissimum sanguinem bibunt. [But only Sacramentally, for it goeth be●ore in the same place;] Quando Sacramenta violantur, is, cuius sunt Sacramenta, violatur. But Hier. in Esa. 66. Omnes magis amatores voluptatis, quam amatores Dei; dum non sūat sancti corpore & spiritu: nec com●dunt carnem Christi, nec bibunt eius sanguinem.  The men that live in pleasure neither eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his Blood. Next, Origen inferreth that 
n Orig. in Matth. 15. Verbum, caro fa●tum, verus cibus, quem qui comedit vive● i● aeternùm: quem nullus malus potest edere.— alioqui nequaquam▪ scriptum ●uisset, [Quisquis ederit, vivet in aeternum.]  No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh. And Saint Augustine most peremptorily; 
o Aug. Tract. 59 in joh. Illi manducabant panem Dominum, judas autem panem Domin●. [Responde● Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 13. judas non utilitèr edebat, sicut qui panem comedit, reijci● rursùs, dicitur non comedere. [But it is plain, that Saint Augustine distinguisheth Signum à signato, and saith; judas did not eat Panem Dominum.] Et Tract. 26. being constant to himself upon these words; [Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet:] Qui non manet in Christo● proculdubiò non manducat spiritualem carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnalitèr & visibilitèr premat dentibus Sacramentum tantae rei, & iudi●ium sibi manducet. To the same purpose Cyril. Alex. lib. 10. in joh. c. 13. Sola membra Christi comedunt carnem Christi.  Without doubt (saith he) they do not spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood, although that they do visibly and carnally press the Sacrament thereof with their teeth, and notwithstanding eat their condemnation. So he, thereby distinguishing the inward souls Eating Spiritual from the outward and Sacramental Eating; as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth. In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread, as he affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramental was not the Bread the Lord. 
p Idem Cyril. Alex. lib. 4. in joh. (Citante Sudrez. Tom. 3. cue 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3.) Sicuti enim si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit, al●eram cum altera per totum commisceat necesse est: ità si quis carnem & sangui●●m Domini recipit, cum ipso ità coniungitur, ut Christus in eo & ipse in Christo inveniatur.  Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth, that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ, Is in Christ, and Christ in him; both so joined, one with the other, as wax melted with wax is united together.  
All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers do infer this Conclusion against you, that none do really eat the Body of Christ, who receive him but only Sacramentally. And 
* See hereafter, Chap. 8. Sect. 4.  afterwards other Fathers will be found to join their Consent hereunto: where they teach that none eat his flesh, with whom Christ hath not a perpetual union. Now, for you to answer, that their meaning is not that the ungodly eat it not really, but that they eat it unworthily, and therefore unprofitably for their salvation; is but recoiling and giving back, when you want a shield for your defence. For the Testimonies alleged, which deny that the faithless and godless men Eat Christ's Body, speak directly of the Act of spiritual Eating, and not only of the Effect, as you fancy; Peruse you their Testimonies, and be you our judges.   

That by Spiritual Eating your Romish Corporal Union (through Sacramental Eating) is excluded.  
SECT. III.  
Sacramental Eating and Union professed by your Church is (as you may remember) said to be Corporal, by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver: but seeing the godly and faithful man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ, and be really united unto it (as the Fathers have declared) what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith, that teacheth such a Corporal Union, by a bodily Touch and Eating, whereby (according to your own Doctrine) Rats, Worms, and Dogs, and whatsoever vile beast may be as real partakers of the body of Christ, as Peter, or john, or whosoever the essential member of Christ? Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporal Conjunction, by bodily Touch, as 
a Haec sententia sc▪ de unione Corporali) multis Theologis visa est improbabilis,— quòd non propter corporalem coniunctionem, sed propter spiritualem, institutum est, dicente Christo, [Verba measunt vita.] Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. p. 822.  Many of your Divines have done against bodily Union, by conjunction and commixture: but why? even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily, but for a spiritual Conjunction. So they. So that we need say no more, but (foreseeing what you will object) we add the Propositions following.    

CHAP. III.  

That wicked Communicants, albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body, yet are they Guilty of the Lords Body, for not receiving it spiritually (namely) thorough their Contempt, for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby.  
SECT. I.  
THe Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever (saith he) Eateth this Bread, and Drinketh this Cup unworthily, he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And (Vers. 29.) eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's Body.  
Your Rhemish Professors (men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause) objecting this against the Protestants, call upon you saying first, 
b Rhemists' Annot. in. 〈◊〉. Cor. 11. vers. 27.  Hereupon mark well, that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ, be they Infidels, or ill livers, for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not. Secondly, That it could not be so heinous an offence for any to receive a piece of bread, or a cup of wine, though they were a true Sacrament; for it is a deadly sin for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sin, or without repentance of former sins; but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, but here, where the unworthy Receiver (as Saint 
c Chrysost. Hom. 60. & 61. adpop. Antioc●.  Chrysostome saith) doth villainy to Christ's own person, as the jews and Gentiles did, that crucified him. Which invincibly proveth against the Heretics, that Christ is herein really present. And guilty is he, for not discerning the Lord's Body, that is, because he putteth no difference between this high meat and others. So your Rhemists.  
Your Cardinal also, as though he had found herein something for his purpose, 
d Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian. Serm. de Lapsis, de iis qui post negatum Christum, sinè poenitentia, accedunt; plus eosiam manibus atque orc delinquere, quam cum Dominum negârunt. Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum, qui corpus Christi tantùm violant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9 [See this answered in the 7. Section following.]  fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian, who accounted them, that after their denial of Christ presented themselves to this Communion, without repentance, to offer more injury to Christ, by their polluted hands and mouths, than they did in denying Christ: and beside he recordeth Examples of God's miraculous vengeance upon those, who violated the body of Christ in this Sacrament. So he. All these points are reducible unto three heads. One is, that ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ, except they did receive it, as being materially present in this Sacrament. Next is the Gild of profaning this Sacrament, which being more heinous than the abuse of any other Sacrament, therefore the injury is to be judged more personal. The last, that the Examples of God's vindicative judgements, for Contempt hereof, have been more extraordinary: which may seem to be a Confirmation of both the former. Before we handle these points in order, take our next Position for a Directory to that, which shall be answered in the VI Section.   

That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually, (namely) as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood; both in the Old Testament and in the New.  
SECT. II.  
Upon those words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. [They ate of the same spiritual meat, etc.] The jews received the same spiritual meat, 
e Aug. Tract. 26. in joh. sup. illa verba Apostoli. 1. Cor. 10. de fidelibus judaeis [Omnes eandem escam spiritualem (in Manna) edebant, & bibebant eundem potum spiritualem, etc.] Corporalem escam diversam, illi Manna, nos aliud, sed spiritualem eandem: aliud illi, aliud nos bibimus, sed aliud specie visibili, idem autem significante virtute, Item. Eandem quam nos escam; sed Patres nostri, (nempe fideles) non Patresillorum. Aug. ibid.  saith S. Augustine. Yea (saith your 
f At eandem interse, non nobiscum eandem. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quià.  Cardinal) the jews received the same among themselves, but not the same with us Christians. So he. Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus; The same which we eat: so plainly, that diverse of your own side do so directly and truly acknowledge it, that your jesuit 
g judaeos eandem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum: exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus, & qui eum secuti sunt multi, ut Beda, Strabo, & Author Glossae ordinariae— reprobatum hoc esse à posterioribus. Ego persuasum habeo, Augustinum, si nostrâ aetate fuisset, longè aliter sensurum fuisse, omni genti Haereticorum inimicissimum, cum videret Calvinistás ad eundem ferè modum hunc locum interpretari. Maldon-Jes. in joh. 6. v. 50. col. 706.  Maldonate, not able to gainsay this Truth, pleaseth himself notwithstanding in fancying that If August. were alive in this Age, he would think otherwise, especially perceiving Heretical Calvinists, (and 
h Calvin. Inst. lib 4. c. 14. §. 23. Eandem nobiscum— Contra Scholasticorum dogma, quo docent, veteri lege tantùm adumbrari gratiam, & nouâ praesentem conferri.  Calvin himself) to be of his opinion. So he. Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the School of the Jesuits! surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation, of the Corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and Corporal Union; against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine: whom Maldonate here noteth to have been the Greatest Enemy to all Heretics: whom 
i Bertram de Corp. Dom. p. 20. Quaeres, fortasse, quam eandem? nimirum ipsam, quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat. non n. licet— diversa intelligi, quoniam unus idemque Christus, qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit, eundemque potum, in petra, Christum sui sanguinis undam populo praebuisse.— vide nondum passum Christum esse, etiam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse: non n. putamus ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum, quod discipulis Dominus dicit [Hoc est corpus meum.]  Bertram followed in the same Exposition: and, by your leave, so did 
k Eandem escam spiritualem] Id est, Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto: idem, quod nos; sed aliam Escam corporalem, quam nos. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10.  your Aquinas also; The same (saith he) which we eat. Thus much by the way. We go on to our Answers.   

That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christ's Body not for Eating of his Body unworthily, but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof.  
SECT. III.  
THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath been always as generally acknowledged, as known, wherein he will have us to discern, in the Eucharist, the Sacrament from the thing represented, and exhibited thereby. Of the Sacrament he saith that 
l Aug. in joh. Tract. 26. Sacramentum sumitur à quibusdam ad vitam, à quibusdam ad exitium: Res vero ipsa, cuius est Sacramentum, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad mortem, quicunque eius particeps fuerit.  It is received of some to life, and of some to destruction: but the thing itself (saith he) is received of None, but to Salvation. So he. No Protestant could speak more directly, or conclusively for proof, First, That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendered to the wicked, as to the Godly. Secondly, that the wicked, for want of a living Faith, have no hand to receive it. Thirdly, that their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it, is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood. Fourthly, and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltiness upon them.  
All which both the Evidence of Scripture, and consent of Antiquity do notably confirm. For the Text objected doth clearly confute your Romish Consequence, because S. Paul's words are not; He that eateth the Body of Christ, and drinketh his Blood unworthily, is guilty of his Body and Blood: but, He that eateth the Bread, and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily, etc. which we have proved throughout the 2. Book to signify Bread and Wine, the signs and Sacraments of his Body and Blood, after Consecration. And (to come to Antiquity) All the Fathers above cited Ch. 1. §. 6. who denied that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ (albeit knowing, as well as you, that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ) have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence, which was, that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's body, Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them. But we pursue you yet further.   

That a Guiltiness of Contempt of Christ's Body and blood is to be acknowledged in all profane Neglect, by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament.  
SECT. IV.  
GVilty of the Lords Body:] that is, Guilty of the Contempt thereof, as you well know. Now because Contempt of a good thing is as well seen in a wilful refusing to receive, as in a contemptuous manner of receiving; the Guiltiness by the same Contempt must 
(*) See above. Chap. 2. § 1.  needs be against the thing offered, whether it be Corporal or Spiritual; and consequently against the Giver himself. In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospel of Salvation unto beastly Hogs, which trample under their feet pearls of highest price, even because they would not believe them; Believing being our spiritual Receiving. From the same guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnes to punishment, denounced by our Saviour; To shake of the d●st of their fee●●, for a testimony against them, in not receiving the Gospel of peace. Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament, 
* Luc. 9 5.  Contempt of a Sacrament (saith he) is the contempt of him whose Sacrament it is: As also that other of Rupertus, saying 
m Rupertus in joh. 6. Si qu●● existimat' illo Sacramento se non egere, in eo Ipso, quòd manducare & bibere contemnit, quantumvis Catholicae professionis homo sit, à societate membrorum Christi, quae est Ecclesia, se praecidit, etc.  The not receiving of the Eucharist (if it be in contempt) doth separate the Contemner from the society of the members of Christ. Hence it was, that whereas 
n Quemadmodum enim frigidè accedere [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]— sic non communicate de istis [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Chrys. inprimam ad Cor. 10. hom. 24.  Chrysostome called man's Indevotion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous, he named the Contempt of not participating thereof, Pestilence and death itself.  
But not to press you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers, we shall refer you to your Divines of Collen, who in their Council censured those, who Contemptuously refused to communicate of this Sacrament, to be but 
o Conc. provinciale Coloniense fol. 29. can. 14. Qui non tutum hunc panem vitae, qui de coelo descendit, accipere desiderant, homines solo nomine, Christiani sunt Capernaitis deteriores, etiam voluntary in filium Dei peccantes, & Corpori Dominico & sanguini contumeliam inferentes terribili● quaedam expectatio iudicijman●t.  only in name Christians, worse (say they) than the Capernaites, offering contumely (mark we pray you, against your Rhemists) to the Body and Blood of Christ; and are made thereby obnoxious to the terrible judgement of God. A Conclusion, whereby is satisfied from your own Doctors your own main Objection, even in Terminis Terminantibus, as the School speaketh, professing both a guiltiness of Christ's Body in not receiving it, and an obnoxiousnes thereupon unto God's judgement.  
As for your objected speech of St. 
* Above. §. 4.  Cyprian, it is of easy digestion, because Comparisons of Magis, and Minus, (as learning teacheth) are altered upon all different respects. Some in persecution denied Christ, in the extremity of their fear; and some in their wilfulness profaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Christ: this latter is the greater sinner before God, who judgeth sin not only secundùm actum, aut effectum, according to the wicked deed done; but secundum Affectum, that is, but much more according to the depraved Affection and Disposition of the mind of the Doer. In which respect we may well think that judas his traitorous, and scornful kiss was more heinous than Peter's perjury. Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith, and vow of Baptism, saying, 
* Heb. 6. 6.  They crucify unto themselves the son of God? which is much more than Cyprian spoke of the Guilty Receiver of the Eucharist, yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporal Presence of Christ in the water of Baptism. And as in the Gild of sin; so is it in the Gild of punishment also, which followeth sin, as a shadow doth a Body. In which consideration A●g●stine doth parallel Baptism, and the Eucharist together, saying, 
p Aug. lib. contra Fulgent. Donatist. Sicut qui manducat, et bibit sanguinem domini indignè, iudicium fibi manducat, & bibit. Sic qui indignè accipit Baptisma, ●udicium fibi accipit, non salu●em.  As he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his own judgement: so doth he who receiveth Baptism unworthily.  
By these Premises you will furthermore easily discern, that your other Romish Doctors have been no less ignorant than they were arrogant, in concluding it to be an Infallible Consequence, that because Christ receiveth an injury in his body and blood, by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; therefore his Body and blood is carnally present therein. As if they would teach, by the like Inference, that because the Empress 
q Contum elia illata imagini, ad personam repraesentatam pertinere censetur. Nota est Historia. Theodorij, de vindicta quam in Antiochenos exercuit, propter deiectam Imperatricis imaginem. Niceph. lib. 13. Hist. c. ●3. Teste Suarez. Ies. Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. disp. 54. §. 3.  E●docia was (as is confessed) reproached by the Citizens of Anti●ch, in their despite wrought upon her image; therefore was she personally present in the same Image.  
You seem to be zealously bend against all unworthy usage of this holy Sacrament; it is well, yet were it better that you saw your own guiltiness herein, to repentance. For inasmuch as every one is an unworthy Receiver (in the judgement of S. 
r Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quam ab ●o traditum est.  Ambrose) who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himself: your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament (discovered in the first Book) convinceth you of a tenfold Guiltiness, of the Unworthy Receiving of this Mystery. Your last objection of Guiltiness is taken from the Executions of God's punishments. We therefore rejoin.   

That the Examples of Gods vindicative justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things, without respect to the Corporal Presence of Christ therein.  
SECT. V.  
COme we to the open judgements and punishments of God, upon the Contemners of this Sacrament, the visible Testimonies of his justice, and Arguments of the preciousness and holiness of this mystery. These we believe to be true, and the Apostle hath made it manifest, where (speaking of the great plague, which fell upon the Corinthians, who had profaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) he pointeth this out as their sin, saying, 
* 1. Cor. 30.  [Ob hanc causam] For this cause are many sick among you, and many sleep, etc. Yet was not this for not Discerning the body of Christ to be corporally in the Eucharist (as your Disputers pretend:) but (to use Saint Hierome's words) 
s Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit corporis & sanguinis Christi, qui tanti mysterij Sacramentum pro vili desp exerit.  They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, because they despised the Sacrament of so great a mystery; (namely) by their profane behaviour at their receiving thereof, as if they had been at the Heathenish Bacchanals: or as Primasius yieldeth the Cause, 
t Pri●…as. in e●nd●● locum. Quià acciperent quasi cibum communem.  For that they took it as homely, as their common bread.  
All can point at the doleful Example of God's vengeance upon judas, the first unworthy Receiver; and therefore the subject of the first Document of God's judgement, notwithstanding that he received but the Sacrament only, and not the very body of Christ, as Saint Augustine observed, saying; 
* See above Chap. 〈◊〉. lit. (o)  He received not the bread the Lord, but the bread of the Lord. And how justly, may we think, did God punish certain 
u Optatus lib. 2.  Donatists, who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs, were themselves devoured of Dogs? Neither have these kind of God's judgements been proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament only, as you have instructed men to believe; for look into the sacred story, and you shall find the men of 
* 1. Sam. 5.  Ashdod, for meddling with the Ark of God, Afflicted with emrod's: the men of 
* 1. Sam. 6.  Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter, for but peeping into God's Ark. Also 
* 2. Sam. 6.  Vzzah, no Priest, doth but touch the same Ark (albeit with a good intent, to support it) and he is suddenly struck dead. 
* Levit. 10.  Nadab and Abihu profaned the Altar of the Lord with offering strange fire thereon, and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven, and perished. 
* Dan. 5.  Belshazzar will needs carouse in the sacred bowls of God's Temple, in the contempt of God, and of his Law, and behold a writing upon the wall; signifying that his days were at an end, as it came to pass. And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things. 
* 2. King. 2.  Boys are mocking God's Prophet in Bethel, by noting him for a Baldpate, and are devoured by Bears. The 
* Numb. 11.  People loathing Manna are choked with Quails.  
If sacred stories will not prevail, peradventure your own Legends will relish better with you: so than your 
x Quidam, qui sancti Anthonij imaginem abolere cupiebant, non tulerunt illud scelus impunè, sed èvestigio peste illâ, quae dicitur Antoniuses, correpti interierunt. Bozius de signis Eccles. l. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano.  Bozius will tell you of them, Who were suddenly struck with the plague, called Saint Anthony's plague, only for seeking to pull down and demolish Saint Anthony's Image. Have you faith to believe this? and can you not conceive a like right of judgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramental Image of Christ himself?  
Be it therefore furthermore known unto you, that the Sacrament, which is celebrated by Protestants, although it contain no Corporal Union of the body of Christ, yet is it not so bare Bread, as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you, but that God hath manifested his Curses upon profane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery, which hath in it a Sacramental Union of the Body and Blood of Christ. One example, whereof we read, is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his Abuse of the Sacrament, in receiving it but in one kind, 
y Manlius locorum communium collect. Minister cuiusdam Sartoris Lipsiae, Anno 1553. ob temeratam institutionem divinam quâ praecipitur ut species utraque administretur, unicam tantùm recipiens, conscientiae crimine oppressus, exclamavit, o (inquit) Ego sum etc.  Did cast himself headlong out of a window and so died. The other is that which he (who now writeth these things) saw and can testify, viz. 
z Sir Booth, of Saint John's Coll. in Cambridge.  A Bachelor of Arts, being Popishly affected, at the time of the Communion took the Consecrated Bread, and forbearing to eat it, conveyed and kept it closely for a time; and afterwards threw it over the wall of the College: but a short time after, not enduring the torment of his guilty Conscience, he threw himself headlong over the Battlements of the Chapel, and some few hours after ended his life. Thus far of this Subject, concerning an Union with Christ, as it is professed in our Church.   

A Confutation of the Romish professed Corporal Conjunction of Christ his Body with the Bodies of the Communicants.  
SECT. VI  
I. That the Error of the Capernaites joh. 6. was an opinion of the Corporal Eating of the flesh of Christ.  
MAster Brerely, the Author of the Book of the Liturgy of the Mass (lately published, and largely applauded by all of your profession) 
a Master Brerely, Liturg. Tract. 2. Sect. 3.  doth bestow a whole Section in explicating the Error of the Capernaites, so that it must wholly reflect (forsooth) upon the Protestants. It is not needful we should deny, that in this Chapter of Saint john Christ doth speak of the Eucharist, which if we did, we might be assisted by your own Bishop 
b jansen. Concord. in joh. 6. per totum.  jansenius, together with diverse 
* There are reckoned by some these Authors, Bi●l, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapper, Hesselius: to whom may be added Peter Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 8. lit. D.  others, whom your jesuit 
c Maldonat. in joh. 6. verse. 53. Scio doctos, scio Catholicos, scio religiosos, & probos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minùs in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eucharistia non agi contendunt.  Maldonate confesseth to have been Learned, Godly, and Catholic; yet fretteth not a little at them, for so resolutely affirming that in this Chapter of Saint john▪ there was no speech of the Eucharist, because by this their opposition he was hindered (as the ᶜ jesuit himself saith) That he could not so sharply and vehemently inveigh against Protestants. Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramental eating with the mouth, as some of the Father's thought; but yet only Sacramentally, and not properly, as by them will be found true.  
We return to the Discourse of your Romish Priest. 
* Above at (a.)  Christ having spoken (saith he) of eating his flesh, and the Capernaites answering [How can he give us his flesh to eat?] They undorstood eating with the mouth, yet were (a special observation) never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words, a strong reason that they understood them rightly, but for not believing them: and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his Blood, and requiring them to believe, and when he saith [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth] it is not spoken to exclude the Real Presence, or to qualify his former sayings, but to admonish them not to judge things by carnal reason, and yet more evidently in the words following, [There are some of you that believe not.] He said not (saith Saint Augustine) there be some among you that understand not: So plainly did he hereby instruct them not how to understand, but to believe; for had he, for their better understanding, intended hereby to have qualified, or corrected his former sayings, as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith, he would have explained himself in plain terms, and so have satisfied the jews. Upon which premises I do conclude, that because our Saviour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding, but for want of belief, it doth from thence, and other premises abundantly follow that his foresaid promise was not obscure, and figurative, but plain and literal for our reciving of him without out our bodily mouths.  
Thus far your celebrious Priest, namely so, as in almost all other his Collections, not understanding the Truth of the matter. His Inferences stand thus. First, Christ reprehended the Capernaites, for not Believing his words concerning Eating his Flesh: but not for not for understanding them. Therefore it followeth that they understood his words, of Eating his flesh, right well. Secondly, They understood his speech: Therefore Christ, in saying The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, that quickeneth, did not thereby qualify his former speech, to instruct their understanding. Thirdly, They needed no instruction for their understanding; Therefore Christ's words of Eating his flesh, were not figurative. Fourthly, these his words were not figurative: Therefore his words of Eating his flesh teach a Corporal Presence thereof in the Sacrament. Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly, as confidently. For common learning teacheth, that there is a double consideration of Truth, in every True speech: the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is True; the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what is the Truth, or true sense thereof. To the apprehending of the first is required Belief, whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholar, that intendeth to learn the principles of any Art (to wit) Oportet discentem credere: A Scholar is bound to believe. The other point, touching the Truth, or true sense, what it is, is the object of man's understanding; so that there is a great difference between both These in the case of a Reprehension. As for example; the Master teaching the definition of Logic, saying, It is an Art of disputing rightly, may justly reprove his Scholar for his not believing it, because his not believing is wilful: so can he not for his not understanding it, for that he therefore learneth, because he doth not understand; except it be, that being taught he either through careless negligence, or else affected ignorance will not understand.  
This agreeth with the Current of Scripture, joh. 6. vers. 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth, which descended from Heaven to reveal the will of his Father, might justly exact belief, that whatsoever he spoke to the sons of men was most true: as it is written, The will of God is, that whosoever believeth in me, etc. Vers. 40. uz. That they must eat his flesh. But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what was the true sense of these words, which caused them to say, This is an hard saying. Therefore (like Scholars of preposterous wits) would they not believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely That they were True: hence it was that Christ reproved them for not Believing only, vers. 64. and not for not understanding. Because it was as lawful for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his dark Sayings and Parables, (which were therefore so spoken, that his Scholars might more earnestly labour to know them) as it was after lawful for them to seek of their Master, (whose precept is to 
* Matth. 9 7.  Seek, and promise to Find) how to understand them. As it is written; 
* Matth. 13. 36.  His Disciples said unto him, Declare unto us the Parable of the seed: and Christ answered them, He that soweth, etc.  
That admirable Doctor of God's Church Saint Augustine will show himself herein an understanding Scholar of Christ (See his Testimony) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ, in the first place, Belief of Christ's words, that they are True, before they did understand what was the Truth thereof: confirming his Rule by that Scripture; Except you believe you shall not understand. O, but the Capernaites (saith Master Brereley) did understand Christ's words right well. And Saint 
d August, in joh. 7. Tract. 27. [Sunt quidam in vobis, qui non credunt.] Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis, qui non intelligunt, sed causam dixit quare non intelligunt, nempè quià non credunt— ut Propheta, nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Aliquantò superiùs. Illi non put●runt illum erogaturum corpus suum— Ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum— Certè tunc intelligetis, quià co modo, quo putatis, non erogat corpus— [Caro non prodest quicquam] sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, spiritualiter intellectum vivisicat. And Master Brerely out of Aug. in Psal. 98. [Nisi quis manducaverit,] Dixerunt, durus est hic sermo: acceperunt illud stultè, carnaliter illud cogitaverunt.  Augustine contrary to Master Brerely, expressly answereth, They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech, but apprehended it foolishly and literally: nor was there ever any Father, or Author, no not in your own Romish Church (we think) before one Master Breerley; that thought otherwise.  
His second Assertion, touching that speech of Christ, [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, that quickeneth,] That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualify his former terms of Eating his flesh, is very like also to be his own, being flatly contrary to the same Father, whom he avouched; for Saint Augustine saith that Christ, by these words, taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually: a Truth which Master Brerely's own great Master Cardinal 
e Sed verus & literalis sensus corum verborum est, carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt Theophyl. Euthem. nec non Origines. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14.  Bellarmine hath published, alleging for proof thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers, saying; Chrysostome, Theophylact, Euthemius, and also Origen so expoundeth it. So he.  
Master Breerly his third Inference is, Therefore the words, speaking of Eating his Flesh, are not Figurative; which indeed is the main Controversy, for never any but an Infidel denied the speech of Christ to be true; nor yet did ever any, but an Orthodox, understand the Truth of the speech, what it was, that's to say, whether the Truth be according to a Literal Sense (as Master Brereley would have it) or else in a Figurative: which hath been our defence and proof throughout the Second Book, from all kind of Evidences of Truth.  
Here therefore we are only to deal with Master Breerly, and with his pretended witness Saint Augustine, to whom he would seem to adhere. Notwithstanding (that we may believe Master Brereley himself) 
f Master Brereley Liturg. Book 4. §. 8. at Fourthly.  If we should attend to the propriety of speech, Christ's blood is not properly drunk. So he: albeit Christ his speech was as expressly for drinking his Blood, as for Eating his Body. And every Schoolboy will tell him, that every speech, which is unproper, is figurative. As for Saint Augustine, he standeth as a sworn witness against the proper and literal sense of Eating Christ's flesh, calling it 
* See. afterwards Chap. 6. Sect. 3. in the Challenge.  Flagitious. Besides, rather than we should want witnesses, to aver this Truth, diverse Jesuits will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly, that if he say the words, Eating Christ's flesh, are properly spoken, he speaketh false.  

CHALLENGE,  
Proving the objected Saint Augustine to contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporal Presence, as Protestantly as can be desired.  
MAster Brereley his Conclusion, taken from Christ's speech of Eating, is to infer a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. But Saint Augustine (cited above in the Margin) thus; Christ, to them that thought he was not to give his Body to be eaten, said that he himself was to ascend up into Heaven, and then indeed they were to know, that he meant not to give his Body to be eaten, after that manner which they conceived, which was carnal, by tearing and renting it in pieces.  
Wherein you may plainly discern the Argument of Saint Augustine to be, that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would show to the world, that he being bodily absent from the Earth, his flesh could not be here eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder. Thus he against the Capernaits, which must as necessarily confute the Romanists Corporal Eating his flesh, whether it be by Chewing, or Swallowing; whether visibly or invisibly it mattereth not; because it being the same Body that ascended, were it visibly, or invisibly, it is equally absent from Earth. We have no list, after so plain a discovery of Master Brereley his manifold ignorances, to play upon his Person, but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors he may be reduced unto the Truth now, after his (fond miscalled) Strong Reasoning to the contrary.     

CHAP. IU.  

That the manner of Eating the Body of Christ, once professed in the Church of Rome, was both Capernaitically-Hereticall, and is also still no less, in the profession of diverse in the same Church.  
SECT. I.  
THe first member will appear by the faith of the Church of Rome, in the days of Pope Nicolas, whose faith (about the year 1059.) may be best known by the Oath, which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius, concerning the Eating of the body of Christ in this Sacrament. Which oath (as your 
a Baron. An. 1059. num. 11. Eodem Anno Concilium celebratum est sub Nicolao secundo Generale Romae in Laterano, ad quod reus dicturus causam Berengarius Archidiaconus And ●gavens. praesente Nicolao, & coram centum tread cim Episcopis Confessionem jureiurando firmavit.— Quibus verbis conceptum fuit eiusmodi Berengarij iusiurandum, cum in pleno Conc. detestatus est errorem, fidemque Catholicam professus.— Ego Berengarius— ore & cord profiteor me eam fidem tenere, quam venerabilis Papa Nicolaus, & haec Sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit. Panem & Vinum post Consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solùm Sacramento, said in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri— Hoc jusiurandum, ab Humberto Episcopo Card. scriptum, ab ipso Papa universoque Conc. recognitum atque approbatum anteà fuerat. [Haec ex Lanfranco.]— Nicholaus Papa scriptum jusiurandum misit per omnes urbes Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, & ad quaecunque loca, quo fama Berengarij pervenite potuit. Hactenus Baronius.  Cardinal Baronius doth certify you from the stories of those times) Pope Nicholas and a General Council held at Rome revised, approved, and prescribed to Berengarius to take, for the abjuration of his error, concerning the manner of eating the body of Christ: and the same Oath was after published by the Pope's authority throughout all the Cities of Italy, France, and Germany; and wheresoever the report of Berengarius should come. So he. You cannot now but expect such a form of an Oath, which must be as truly Romish, as either Roman Pope, or Roman Council could devise.  
Mark then the enjoined tenor of the Oath. I Berengarius Archdeacon etc. do firmly profess, that I hold that Faith, which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold, (to wit) That the body of Christ is in this Sacrament, not only as a Sacrament, but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest, and broken and torn with the teeth of the faithful. So the Oath. The same form of Abjuration is registered in the public Papal 
b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. etc. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius.  Decrees: and the Body of these Decrees hath been lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth. The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some 
c Waldensis, Ruardus, Scotus sine ulla distinctione hac locutiones protulerunt, nempè, ità contrectari, manibus frangi dentibus teri, propriè dici de corpore Christi, dicere visi sunt. Suar. Ies. To. 3. Disp. 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae.  Schoolmen, who, without any distinction, used the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth.  
Secondly, of aftertimes, your 
d Quodsi corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur, certè frangitur, dentibusque fidelium teritur: utrumque n. cibo, quem edimus, & coniunctum & proprium. Can. loc. theol. l. 5. ca ult. sub sinem.  Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ, that If it be eaten, then certainly it is broken, and torn with the teeth. But most emphatically your Cardinal 
e Tàm miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus, ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum.— Ex hoc sequitur, sicut antea per cadem panis, ità nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari, mandù cari, carni nostrae immisceri, dentibusque teri; & hoc vel illo loco & vase collocari. Quae omnia sive per se, sive per Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competant, nihil refert, modò certâ fide credamus haec tàm verè & propriè fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi, quam si in propria specie esset, & non minùs quam sifierent in ipso pane, non minùs quam crucifixio etc. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura, propter coniunctam humanitatem in eadem Hypostasi. Alan. Card. l. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. p. 435.  Alan. It is said (saith he) to be torn with the teeth of the faithful no less properly, than if it should be said so of the Bread, if it were eaten. Yea and your Cardinal 
f Hoc Concilium Generale fuit— Et haec Abiuratio apertissimè significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate: nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesiâ. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primùm:  Bellarmine, for proof of Transubstantiation, hath recourse unto the same Roman Council, which he styleth General, and noteth the thing defined to have been the judgement of the Church; and that the same judgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gainsayers: and therefore he, with his Disciple Mr. 
g In his Rejoind. pag. 270.  Fisher (who also allegeth the same) are challengeable to hold it according to the literal sense thereof; because it will not admit of any qualification, by any Trope or figure that can be devised. First, because the words are purposely set down, as a form of Recantation and Abjuration of Heresy: but (as 
h Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi, in materià fidei, quam eae quibus utuntur ij, qui Haeresin abiurant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. sanct. cap. 22. §. Secundò nulla.  you confess) There are no forms of speech more exact and proper in phrase, concerning the matter of faith, than such as are used by them that abjure Heresy. And Secondly, for that this form of words, of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ, was also made purposely for Abjuration, and abandoning all figurative Sense, for the defence of the literal Exposition of the words of Christ, [This my Body, etc.] therefore was it taken literally. But what (think you) will Cavin say to this your (then) Romish form of Profession, in the literal sense? 
i Calvin. l. 2. defence. Sacram. Nun centum potius mortes praeoptandae sunt, quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet? pag. 25.  A man should rather wish to die an hundred times (saith he) than once to entangle himself in a Doctrine, so monstrously sacrilegious. Which Censure of his we now endeavour to make good.   

That the former Roman Faith, of Properly Eating the Body of Christ, is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day; as is proved by some of your own Doctors of the now Roman Church.  
SECT. II.  
YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresy, according to the faith of the (then) Roman Church, in Breaking the Body of Christ, and tearing it sensibly with their teeth. Harken now a little, and you shall hear, in a manner, an Abrenunciation of that (then) Roman faith, by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torn, even by the Jesuits themselves. 
k Caro Christi, Dùm in hoc Sacramento manducatur, non dentibus atteritur, quià tangi nequit, estque immortalis & impartibilis. Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae, ut possit dividi & transmutari. Quod hîc de corpore Christi fieri nequit. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 20. p. 136.  Real Eating (saith your Salmeron) requireth a real touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten: but the Body of Christ is not torn with the teeth, or touched by them that eat him, because he is herein impartible. So he. Your jesuit and Cardinal Bellarmine is as it were in a maze, saying and gainsaying, as you may perceive: yet notwithstanding, whether he will or no, must perforce confess no less, when he saith that 
l Si de ratione manducationis esset attritio dentibus facta, Dico, Christi corpus verè & propriè manducari, etiam corpore in Eucharistia, non quòd attritio est necessaria ad manducationem, satis ést enim transmissio in stomachum deglutiendo. Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis: Dico Christi corpus propriè manducari, non tropicè: non enim dicimus corpus Christi absolutè manducari, sed manducatur sub specie panis, quaesententia significat species manducari visibiliter & sensibiliter, ac proindè dentibus atteri. Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. Respon. corpus.  The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten, but eaten under the forms of Bread: and that is to say (saith he) the forms of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten. So he. If this imported a literal manner of eating, then might your Cardinal have said as literally of himself; My clothes are torn, therefore my body is rend in pieces. Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophy, that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours. But to the point.  
If only the Accidents of Bread be (as he saith) Sensibly eaten, then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly, in your Cardinal's opinion, not true. And upon the same ground it is, that your jesuit 
m Frangi, metaphorica, & non proprià locutioest, colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. art. 7. & patet, quià fractio propriè & in rigore significat divisionem & discontinuationem partium: quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi. Suarez. in Thom. qu. 75 Disp. 47. Art. 1. Sect. 4.  Suarez, out of Thomas, and other Schoolmen, affirmeth the word [Broken] to be a Metaphorical phrase, not properly belonging to the body of Christ; because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken. So he; as also your 
* Canus, see in the former Section.  Canus hath concluded. And your 
n Si propriè loqui velimus, falsae sunt omnes istae Propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur à nobis, corpus Christi devoratur, corpus Christi frangitur, quià ipsi modi, qui his verbis significantur, non conveniunt corpori Christi, quod est in hoc Sacramento: sed hae sunt verae, Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis. Malden Jes. Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. p. 144. Verè sumitur, sed non atteritur. Ibid. p. 143.  jesuit Maldonate is so bold as to tell you, that these Propositions, The Body of Christ is eaten, is Broken, Torn with the Teeth, or Devoured of us (properly taken) are false. Thus your Jesuits, as if they had expressly said, that to think the Body of Christ to be eaten, torn, or devoured (properly taken) is a carnal, Capernaitical, and (as your own 
o Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij, in maiorem haeresin incides quam ipse fuerit. Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas etc. Glossa apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius.  Gloss in Gratian concludeth) an Heretical opinion.  
Will your have any more? It is but the last day, in respect, when 
p Ob. Scoto Brittannus, apud Pontificios— corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus ●eri. Resp. Dansqueius Theol. Canon. in scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis. An verò mortales artus corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo, ment nequissimâ potes comprobare? non magis id facias quam Caiphas, cum tunicam à pectore laceravit.  one of your grave Critics so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Body, that he called the Objecting thereof, against your Church, in his blind zeal, Blasphemy: and answereth, that you do no more Tear Christ's flesh, than Caiphas tore his, when he rend his clothes. The Case than is plain.   

That the former Romish and Popish Faith, for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ, is but somewhat altered; yet miserably inconstant and faithless.  
SECT. III.  
Protestant's may have in this place just matter of insulation against your Romish Professors, to prove their infidelity in that which they seem to profess. As first, that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporal presence is the literal and proper interpretation of the words of Christ, when he said [Take, eat, this is my Body:] yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten, is no proper, but a false sense.  
Your Second Doctrine is, that the judgement of a Roman Pope, in a Roman Council, in a matter of faith is Infallible. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas, with his Roman Council, is found to have grossly erred in a tenor of Abjuration, which of all others (as hath been confessed) is most literal, and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sense of the words of Christ; and forthwith published throughout Italy, France, Germany, etc. to direct men in the faith of sensual eating, breaking, and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth: yet notwithstanding, your common judgement being now to reject such phrases, taken in their proper signification, and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation, what is, if this be not an argument that either you say, you care not, or else believe you know not what? Let us go on, in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporal manner, of eating, which you still maintain, and it will be found to be Capernaitical enough.    

CHAP. V.  
That the now Romish manner of Eating, and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ, is sufficiently Capernaitical in three kinds.  
TEll us not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Heretical, before that it be so judged by some general Council: no, for Rectum est Index sui & obliqui, and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemn the contrary of Heresy, as well as light doth discover and dispel Darkness. And this is manifest by the example, which we have now in hand, of the Capernaites, old Heretics, (as all know) even because they are set down in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ his words of Eating his flesh; and thereupon to have departed from Christ, john 6.  
Your Romish particular manner of Corporal Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is threefold. 1. Oral, in the Mouth. 2. guttural, in the Throat: and (permit us this word) 3. Ventricall, in the Belly of the Communicant.  

That the Romish Oral manner of Receiving Corporally the Body of Christ, with the mouth, is Capernaticall.  
SECT. I.  
CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the form of Eating, at the time of Christ his Institution, as is proved by your own 
* Suarez. See above, Book 1. c. 1. §. 4.  Confession, in granting that the unleavened bread, which Christ used, was [glutinosus,] that is, gluish, clammy, and such as was to be cut with a knife. But that the same manner of Eating, by Chewing, was altered in the Apostolical or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon; yea or yet admonition of any Father in the Church, whether Greek, or Latin. That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a thousand and fifty years after Christ, is not obscurely employed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius, prescribed by the same Church: which was to eat (as you have heard) By tearing it with the teeth. And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary custom of the same Church, is as evident by your Cardinal Alan, and Canus, 
* See above Chap. 4. Sect. 1. (d. c.)  who have defended the manner of eating by Tearing. Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any until that the queasy Stomach of your 
q Hostiam saliv â reverentèr liquefactam in corpus dimittat: non est enim dentibus terenda, vel palato admovenda, sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda. Coster. Ios. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 5.  Jesuits, not enduring Chewing, persuaded the contrary. Which kinds of Eating, whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christ's flesh, being both Oral, none can deny to have been the opinion of the 
r Nimis carnaliter intelligebant (Discipuli Capernaitae) credentes eius carnem comedi oportere, sicut edebantur animalium carnes, quae dentibus conteruntur. Madridius Ies. de frequenti usu Eucharistiae, cap. 4.  Capernaites. First of not Chewing; and then of Swallowing in the VI Chapter following.   

That the Corporal and Oral Eating of Christ's flesh is a Capernaitical Heresy; is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. II.  
SOmetime do Ancient Father's point out the Error of the Capernaites, set down joh. 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ, when he speaketh of Eating his flesh, which they understood literally. But this literal sense 
a Orig. Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nis● manducaveritis carnem meam] Si secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, occidit haec litera: vi● tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit, [Qui non habet, inquit, gladium, vendat tunicam, & ●mat gladium] si verò spiritualiter, non occidit, sed est in eo spiritus vivificans.  Origen calleth a kill letter, that is, a pernicious interpretation, even as of that other Scripture [He that hath not a sword, let him buy one, etc.] but this latter is altogether figurative, as you know, and hath a spiritual understanding, therefore the former is figurative also.  
Athanasius, 
b Athanas. Tract. in illa verba.— Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis, etc.] Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum, ut▪ universis mundi alimonia fierek. Sed propterea ascensionis su● m●minit, ut ●os a corporali intellectu abstraheret— Quae locutus sum (inuit) spiritus sunt & vita. i e. corpus in cibum dabitur, ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur, & fiat singulis praeservatio ad resurrectionem.  confuting the Capernaitical conceit of Corporal eating of Christ's flesh, will have us to observe, that Christ after he spoke of his flesh, did forthwith make mention of his Ascension into Heaven, but why? That Christ might thereby draw their bodily thoughts from the bodily sense, namely, of eating it corporally upon earth, which is your Romish sense. Tertullian likewise giveth the Reason of Christ's saying [It is the spirit which quickeneth] because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christ's speech of Eating his flesh, As if (saith 
c Tertul. de Capernaitis. Quia durum & intolerabile existimârunt sermon●m, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinâsset, praemisit, [Spiritus est qui vivificat.] lib. de Resur. carnis.  Tertullian) Christ had truly determined to give his flesh to be eaten. Therefore it was their Error to dream of a truly corporal eating. 
d August. in Job. 6. Non moritur.] Non qui panem premit dente, sed qui manducat in Cord. Tract. 26.— Idem in Psal. 98. Spiritualiter intelligite, non hoc Corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis, & bibituri sanguinem illum, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: Sacrame▪ tum commendavi vobis, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos.  Augustine out of the ●ixt of john bringeth in Christ expounding his own meaning of eating his flesh, and saying, You are not to eat this flesh which you see, I have commended unto you a Sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall revive you. Plainly denying it to be Christ's Body which is eaten Orally, and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body: and as plainly calling the manner of Corporal Eating, a Pressing of bread with the teeth. We say, Bread, not the Body of Christ. For, when he cometh to our Eating of Christ's flesh, he exempteth the corporal Instruments, and requireth only the spiritual, saying, 
e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Vt quid.] Quid paras dentem, & ventrem? crede, & manducâsti. Ex Aug. de remed. Poenitent. §. Vt quid.  Why preparest thou thy Tooth? It is then no corporal Eating: and he addeth; Believe, and thou hast eaten. Saint Augustine goeth on, and knowing that corporal Eating of any thing doth infer a Chewing, by dividing the thing eaten into parts (as your own jesuit hath 
* See above Book 4. Chap. 7. §. 3.  confessed) lest we should understand this properly, he teacheth us to say 
f Idem rursus apud Gratian ibid. Christus manducatus vivit, quia resurrexit occisus: nec, quandò manducamus, parts de illo facimus & quidem in Sacramento id fit: nôrunt fideles quemadmodùm manducet carnem Christi, per partes manducatur in Sacramentis, manet integer c●…o. Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangelij.  Christ is not divided into parts. Contrarily, when we speak Sacramentally, that is, figuratively and improperly, he will have us to grant that Christ his flesh is divided in this Sacrament, but remaineth whole in Heaven.  
Say now; will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your eating the Eucharist, in a literal sense? your own jesuits have abhorred to think so. And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christ's Body, in a literal sense? then are you to abhor your Romish literal Exposition of Christ's speech, which cannot but necessarily infer a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ. Lastly, do but call to remembrance Saint 
* See above Chap. 3 § 1. in the Challenge.  Augustine's Observation (just the same with the now-cited Testimony of Athanasius) to wit, Christ's mention of his, Ascension in his Body from earth, lest that they might conceive of a Carnal Eating of his Flesh; and these premises will fully manifest, that Saint Augustine's Faith was far differing from the now Romish, as Heaven is distant from Earth. We still stand unto Christ's Qualification of his own speech, when he condemned all Carnal Sense of Eating his flesh, saying thereof, The flesh profiteth nothing &c. For conclusion of this point, you may take unto you the commandment of Saint 
g Chrysost. in joh. 6. (Graecè) Hom. 47. (Latin) Hom. 46. [Verba, quae ego locutus sum, spiritus & vita.] Spiritus, hoc est Spiritualia, hoc enim nihil carnale, nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Caro non prodest quiequam.] Quid hoc? nunc de ipsa carne dixit? absit, sed pro carnaliter audire deijs, qui car●aliter accipiunt quae dicuntur.— Quomodò non prodest quicquam caro, sinè qua nemo potest vivere? vide quòd non de carne, sed de carnali auditione dictum est.  Chrysostome, as followeth, Did not Christ therefore speak of his flesh? far be it from us (saith he) so to think! for how shall that flesh not profit, without which none can have life? but in saying [The flesh profiteth nothing] is meant the carnal understanding of the words of Christ. And that you may know how absolutely he abandoneth all carnal understanding of Christ's words, of Eating his flesh, he saith, They have no fleshly, or natural Consequence at all. So he. Ergo, say we (to the Confutation of your Romish belief) no corporal touch of Christ in your mouths, no Corporal eating with your Teeth, no Corporal swallowing down your Throat; how much less any Corporal mixture in your bellies or guts?  

CHALLENGE.  
Whether therefore the Capernaites thought to eat Christ his flesh raw, or roasted, torn, or whole, dead or alive; seeing that every Corporal eating thereof, properly taken, is by the Fathers held as Carnal and Capernaitical, it cannot be that the Romish manner of Eating should accord, in the judgement of Antiquity, with the doctrine of Christ. Notwithstanding you cite us to appear before the Tribunal of Antiquity, by objecting counter-Testimonies of ancient Fathers; and we are as willing to give you the Answering.    

The extreme unconscionableness of Romish Disputers, in wresting the figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Literal and Corporal manner of Receiving the Body of Christ.  
SECT. III.  
IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers, by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literal Sense, against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the contrary. I. 
b Orig Hom. 5. in diverse. Script. loca. Sub tectum tuum ingreditur, imitare Centurionem, & dic non sum dignus, Domine, etc. Obijc. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 8 Non vidi Adversariorum responsum ad hoc. [Yea, Resp. Orig. ibid.] Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ vel more, quandò enim sancti Ecclesiarum Antistites sub tectum tuum intrant, tune ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur, & tu sic existimes, tanquàm Dominum suscipiendum. Then followeth the other figure,] Come hic sanctus cibus, & incorruptibile ●pulum, etc.  Origen (say you) will have the Communicant to think himself Unworthy, that the Lord should enter under the roof of his mouth. Right, he saith so, but in the same sense wherein he equivalently said, that He who entertaineth a Bishop and Spiritual Pastor, must know that now Christ entereth under his roof, namely, Christ, figuratively. II. Chrysostome (who speaketh in the highest strain) saith that 
i Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Multi dicunt velle se eius formam videre, ipse concedit, non tantùm videre, sed & tangere, & manducare, & dentibus terere. So Chrysost. ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi. Et lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, & Hom. 47. in joh. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] spiritualia sunt.  We see, touch, eat, and tear with our teeth the flesh of Christ. True, but, to note that he spoke it in a Rhetorical and figurative Sense, he equivalently saith also in the same place; Our tongues are made red with his blood. And elsewhere, to put all out of question; These (saith he) are spiritual, and contain no Carnal thing. Yet what need you our Comment? Your jesuit Maldonate would gladly prevent us: 
k Dentibus teri, quema dmodùm Chrysost. ●ocutus est, hae● non possunt nisi Sacramento-tenùs Intelligi non propriè. Maldon▪ jes. in Matth. 26. 2●.  The words of Chrysostome (saith he) of tearing the flesh of Christ, cannot be otherwise understood, than Sacramentally. Even he which concluded but now, that to say 
* See above Chap. 4. §. 2.  we Eat Christ's flesh, properly, is a false proposition.  
III. Gaudentius (say you) saith; 
l Gaudent. Promisit corpus suum, porrigit tibi corpus suum, corpus accipis. Ob. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 21. [Albeit a little after upon these words, I Nisi manducaveritis:] Voluit Christus animas nostras pre●ioso suo sanguine sanctificari, per imaginem pretiosae passionis, quo omnes fideles populi exempla passionis ante oculos habentes, quotidiè gerentes in manibus, & o'er sumentes ac pectore, redemptionis nostrae op' indelebili memoriâ teneamus. Gaudent. Tract. 2. De Ratione Sacramentorum.  We receive the body, which Christ reacheth. We grant he said so, but he interpreteth himself, saying; Christ would have our souls sanctified by the Image of his Passion. IU. But 
m Aug. l. 2. con. Advers. legis & Proph. c. 9 Christum sanguinem dantem, fideli corde atque ore suscipimus. Ob. Bellar. quo supra. cap. 24. §. In sex to.  Augustine teacheth that We receive the body of Christ both with heart and mouth. Which your Obiector 
n Notandun. Non cord tantùm, sed etiam ore dici,— Bellar. ibid. [yet it followeth immediately in Saint Augustine giving this general Rule for such sayings,] Agi in omnibus Scripturis secundum sanae fidei regulam, figuratiuè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibu●liber rebus & verbis, quae in sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa ducatur, etc. [Teaching in all other Scriptures (as in this) a figurative sense, wherein any m●t●…er of Horror or Turpitude may seem to be contained.]  noteth, as being very notable for the Oral Receiving, Corporally: albeit the same Saint Augustine immediately expresseth, that this and all other such Speeches are to be understood figuratively and unproperly. V. But Pope Leo is brought in, saying, [
o Leo Serm. 14. de Passione Christi. Ipsum per omnia & spirit & carne gustemus. Ob. Bellar. quo supra c. 28. [Gustemus pro Gestamus; for he speaks of Baptism lawfully administered, whereby we are said to Put on Christ, Gal. 3. By which (saith he) Corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi. [Other places objected out of Leo we grant, as Serm. 6. de jeiun. 7. men's Ore sumitur, quod corde creditur. And so say we; o'er, Sacramentally.]  Gustamus] We taste with our flesh the flesh of Christ. Nay, but you have corrupted his Saying, for his word is [Gestamus] We bear or carry it (namely) by being baptised (as there is expressed) whereof the Apostle said; You have put on Christ. VI But Pope Gregory (say you) saith, 
p Greg. Papa Hom. 22. in Evang. Qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur, quandò non solùm ore corpotis, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 32. [Butler Greg. a little after, Et in superliminare domus agni sa nguinem ponimus, quià crucem ill●us passionis in front po●●amus.]  The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both posts, when we receive it both with heart and mouth. Which (we say) he spoke with the same impropriety of speech, wherein he addeth equivalently that, The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper posts, when we carry in our foreheads (by Baptism) the sign of the Cross. VII. But, 
q Isych. lib. 6. in Levit. cap. 22. Per ignoratiam percipit, qui nes●it quià corpus hoc & sanguis est secundùm veritatem, etc. Ob. Bellar. quo supra. [yet the same Isych. lib. 1. in Levit. cap. 2.] Carnem aptam ●ibo fecit post passionem: si enim non fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium eius corporis minimè concederemus, comedimus autem nunc cibum s●men●es memoriam passionis.]  Non● receiveth (saith Hesychius) save he that perceiveth the truth of his blood. But how? even as he himself there addeth, By receiving the memory of his Passion.  
VIII. But Optatus tells us that 
r Optat. Milevit. lib. 6. cont. Parmen. In Altaribus membra Christi sunt portata.— Altar sedes est corporis & sanguinis Christi.— Immane facinus quandò fregistis calices sanguinis Christi. Obijcit▪ Bellarm. quo supra. Albeit the same Optatus in the same Book; judaeos estis imitati, illi injecerunt manus Christo, à vobis pas●… est in Altari.]  The members of Christ are upon the Altar: and that The Altar is the seat of his Body and Blood: and that it is an heinous thing to break the Chalices of the Blood of Christ, etc. We grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus, indeed, which you have objected: but, alas! my Masters, will you never learn the Dialect of the Ancient Fathers, after so many Examples, as it were lights, to illuminate your judgements? Wherein (as other Fathers have done) Optatus will instruct you, for his own language, who in this Book inveighing against the madness of the Donatists, for their injuring of the Ministers of Christ; Now (saith he) do you imitate the jews, they laid hands upon Christ, and Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar. So he; by the same Hyperbole making as well the Priest, that ministereth at the Altar, Christ; as he did the Signs and Symbols of the parts of Christ (which are his Body and Blood) the members of Christ: even as Christ himself said to Saul, the Persecutor of the Faithful; Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?  
The great Orator Chrysostome is further objected, flowing in his Rhetoric, and saying of this Sacrament that 
s Chrysostomus in 1. ad Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Non conspicaris cum tantùm, sed tangis, etc.  We see him on the Altar: and that He is held in the hands of the Priest: (namely) in the same Rhetorical sense, wherewith 
t Aug. Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in chalice. Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10.  Augustine said of all the faithful Christian Communicants; You are on the Table; you are in the Cup. Or as Chrysostome himself required of persons baptised in their perfect age, saying, 
u Chrysost. in Mare. Hom. 14. Tenete pedes Salvatoris.  Hold you the feet of our Saviour. Yet one more.  
Augustine doubted not to say of this visible word, the Sacrament of Christ, that 
x De Consecrat dist. 2. Can. Cum frangitur. Dum sanguis de chalice in ora fidelium funditur. Aug.  The Lord's blood is poured out into the mouths of the faithful. And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God, that when it is preached, 
y Hier. in Psal. 147. Quando audimus s●rmonem Dei, caro Christi & sangu●s eius in auribus fidelium funditur.  The blood of Christ (by it) is poured into the ears of the Hearers.  
Master 
z Master Brereley. Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus pincerna porrexit hoc poculum, & docuit, ut non solùm exterius hoc sanguine frueremur, sed & interius aspersione omnipotenti animâ muniremur. Litur. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 4.  Brereley would think much not to be suffered to put in his Vie, in the name of Cyprian: We are anointed with his blood, not only outwardly, but also inwardly our souls are fortified with the sprinkling thereof. So Cyprian. What meaneth this? not only outwardly, meaning in Body (saith Master Brereley, and addeth) which convinceth our Bodily receiving thereof. So he. From the same Cyprian, who, in the same place, saith in the same style, 
a Cyprian. paulò post. Cruc● haeremus, sanguinem sugimus, & intra ipsa redemptoris vulnera figimus linguam, etc.  We cleave to his Cross, suck his blood, and fix our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer, which are all Sacramental, Allegorical, and Tropolasticall Phrases; as Cyprian will clearly express himself, in respect of our outward man, and spiritually of the inward.  

CHALLENGE.  
BY this this time it may appear that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and Union with the Partakers thereof, do appear, by this Encounter of just Parallels, to be indeed the idle Imaginations of your Teachers, and the erroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples, who yield assent unto them. For to interpret the figurative speeches of the Fathers literally, is all one as to stick Goose-feathers in their Caps, and plainly to befool them, by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd (as you have already heard,) and no less fond in the outward letter than are these others that follow; to wit, of Gaudentius; 
b Gaudent. Tract. 2. lubemur caput Divinitatis eius cum pedibus incarnationis manducare.  We are commanded to eat the head of Christ's Deity, with the feet of his Incarnation. Or the saying of Saint Hierome; 
c Hier. in Psal. 147. Ego corpus jesu Evangelium puto.— Et cum dicit, [Qui bibit sanguinem meum] licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamé veriùs sanguis eius, sermo Scripturarum est.  When Christ said, He that drinketh my blood, although it may be understood in a Mystery, yet the truer blood (saith he) is the word of Scripture. Or as, before him, Origen: 
d Orig. in Numb. 23. Hom. 16. Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solùm Sacramentorum ritu, sed cum doctrinae eius verba recipimus, in quibus vita consistit: sicut ipse dicit, joh▪ 6. Verba mea spiritus sunt & vita.  We drink the blood of Christ (saith he) not only by the rite of a Sacrament, but also in receiving his word, whereof it is said, My words are spirit and life: So they.  
And so just cause have we to complain of the unconscionableness of your Obiecters, by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers; insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your own Senensis: 
e Saepe monuimus non esse Concionatorum verba sempe● in rigoreaccipienda: multa enim Declamatores per Hyperbolen enuntiant & inculcant vel occasione personarum inducti, vel affectuum impctu, vel orationis cursu rapti. Hoc interdùm Chrysostomo contigit. Sixtus Se●ens. Bibli●th. l. 6. Annot. 152.  I have often given warning (saith he) that the sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidness of their words, because they use to speak many times HYPERBOLICALLY, and in excess, being either transported by the vehemency of their Affections, or carried with the C●rren● of their speech. So he.     

CHAP. VI  

The Second Romish Corporal Union of the Body of Christ, with the Bodies of the Communicants, is with Swallowing it down.  
SECT. I.  
YOur General Tenet is, That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers, so long as the forms of Bread and Wine continue. Next, that 
a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum, deglutiendo. Bell. l. 1. de Euc●. c. 11.  It is swallowed down, and transmitted into the stomach▪ yet further, that your Priest in your Roman Mass is enjoined to pray, saying, 
b Missale Roman. authoritate Concili● Tridentini, & Pap● Pij quarti. Ordinariu missae. Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis, quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis.  O Lord, let thy body which I have taken, and blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my Guts, or Entrails. And a less 
c Missale parvum pro Sacerdotibus in Anglia, Iuss● Pa●●i Quinti Papae editum. Deus, qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas, & renovas Sacramento, tribue quaesumus ut corum & corporibus nostris subsidium non defit, & mentibus.  Missal (but yet of equal Authority) teacheth all you English Priests to pray, saying; O God who refreshest both our substances with this food, grant that the supply and help hereof may not be wanting either to our bodies, or souls. So that finally, If through infirmity of the eater it pass from the stomach downwards, it than goeth into the Draught and place of egestion. As hath been evicted from your own 
* See above in the fourth Book C. 8. §. 2.  Conclusions.   

That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaitical.  
SECT. II.  
IN this Romish Profession every one may see, in your Corporal Presence, two most vile and ugly Assumptions; One is of your Devouring of Christ, and feeding bodily of him. The other is a possibility of (saving your presence) passing him downward into the Draught, or Siege; that being as ill, this peradventure worse, than any Capernaitical infatuation: for which cause it was that your jesuit Maldonate, although granting that you do corporally receive it into your stomaches, yet 
* See above C. 4 §. 2  denied, for shame, that you are Devourers thereof.  
But, I beseech you, what then meaneth that, which your Romish Instructions, Decrees, and Missals (as we have 
* Ibid. §. 1.  heard) do teach you to do with the Host, in case that any either through Infirmity, or by Surfeit and Drunkenness shall cast up the same Host out of his stomach? We demand, may your Communicants be Vomitores, to cast it up again, and can you deny but that they must first have been Voratores, to have devoured that which they do so disgorge? Will you believe your jesuit 
d Osor, Jes. Tom. 2. Conc. 2. in joh. 6. Caro mea verus est cibus etc. Vorare, est sine masticationeglutire.  Osorius? To Devour a thing (saith he) is to swallow it down without chewing. Say now, do not you swallow the Sacrament with chewing it? then are you Capernaitical Tearers of Christ's Body. But do you Swallow it without Chewing? then are you Capernaitical Devourers thereof. Say not, that because the Body of Christ suffereth no hurt, therefore he cannot be said by Corporal swallowing to be Devoured: for his Body was not corrupted in the grave, and yet was it truly buried; and his Type thereof, even jonas, without maceration was swallowed up into the belly of the Whale, and yet had no hurt. Notwithstanding, he was first caught and devoured, who was after cast up and vomited.   

That the same Romish manner, of Receiving it down into the Belly, is proved to be Capernaitical by the judgement of Antiquity.  
SECT. III.  
THeophylact 
e Theoph. in joh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabant, quòd Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voratores carnis suae esse: nos hîc spiritualiter intelligimus, neque carnium voratores sumus.  noted the Capernaites opinion to have been, that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Devourers of flesh, whereas the words of Christ (saith he) are to be understood spiritually, and so will it be known that we Christians (what?) are not Devourers of Christ. So he. But, that Swallowing, properly taken, is a Devouring, hath been proved: and, if Devoured, then why not also (that which is the Basest of all Baseness) passed down by egestion into the Siege? whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus determined: Origen, that 
f Origen in Matth. 25. [Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur.] E● ille cibus sanctificatus verbo Dei, iuxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum eijcitur. Coeterum iuxta precationem pro proportione fidei factus sit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax sit animus. Nec materia panis, sed super eo dictus sermo prodest non indignè comedenti. Et haec quidem de symbolico corpore: multa por●ò & de verbo dici possunt, quid factum est, caro, verus que cibus, quem qui comede●it vivet in aeternum.  The material part of this sanctified meat passeth into the Draught: which (saith he) I speak of the symbolical Body, etc.  
Here will be no place for your 
g Bellar. Ista omnia rectè intelligi possunt de Eucharistia— at materiale, quoth in sece●sum abit, sunt accidentia, non respectu formae naturalis, sed sanctificationis & magnitudinis: nam magnitudo ad materiam potius pertinet quam ad formam— Et per hoc quòd Symbolicum corpus vocat, intelligit corpus Christi, ut est hîc symbolum & signum sui ipsius, ut erat in cruse. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8.  Cardinal's Crotchets, who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist, would have us by Materials to understand Accidents in respect (saith he) of sanctification, which they had, and of Magnitude, which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing, then to the form: and, by Symbolical Body, to conceive, that this was meant of the Body of Christ itself, as it is present in this Sacrament, a Sign, or Symbol of itself, as it was on the Cross. So he: as if he meant to cross Origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony.  
For first, That which he called Bread, he calleth also meat sanctified: Secondly, that meat he termeth material. Thirdly, This material, he saith, passeth into the Draught. Lastly, concluding his speech, concerning the Sacramental Body, and saying, Hitherto have I spoken of the symbolical body; immediately he maketh his Transition to speak of the incarnate Body of Christ, as it is the True soul's meat. But first merely Accidents were never called by the Ancient Father's Meats. Secondly, never Materials. Thirdly, never Magnitude in itself, without a Subject, was judged otherwise then Immaterial. Fourthly, never any Immaterial thing to have Gravity, or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the 
* See Book 4. Chap. 10.  Draught. If every one of these be not, yet all, as a fourfold cord, may be of force to draw any Conscionable man to grant, that Origen was of our Protestants faith. And that which is more than all, he, in his Transition, expressly showeth his faith, concerning Christ's Body, as Spiritual Bread, by discerning it from the Sacramental, which he named a Symbolical Body, as one Body distinctly differing from the other. As for your Cardinal's pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, as being a Sign and Symbol of itself, as it was on the Cross, it 
* Book 2. C. 2. §. 6.  hath once already, and will the 
* Book 6. C. 5. §. 7.  second time come into play, where you will take small pleasure in this figment.  
Again, concerning the Body of Christ itself, 
h Cyrill. Hierosol. Cate. Mystag. 5. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to go either into the Belly, or into the Draught; and 
i Chryso●t. de Euch. in E●caen. Non sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt: absit! ne sic cogites.  Chrysostome (as judging the very thought thereof Execrable) denyeth it with an Absit! Finally 
k Ambros. lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qu● animae nostrae substantiam fulcit, Ibid. Supersubstantialis.  Ambrose is so far from the proper swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament, that distinguishing between Corporal Bread and the Body of Christ, (which he calleth supper substantial Bread, and Bread of everlasting life, for the establishing of man's soul) he denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body. If any mouse, which your say may run away with the host, be wholly fed thereon for a month's space, the Egestion of that Creature will be as absoute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon, after Consecration, is Bread: And why may you not aswell grant a power of Egestion, as confess (which you do) in that Creature a digestion thereof.  
Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholic Profession, concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist, in the days of Saint Augustine; both which that holy Father did utterly explode. The first was by the Manichees, who teaching 
l Aug co●. Fa●st. Manich. lib▪ 20. cap. 11. Ex fabula vestra de Sp. Sancto terra concipiens gignat patibilem jesum, qui est salus hominum omnium suspensus ex ligno etc. Cap. 12. Cur non Totum simul unus Christus, si propter unam Substantiam, & in arboribus Christus, & in persecutione judaeorum Christus, & in sole, & in luna Christus? etc. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum, in cupa nolun●▪ quasi aliquid eos calca●us & inclusus offenderit: noster autem panis & calix▪ non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in spicis▪ & sarmentis ligatum, sicut illi desipiunt, sed cer●a Consc●ratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur: proinde quòd nòn ita fit▪ quamvis sit pauls & calix, alimentum refectionis est, non Sacramentum religionis, nisi quòd benedicimus, gratiàsque agimus Domino in omni munere ●ius, non solùm spirituali, verumetiam corporali. Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in estus omnibus Christus ligatus apponitur, adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus, solvendusque ructatibus: nam & cum manducatis, Dei vestri defectione vos reficitis, & cum digeritis, illius refectione deficietis.— Quomodo ergò comparas panem & calicem nostrum, & parem religionem dici●, errorem longè à veritate diseretum? peius n● decipimus quam nonnulli, qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant.— Sicut enim à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Dijs longè absumus quamvis panis & calicis Sacramentum, quod ità laudâstis, ut in ●o nobis pares esse volueritis, ritu nostro amplectamur. etc. Edit. Parisijs Ann. 1555.  that Christ was Hanged on every tree, and tied unto all meats which they eat, would needs have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholic Profession. An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhor, namely, that it should be thought that there was the same reason of the opinion of Mystical bread, among the Orthodox, which the Manichees had of their Corporal bread. As for example, that Christ should be Fastened or tied to men's guts, by eating, and let loose again by their belching. Which Heretical Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish, which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christ's body into, and Cleaving unto men's 
* See Chap. 7. Sect. 1.  Guts by eating? and a Repasse again by Vomiting, albeit the matter, so fast and loose, in the judgement of St. Augustine, be Bread still, after Consecration.  
The Second Calumniation against the true Professors was by others, who testified that Catholics in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus, after the manner of the Pagans. What answer, do you think, would a Romish Professor have made in this Case? doubtless (according to your doctrine of Corporal presence) by saying thus: Whereas some affirm that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, yet the truth is we adore that, whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated, (to wit) the Body and blood of Christ the son of God. But S. Augustine, as one fancying nothing less; We (saith he) are far from the Gods of the Pagans, for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine. This is all, and all this he spoke after Consecration.  
Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect, because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers. Whereof take unto you this present 
m Editio Paris. Anno 1614 Noster panis— mysticus fit nobis [Corpus Christi] none nascitur. Whereas the direct Sense is, that Bread consecrated is not naturally bread (as were the Spicae, that is, ●ares of corn, spoken of by the Manichees) but made Mystical and Sacramental by Consecration.  example. The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus: Noster Panis— Mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. But the last Paris. Edition Ann. 1614 hath foisted in and inserted [Corpus Christi;] albeit the sense be full without this Addition, to signify that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mystical or Sacramental (according to S. Augustine his own exposition, saying that We embrace the Sacrament of Bread, and Cup;) and also the Phrase of [Panis fit corpus Christi] Bread is made Christ's Body] be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity, which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread. So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting, but a Corrupting of the Text.  

CHALLENGE.  
HOw might it concern you upon these premises, if there be in you any spirit of Christianity, to suffer 
n Si praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, figurata est, ut [Nisi manducaveritis carnem me●m:] facinus videtur jubere. Ergò figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter & utiliter recondendum in memoria, quià pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. August. de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16.  S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause? who upon the speech of Christ [Except you eat my flesh] giveth this general Rule, That whensoever we fi●d in Scripture any speech of commanding some deynous Act, or forbidding some laudable thing, there to hold the speech to be figurative, even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ. So he. And what this figurative speech signifieth, this holy Father declareth in the next words: It Commandeth (saith he) that we do Communicate of the passion of Christ, and sweetly and profitably keep in memory that his flesh was crucified for us. Thus you see he excludeth the Corporal, Sensual, and Carnal Eating, that he might establish the spiritual of mind, and Memory. If St. Augustine by this his counsel might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors, they never had fallen upon so many Rocks, and Paradoxes, nor sunk into such puddles of so nasty and beastly Absurdites, as have been now discovered; which by your Doctrine of Corporal Presence you are plunged into.     

CHAP. VII.  

The Third Corporal manner of Union of Christ his Body, by a Bodily mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants (professed by some Romanists at this day) is Capernaitical.  
SECT. I.  
We hear your jesuit reporting that 
a Multi Catholici his temporibus, in odium Haeresis, veram praesentiam corporis Christi in hoc Sacramento— Sumptione eius fieri unionem inter corpus Christi & suscipientem, quam realem, naturalem, & substantiale●, atque etiam corporalem vovocant. Sic Algerus, Turrecremata, Roffensis, Hosius, Turrianus, Bellarminus, Alanus. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3.  Many latter Divines in your Church have been authorized in these days to write, labouring to bring the Roman Faith to so high a pitch, as to persuade a 
b Denique recentior●s omnes, qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt, hoc ferè modo loquuntur. Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. p. 822.  Real, natural, corporal, and substantial Union of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants: even almost all of late (saith he) who have written against Heretics. So he.  
Among others we find your Cardinal 
c Card. Alan. Cum comedimus Eucharistiam, corpore Christa verè vescimur, ex quâ manducatione per naturae instrumenta realirer recipitur intra nos, atque Substantiae nostrae permiscetur, sicut coeteri cibi, nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur. De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28.  Alan, who will have it Really mingled with our flesh, as other meats, Transubstantiation only excepted; as did also Cardinal 
d Fer●u● Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit, docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manducatum non solùm fieri praesentem in loco, quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare, sed quodammodò diffundi per totum Corpus hominis, ut toti illi in omnibus eius partibus uniatur, seque illis immisceat: sed haec cogitatio non solùm improbabilis, sed etiam absurda, & plusquam temeraria est. Suarez. quo sup▪ pag. 822.  Mendoza. And what else can that sound, which we have heard out of your Roman 
* See above C. 6. §. 2.  Missal, praying that The Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your guts? just Manichean-wise, as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine.  

CHALLENGE.  
Confuting and dispelling this foggy mist of Error, by your own more common confessions.  
THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts, what think you of it? your jesuit calleth it 
e Nihilominùs haec sententia improbabilis, & aliena dignitate & maiestate huius Sacramenti, quod non propter corporalem coniunctionem, sed propter spiritualem institutumest, dicente Christo [Mea verba Spiritus sunt & vita. joh 6.] Suarez quo sup. pag 822.  Improbable, and as repugnant to the dignity and majesty of this Sacrament, 
* See the testimony above cited. Chap. 6. §. 2.  Rash, and absurd. justly, because if this Doctrine were true, you must likewise grant that the same Body of Christ, which you say is eaten of mice and Rats, is mingled within their guts, and entrails; and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body, as the most sanctified among Christians can be: for which the Beasts themselves, if they could speak, would (as the Ass unto Bal●am) condemn the foolishness of your Prophets, namely those, of whom you have 
* See above at (b.)  heard your jesuit confessing, that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Divines, which is to add one Capernaitical Absurdity to another.  
It only remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written; your 
* See his Testimonies cited a little before, lit. (〈◊〉.)  Suarez telleth us, saying, That they speak so in hatred of Heretics (meaning Protestant's) against whom they writ. Who would not now magnify the Profession of Protestants, to observe their Adversaries to be so far transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddiness against them, that by the just judgement of God they are become so stark blind in themselves, as that they fall into opinions not only (as is confessed) Rash and Absurd; but also Capernaitically-Hereticall? And indeed they who imagined a Corporal Eating, how should they not aswell have conceived a Corporal fleshly Commixtion?     

CHAP. VIII.  

Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers, for proof of Corporal Presence, and Corporal union with the Bodies of the Communicants.  
SECT. I.  
IT cannot be denied but that many ancient Fathers are 
* See the Testimonies in the 3. 〈…〉 Section following.  frequent in these kind of Phrases; Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ, and his Body is mingled with our flesh, as melted wax with wax: yea, we have a corporal and natural union with him. These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have been objected, not only by your new 
* Witness Suarez in the former Section, at (a, b.)  Divines, for proof of a Corporal Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants, but also by your 
a Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. per totum.  Cardinal, and all other like Romish Professors, for defence of a Corporal Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament; but with what coloured Consciences (white or black) they have been so objected, cometh now to be scanned by just Process.   

That the objected Sentences of Fathers do not intend a Corporal Conjunction, so properly called, even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteem.  
SECT. II.  
ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ, as vehemently as the others of them have done for maintaining of an Union properly and really Corporal. Notwithstanding the most eminent Cathedral Doctors in your Romish Schools, to wit, Bellarmine, Tolet, and Suarez do explode that Corporal Commixture. The first Cardinal and jesuit now mentioned, singling out these Fathers, who seem most peremptorily and Emphatically to teach a Corporal nourishing, Corporal Augmentation, Corporal and natural mixture, and Union of Christ's Body with ours; such as were Ireneus, Hilary, Nyssen, Cyrill, and others, (as if he had forgot himself, and meant to answer for us) saith: 
a Non est novum apud Irenaeum, Hillarium, Nyssenum, Cyrillum, & alios, ut Eucharistia dicatur alero corpora nostra: sed non intelligunt Patres, cum hoc dicunt, Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam Corporis nostri, si● enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris, non mentis, quo nihil absurdius fingi possit. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 4. ad finem.  The Fathers in so saying are not so to be understood, as if the mortal substance of our bodies were nourished thereby, for so they should make it meat for the Belly, and not of the mind, than which nothing can be more absurd. The Second Cardinal and jesuit, speaking of Cyrill and Hilary, 
b Cum dicunt Hillar. & Cyril. nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem & naturalem cum corpore Christi: Doctores hi non sunt ità intelligendi, utvelint ex Christo sumpto, & sumen●e fieri unum Ens naturale (indigna est illis doctrina) sed hoc dicere voluerunt propter unionem, quae ratione charitatis & fidei sit, adesse intra nos ipsos verè & realiter Christum ipsum, qui Causa est fidei eiusdem. Tolet. in joh. 6. Annot. 29.  They say (saith he) that our Bodies have a natural Conjunction and Union in this Sacrament w●●● the Body of Christ, but are not so to be understood, as if there were a natural Union (which were a Doctrine unworthy of them) but their meaning is, that for the Vnion-sake, which is of Faith and Charity, Christ is really and truly within us, who is the cause of faith. So he.  
Your Third jesuit of prime note we 
* Suarez in the Chap. 7. §. 1.  have heard already (in Confutation of your new Divines, who collected from such Testimonies a Proper Corporal Conjunction) terming this Doctrine Rash, absurd, and repugnant to the dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament.   

That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporal Union; proved by their own Dialect.  
SECT. III.  
THe express Testimonies of the objected Fathers you may read in the Margin, as they are marshaled by your own jesuit 
c Suarez. Jes. in Thom. part. 3. disp. 64. §. 3. recenset uz. 1. Irenaeum. Quando mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, ●it Eucharistia ex, quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. lib. 5. contra Haeres. c. 2. 2. Chrysost. No● secum in unam massam r●duxit, neque id fide solùm, sed reipsâ nos suum corpus effecit. Hom. 88 in Matth. Vt non solùm▪ per dilectionem, sed reipsa in illam▪ carnem convertamur. Hom. 5. in johannem. 3. Cyril. A●ex. [Qui manducat carnem meam in me manet, & ego in illo.] Sicut si quis liquefactae Cerae aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum alterâ commisceat, necesse est— ità qui carnem recipit, cum pso coniungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. lib. 4, in joh. cap. 17. Rursus. Christus vitis, nos palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus. Audi Paulum, Omnes unum Christi corpus, qui de uno pane participamus— quae cum ita fiat, non●è corporaliter facit, communicatione carnis eius, Christum in nobis habitare? lib. 10 cap. 13. Greg. Nyssen. Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione, ità Corpus Christi, cum fuerit intra nostrum, ad se transmutat & transferr. Orat. Catech. c 37. 5. Leo Papa. Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus. Epist. 23. 6. Hilarius. Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quo modo non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae ●arnis admiscuit. Lib. 〈◊〉. de Trinit. He might have added justine Martyr, and others. Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scibens: Quotquot baptizati estis in Christo, Christum induistis— Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium, conditionum, sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis, an ex Sacramenti unitate? quia his & Baptisma sit unum, itaque qui per ●andem rem sunt unum natura unum sunt. Hilar. de Trinit. lib 8 Sus●ipiens Christum non idem fit post lavacrum, qui ante Baptismum fuit, sed Corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi. Leo. Ser. 14. de Passione Domini.  Suarez, to wit, Irenaeus, Chrysostome, Cyril Alexand. Grego. Nyssen. Pope Leo, and Hilary. The Sum is, The mixture of Christ's Body with ours, by a Corporal and natural Union in deed, and not only in faith or Affection.  
Two kind of Semblances are to be observed, one in their like Hyperbolical Phrasing, concerning Baptism; and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ.  
Of Baptism Hilary the 6. objected saith, Christians by Baptism, which is one, are made one, not only in affection but also in nature. Leo the 5. objected, saith also, that By Baptism the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucified. And mark what your Cardinal Tolet hath collected from Augustine, namely that 
d Tolet. Com. in Ia●. 6. Anot. 26. Docet Augustinus lib. 1. de Pecc. merit. Parvulos per Baptismum participes fieri huius Sacramanti (Eucharistiae) quod hac ratione fit, nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae, ad unitatem Christi pertinent; hoc Sacramentum huius unitatis corporis ●ignum est, & ideo ho● Sactamento aliquo modo participant, nemp● quantum rem significatam, & dici possunt ●arnem Christi manducare & bibere sanguinem.  Infants by being Baptised, are made partakers of the Eucharist, because they are memberr of the mystical Body, and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament, that is to say, of the thing signified, eating his flesh, and drinking his Blood. So he. By which your Obiector must be enforced to admit a like Real conjunction, and consequently of a Real presence of Christ in Baptism, as they have for the Bodily Union and Presence of Christ in and by the Eucharist.  
Yea, and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things: 
e Isidor. Pelus. Verbum Dei [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Lib. 2. Epist. 281. Item Gregor. Nissen. de Sancto Stephan●; Gratiâ Spiritus sancti permixtus est & contemperatus.  Isidore Pleusiota of the word of God, that It feedeth men's souls, and is in a manner mingled therewith. Of the Baptised, that by Baptism 
f Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. dist▪ 4. Ad hoc. Ad hoc Baptismus valet, ut baptizati Christo incorporentur.  They are incorporated into Christ, saith Augustine: And that thereby 
g Chrysost. in Ephes. H●m. 20. (de Baptism) Facti sumus os ex ossibus, & caro ex carne eius.  They are made bone of Christ's bone, and flesh of his flesh, saith Chrysost. Of the Eucharist, 
h Damasc. Epist▪ ad Zachar. Episc. D●●rorum Quod accipitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Teste Casau●. in Baron. Exercit. 16. C. 39  It is mingled with our souls, so Damascen. Of the participation of the bread of Idolaters, with the participation of the Sacramental bread of the Lords Supper; 
i Primas. in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut Salvator dixit [Qui manducat meam carnem, manet in me]— Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatioest. Et ut multi de uno pane participantes unum corpus sumus: sic si de ●odem pane manducamus, unde Idololatrae, unum cum illis Corpus efficimur.  That as by the one Christians are made partakers of Christ's flesh, so by that other are men made partakers with Devils. So Primasius.  
Wherefore your Disputers, by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former, if they shall take them as spoken properly, and not Sacramentally and figuratively, shall be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishing of man's Soul, by the Word. First, a proper mingling of God's Spirit with Man. Secondly, a proper incorporating of Man into Christ; and a proper mixture of Man with Devils. And again upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers, objected by you, with these now alleged by us concerning the Eucharist itself, it will necessarily follow, that by the same reason, wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of proper Presence of Christ's body, and Transubstantiation, and Union; you 
k Augustin. Confess. lib. 7. cap. 10. Manducabis me, Tu me in te mutabis, & tu mutaberis in me▪ Theophylact. in joh. 6. Qui manducat me vivet propter me, & quod ammodo miscetur mihi. Cyrillus in joh 11. c. 26 Suo Corpore Christus credentes per communionem mysticam benedicens nos secum & inter nos unu corpus fecit. Suarez in 3. Thom. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64 §. 3. Vnionem hanc Patres dicunt non esse solùm inter Christum & nos, sed etiam inter nosmetipsos, quatenus sumus membra Christi. [Primasiu● his Testimony i● at the letter (ay) immediately going before.  must allow four more. One of Christ's body into the body of the Communicant: a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christ's body. A Third of a Natural bodily Union of Christians among themselves. And fourthly (which is Damascens) of Christ's body into men's souls. All which kind of Presences, Unions, Mixtures, and Transubstantiations, taken in a proper sense, you cannot but condemn as Atheological and senseless, in your own judgement, notwithstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient 
l In Liturg●…. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Concil. Nicen. Can. 13. Si quis egreditur de Corpore, ultimo & necessario viatico non privetur etc. Aquin as part. 3. qu●st. 73. Art. 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, ideo dictum Viaticum, quia hic praebet nobis viam illu● perven●endi.  Fathers.  
And what talk you of the Eucharist, as being called the Viaticum, and food-provision for our journeying through death, by the ancient Fathers? as though this were an Argument of Christ's Corporal Presence in the Sacrament, and Conjunction with them that participate thereof; except you meant to make the same Consequence in behalf of Baptism, wherewith 
m Basil. Exhort. ad Baptismum▪ de Baptismo sic mo●e● Inve●em: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazia●, Orat. ●0. de Baptismo, vult Morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teste C●…. in Baronium 16. cap. 52.  Basil exhorteth both young and old to be provided, as of their Spiritual Viaticum.   

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers make against the Romish Corporal Union of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants.  
SECT. IV.  
YOur Romish Corporal Union is distinguished from the Corporal Union spoken of the Fathers, by two Properties, which are universally believed in your Church: one is the note of the discontinuance of the Body of Christ, saying that 
* See above C. 7. §. 1. at (c) and (d.)  The Body of Christ continueth no longer in the Body of the Communicant, than whilst the outward forms of Bread and Wine do● remain uncorrupt, The other is the note of Community, believing that The Corporal Conjunction with the Communicant is equally as common to the profane and godly Receiver, as are the outward Symbols, and Signs, which they Sacramentally Eat or Drink. Such are these your two Principles, concerning Corporal Conjunction, both which are notably contradicted by two contrary notes of Corporal Conjunction, spoken of by the Fathers. The first is of the Perpetuity of Christian Conjunction with Christ, against your Nonresidencie thereof. The Second is of the Peculiarity of this Union, (namely) only unto pious, and faithful Receivers; and both these by the Testimonies of the objected Fathers, yea even in the most of your 
* See above §. 3. Cyril. Qui manducat, manet in me: Christus in nobis habitat. Hil. Manet in nobis.  objected Testimonies themselves.  
That the Fathers meant by their Corporal Union a perpetual residence in the Receivers, their own 
* See above §. 3. Irenaeus, Cyril, Hil.  Testimonies above-cited do declare, noting that it is the Union whereof Christ spoke, saying, He that eateth me remaineth in me, and dwelleth in me, etc. A Truth so apparent, that your best reputed jesuit 
n Suarez. Si quis dixeritunionem corporalem durare solùm quamdiu Christi praesentia durat sub speciebus— ex hoc contra mentem Sanctorum, Illi enim dicunt, illam Vnionem, quâ totum Ecclesiae corpus Christo, ut capiti, coniungitur— Et eand●m 〈◊〉 ●um ●a quae 〈◊〉 inter ipsos Christianos', ut membra Christi. Et suam sententiam confirmant ex Testimonio Pauli 1. Cor. 10. [Quoniam unus panis, 〈◊〉 corpus m●…i sumus, qui de uno pane participamus:] quod probat Sanctos loqui non de transeunte Vnione, sed de durabili & permanente. In Thom. 3. cue 79. Disp 64. §. 3. Ratione etiam.  Suarez is enforced to confess, that The Corporal▪ Union, spoken of by the holy Fathers, is not Transient and Passable, but permanent and durable: which he proveth both from their express words, and also by the ground of their Speech, which is the Doctrine of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread, in as much as we are partakers of one bread; which are spoken of a permanent Union of Christians, as they are members of Christ.  
As for the second note of Union, professed by holy Fathers, we have already 
* See above Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  learned from this their general Doctrine, that the Godly only are truly Partakers of the flesh of Christ. And that our Union with Christ, by virtue of this Sacrament, is proper to the Godly and Faithful, is now further confirmed by the Testimonies 
* See above §. 3.  objected. Some expressing the Union to be such whereby Christ abideth in us, and we in him, as you have heard: and some, that whosoever hath it, hath spiritual life by it; whereas They who eat the Bread of iniquity, do not eat the flesh of jesus, nor drink his Blood, saith 
o Hieron. Comedentes cibos impietatis, non comedunt carnem jesu, nec bibunt eius sanguinem In Isa. c. 66.  Hierome; whereas your Popish Union is 
p Suarez. Haec Vnio communis est peccatoribus indignè manducantibus. Quo suprà §. Tota haec.  common to both. For, indeed, what is it for Christ his Body to be received of the wicked, but, as it were, to have him buried in a grave again? And to feed the ungodly with such precious food, is like as if a man should put meat into the mouth of a dead Carcase.  
The former Assertion being so generally the Doctrine of primitive Fathers, it is, in itself, a full and absolute Confutation of the Romish Defence, throughout the whole Controversy, touching the Corporal Union with the Body of Christ, as properly so taken. Have not then your Disputers, in urging the judgement of holy Fathers, spun a fair thread, trow ye, whereby they have thus evidently strangled their whole Cause?   

A Determination of this point in question.  
I. That the former objected Sentences of Fathers, concerning Corporal Union, are Sacramentally and Spiritually to be understood, as proper to the Godly and Faithful Receiver.  
SECT. V.  
HOwsoever the sound of their words have seemed unto some of you, to teach a proper Corporal Union with the Bodies of the Communicants, yet the Reasons wherewith the said Sentences are invested do plainly declare, they meant thereby a Spiritual Union only; first and principally, because they ground their sayings upon that of Saint john, 
* joh. 6.  He that eateth my flesh abideth in me, and hath life, and I will raise him up at the last day: He dwelleth in me, and I in him, which many of your own Doctors have 
* See above.  expounded to be taken spiritually, as doth also your Bishop 
q Ians●nius Concord. in joh, 6. sparsim Dominus non loquitur de manducatione sacramental, sed de spirituali, quae est per ●idem non mortuam— per manducare significat credere, & non secundùm primariam intentionem, sed de Sacramentali locutum esse probatur, 1. quiasupra manducare pro credere sumpsit. 2. tantùm manducantes intelligit cos, qui manent in Christo, & Christus in illis— Certè ita docet August. l. 3. de Doctrina Christ. c. 16. [Nisi manducaveritis] facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere, figura est praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum.  jansenius, out of Augustine. Secondly, because they make the Union perpetual to the Receiver. Thirdly, because they hold this Union proper to the spiritual Communicant, excluding the profane from any real participation of Christ's flesh. Fourthly, because they taught the same Union, whereof they speak, to be made without this Sacrament, even by 
* See above §. 3.  Baptism; and that Really, as your jesuit Tolet hath said. Fiftly, because they have compared this Union to the continued-Vnion between Man and Wife. Good and solid Reasons, we think, to persuade any reasonable man that they meant no proper Corporal Union.  
Whereby, peradventure, your jesuit Tolet was 
* See above §. 3.  induced to grant, that Hilary and Cyril, by the Corporal Union of Christ's Body with ours, meant the Union by Faith and Charity. As also, whereas Damascene saith, That by this Communion we are made joint-bodies with Christ. And lastly, Cyril of jerusalem calleth the Communicants, by reason of their participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, Christopher's, that is (being interpreted) Carriers of Christ; and that hereby we are made partakers of that divine nature: a Sentence much urged by your Disputers, notwithstanding your 
r Suarez. Damasc. lib. 4. cap. 14. Hoc sacramento— nos Christi concorporei existimus;— & animo & voluntate copulamur. Cyril. Hierosol Catechis. 4. Mystag. sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis & sanguinis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— cum eius sanguinem & corpus intramembra nostra receperimus, atque ità (ut B. Petrus dicit) divinae naturae consortes efficimur. Hinc Suarez. Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit altam Vnionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam etc. ●n 3. T●om. qu. 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. §. Nihilominus.  Suarez seeth nothing in it but a Spiritual V●ion by Grace and Affection. Which two Testimonies we may add to the former Fathers, for proof that only the Godly have Union with Christ.   

II. That the objected Ancient Fathers, without Contradiction to themselves, have both affirmed and denied a Corporal and perpetual Union of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants.  
SECT. VI  
THree acceptions there may be of the word Corporal Union, the first Literal, and proper, which this whole Book proveth out of the Fathers to be Capernaitical, by Corporal Touching, Corporal Tearing with Teeth, Corporal Swallowing and Devouring, and Corporal mixture with our flesh; a sense seeming pernicious to Origen; and to Augustine odious and flagitious, as 
* See above Chap. 6. Sect. 3. in the Chall.  hath been proved. The second is a Corporal Conjunction Sacramental: that as they called Bread broken the Body of Christ, by reason of the Sacramental Analogy with his Body Crucified (as hath been plentifully demonstrated:) so have they called the Sacrament all Union with our Bodies the Corporal Union of his Body with ours; namely, that as the Bread is eaten, swallowed, digested by us, and incorporated into our Bodies, to the preservation of this life, so, by the virtue of Christ's humanity dying, and rising again for us, our Bodies shall be restored to life in that day. In which respect Bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body, being so changed into the Substance of our flesh, is in us a perpetual pledge of our Resurrection to glory.  
The last is a Spiritual Union, that as the Body of Christ is immediately food of the Soul only, so is the Union thereof immediately wrought in the Soul; and because, in Christian Philosophy, the Body followeth the Condition of the Soul, according to the tenor of judgement used in the last day, when as the ungodly Soul shall take unto itself it's own sinful Body, and carry it into Hell, and the regenerate Soul shall return to it's own Body, and being united thereunto be jointly raised to immortality and bliss, and all this by our Spiritual and Sacramental (for they are not divided in the Godly) Communicating of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
This ought not to seem unto you any novel Doctrine, having heard it professed by your jesuit, in your public Schools, saying; 
s Suarez. Glori● corpori●●respondet gloriae animae, sicut beartrudo animae respondet gratiae & Charitati: ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque haber neque habere potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter came quam habet circa gratiam & charitatem, ita neque aliter potest efficere gloriam corporis, quam gloriam animae. Concludit. Hoc Sacramétum non aliam conferre vitam & immortalitatem corporis, quam nutriendo & conservando gratiam & charitatem. In 3. Thom. qu. 79. Disp. 64. §. 2.  The glory of the Body depends on the glory of the soul, and the Happiness of the soul depends on Grace therein, neither doth this Sacrament (saith he) any otherwise confer immortality to the Body, than by nourishing and preserving grace in the soul. So he.  
In which respect we concur with the judgement of ancient 
t Concil. Nicen. Hoc Sacramentum Symbolum Resurrectionis. Ignatius; Pharmacum immortalitatis. Cyril. Cibus nutriens ad immortalitatem. Teste Suarez jes. ibid. And Irenaeus contra Haereslib. 4. cap. 34. Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistian ia●● non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrection●s habentia.  Fathers, who call this Sacrament the Symbol and Token of the Resurrection, the Medicine of Immortality, by which our very bodies have hope of Immortality. So they. Yea and (which is a further Evidence) as your objected Optatus 
u Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. ●7. ex Optato. Optatus vocat Eucharistiam Pignus salutis, tutelam fidei, & spem resurrectionis.  called the Eucharist, The pledge of Salvation, and hope of the Resurrection: so doth 
x Basil. Exhort. ad Baptis. Baptismus est virtus ad resurrectionem, & ar●●abo.  Basil speak of Baptism, terming it our Strength unto Resurrection (being a Sacrament both of his death and Resurrection) and the Earnest thereof. Nor can we desire a more pregnant confutation of your Corporal Presence, than that the Eucharist is called of the Fathers a Pledge, as you have objected. To this purpose we are to consult with Primasius; he telleth us that Christ dying left us a 
y Primas. in. 1. Cor. 11. Sa●vator Deus exemplum dedit, ut quotiescunque hoc facimus in ment habeamus▪ quòd Christus pro nobis mortuus est, ideo nobis dicitur corpus Christi, ut cum recordati fuerimus, non simus ingrati gratiae eius. Quemadmodum ●…quis moriens relinquat ei, quem diligit, aliquod pignus, quod ille post mortem eius quandocunque viderit, numquid potest lachrymas continere, si perfectè dilexerit? and Co●terus the jesuit. See above Book 4. Chap. 9 §. 5.  Pledge for our Memorandum of him after his death: By which Pledge what Christian (as often as he shall be put in mind of his death) can then contain himself from weeping, if he do perfectly love him? The comparison here is taken from a man, who before his death willeave some thing of worth with his friend, as a Pledge of his love, and a token of his Remembrance of him after his death. But the Pledge and the Pledger are two different things in themselves, and as different in place, the Pledge being a present token of a Friend absent.  
Nothing now remaineth but some one Father to be Moderator in this Point, and noon more fit than he, who is as vehemently objected against us, as any other, namely, 
z Cyprian. de coena Dom. Ad participation emspiritus, non usque ad consubstantialitatem sed usque ad societatem germanissimam.— Nostra & ipsius coniunctio non miscet personas, neque unit substantias, sed affectus consociat, & conf●●derat voluntates.  Cyprian; who speaking without all Ambages and Hyperboles saith that our Participation of this Sacrament Worketh not any consubstantial Union: that the Conjunction of Christ with us hath in it no mixture of persons (uz. of Christ and Christians:) that it uniteth not the substances, but joineth affections, and affianceth our wills. After this, he elegantly expresseth the Analogy between the Sacramental, and Spiritual nourishment: 
a Item. Potus & esus ad eandem pertinent rationem, quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia, & vivit, & incolumis perseverat: it à vita Spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur: & quod est esca carni, hoc animae est sides, quod cibus corpori est verbum spiritui, excellentiori virtute peragens aeternalitèr, quam agunt alimenta carnalia temporalitèr. [Idem Cyprian. & alia multa habet contra Carnalem Coniunctionem, de●oena Dom.  As by Eating and drinking (saith he) of the bodily substance our Bodies are fed and live: so is the life of the soul nourished with this food. So he.   

III. That the former Doctrine of the Fathers is consonant to the Profession of Protestants.  
SECT. VII.  
IF you take the Corporal Union of Christ's body with ours as you do, by a Bodily Touch, bodily Eating, Swallowing, and Mixture with our bodies, We abhor this as much as did the Ancient Fathers in these their precedent Item's, (to wit) First, Ambrose opposing hereunto Christ's [Noli me tangere,] Touch me not, which was spoken to Mary. Against your Touch. Secondly, Augustine's [Non dentis, sed mentis] Against your proper eating. Thirdly, Theophylact's [We devour not his flesh.] Against your Swallowing. Fourthly Cyprians [We mingle not persons.] Against your Transmitting him into your Bowels and Entrails. And, for a further Discovery of Romish stupidity in your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Analogy between the Sacrament and Christ, in the Doctrine of Antiquity, is always of the substance of Bread and Wine, with his Body and Blood. But we never read in ancient Books of your Sacramental Eating of Accidents, Drinking of Accidents, or being fed and living by Accidents. Wherefore muster you all those Testimonies of Fathers, which speak of the Nourishment, augmentation, and subsistence of our Bodies by the body and blood of Christ, and all such Sentences will be so many witnesses of your incredible pervicacy, who seek to prove an Augmentation of our bodies, by the body and blood of Christ, in the Eucharist: and yet profess (according to your own Roman faith) that as soon as the Forms of Bread and Wine eaten and drunk are corrupted (which you know is done in a very short time) the Body and Blood of Christ hath no longer Residence in the body of the Communicant.  

CHALLENGE.  
THrice therefore, yea fouretimes unconscionable are your Disputers, in objecting the former sentences of holy Fathers, as teaching a Corporal and Natural Union of Christ's body with the bodies of Christian Communicants, once, because they in true sense, make not at all for your Romish Tenet: next, because they make against it: then because the Corporal Conjunction, though it be of the Body of Christ, and Bodies of Christians, in respect of the object, yet for the matter and subject, it is of Sacramental Bread united with our own Bodies, in a mystical relation to the Body of our Redeemer: and lastly, and that principally, because they meant a Spiritual Conjunction properly, and perpetually belonging to the Sanctified Communicants, and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants. Wherefore primitive and holy Fathers would have stood amazed, and could not have heard, without horror, of your Corporal Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills, in Maws of Beasts, in Guts of Worms, Mice and D●gges, as you have taught. Fie, Fie! Tell it not in Gath, nor let it be once heard off in any heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession, and dishonouring of the broad Seal of the Gospel of Christ, which is the blessed Sacrament of his precious Body and Blood. Before we can proceed to the next Book, we are to remove a rub which lieth in our way.     

CHAP. IX.  

That the Objection taken from the slanders of jews and Pagans, against Christians, by imputing the guilt of Eating man's flesh, unto them, in receiving of the Sacrament, is but ignorantly and idly urged by your Disputers.  
SECT. I.  
MAny leaves are spent by 
a Master Breely in his Liturgy Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 4: pag. 121. where, in his margin, he citeth Vadian, whom he nameth a Zwinglian: And if so, how far he was from confessing a corporal presence, the Romish Authors, who condemn him for the contrary opinion, do prove to be false. See above Cap. 5. §. 3.  Master Brereley in pressing this Objection; the strength of his enforcement standeth thus. justine Martyr, in the year 130. writing an Apology to the heathen Emperor, when he was in Discourse of the Eucharist (The reported Doctrine whereof, concerning the real Presence, was the true and confessed Cause of this slander) and, when he should have removed the suspicion thereof, did notwithstanding call the Eucharist, No common Bread, but, after Consecration, the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are fed, etc. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument, borrowed from the 
b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4.  Cardinal, to wit, justine his comparing the change in the Eucharist to be a work of Omnipotency, and for his not expounding the words of Christ figuratively. Then is brought in 
* In the Margin of Master Brerely ibid.  Attalus the Martyr, whilst he was under the tortures, and torments of his Persecutors, saying, Behold your doing, [Hoc est homines devorare,] This is a devouring of men: We Christians do not devour men. To whom is joined Tertullian, making mention of the same slander of Sacrificing a Child, and eating his flesh, [Ad nostrae doctrinae notam:] To the infamy of our Profession. At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth; So evidently doth this slander, thus given forth by the jews, argue sufficiently the doctrine of Real Presence, and Sacrifice, and for as much as the slander went so generally of all Christians, it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular. So he.   

THE FIRST CHALLENGE, Against the Ignorance of the Obiector, and the false ground of his Objection.  
SECT. II.  
THe confessed light of History will discover the mist of Prejudice in our opposites; for Irenaeus, Augustine, and Epiphanius do all declare, that the ground of this Slander against Christians, for eating man's flesh, was the detestable fact of some Heretics, who professing themselves Christians, notwithstanding in Celebration of the Eucharist, did indeed eat man's flesh, as your jesuit 
c Maldonat. Montanistae Peputiani (ut Author est August. lib. de Haeres. cap. 17. Et Epiph. in Haeres. 49.) Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere, & sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere fatinâ, & ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam. Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam, quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis, quod Infantes occiderunt. Lib. de 7. Sacran. Tom. de Euch. §. Sexta Quaestio.  Maldonate, and Cardinal 
d Baronius. Anno. 120. num. 22. usque ad num. 36. Quae Gnosticiagebant in occulto, palam facta convertebant in Christianos': name Epiphan. Haeres 26. Foetum iam natum detectum pistillo tundant, & omnes contusi pueri participes facti, esu peracto etc. Irenoeus. l. 1. c. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & avertunt aures à praeconio nostro veritatis. Origenes testatur opera judaeorum has columnias adversus Christianos divulgatas. lib. 1. cont. Celsum.— Caecilius ethincus, apud Minutium Felicem, obijcit in Octavium. Sic iam, de initiandis tyronibus, fabula tàm detestanda quam nota est etc. Hac Baronius locis supra notatis.  Baronius do both witness. The former of these fixing a Credo upon it, against your objected [Probabile] to the contrary.  
Again, look but into the Testimonies, as they are alleged by the Obiector, and recorded in the Histories themselves, and it is found, that, that Slander raised against Christians, was always for eating the flesh of a Child, or Infant, as their Eucharist, and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramental communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist, wherein the Body represented (according to our Christian profession) is not of a Child, but of a man of more than thirty years of age. I say it could no more reflect on them than that other heathenish 
e Gretzerus Jesuita de cruse lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethinci aliqui mentiebantur Christianos Asinum pro Deo colere, Tert. Apolog cap. 16. alij Asini caput, & per judibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij etc.  Lie, that Christians did worship an Ass or Ass' head for their God. So childishly hath your Priest vaunted, in calling his Objection An evident Argument, which will afterwards 
* Book. 6. Cham 9 §. 2.  be encountered with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answer of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperor julian the Apostate, in defence of Christian Religion, far more Evident than yours was from the Apology of justine to the other Infidel Emperor.   

A SECOND CHALLENGE, Against the Insufficiency of the Reasons collected out of justine.  
SECT. III.  
THe 
* Bellar. supra.  Consequences deduced out of justine Martyr have been answered in effect already. First, He calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread, and so doth every Christian speak of every sacred and consecrated thing: you Papists will be offended to hear even your Holy Water (no Sacrament) to be called Common-water. Secondly, justine said, As Christ was made flesh by incarnation, so is the Eucharist by Prayer. It were an Injury to justine, for any man to think him so absurd, as, dealing with an Infidel, to prove unto him one obscure mystery of Christianity by another; And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally, as being a Sign of Flesh, could be no matter of Scandal to the Pagans, who themselves, in their sacramentals, usually called the Sign by the name of the Thing signified, one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer, calling the Lamb sacrificed, (whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants) their faithful oaths. Again, the general Profession of Christians, so well known to believe that Christ once crucified●, ac 'cording to the Christian Creed, set at the right hand of God, in highest Majesty, might quite free them from all heathenish suspicion of Corporal Eating the flesh of Christ. Thirdly, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, The meat blessed by giving of Thanks, justine calleth Christ's flesh, namely, Improperly, which who shall affirm properly, without a Figure (by the Censure of your own Jesuits) must be judged 
* See above Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 4.  Absurd.   

THE THIRD CHALLENGE, Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors, by their urging that which maketh against them.  
SECT. IV.  
FOr, first, they have told us of the Martyr Attalius, that he upbraided his heathenish persecutors, who put him to death, calling them Devourers of men's flesh, and avouching, in behalf of all true Christians, that they Devour not man's flesh; which no Romish Professor at this day can affirm; this Profession, that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomach; this having been confessed by your own jesuit to be a Devouring. So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age (as you now see) was as different from your Romish Novelty, as are Corporal, and not Corporal Eating of the same Body of Christ. Finally, All our premised Sections, throughout this fifth Book, do clearly make up this Conclusion, that the Body of Christ, which Protestants do feed upon, as their soul's food, is the Body of Christ once Crucified, and now sitting in glorious majesty in Heaven: and that Body of Christ, believed by you, is of Corporal Eating, in deed and in truth of Bread (as hath been proved, and will be further discovered in a general 
* See hereafter in the Eight Book.  Synopsis.) Wherefore let every Christian study with sincere conscience To eat the flesh of Christ with a spiritual appetite, as his Souls food, thereby to have a Spiritual Union with him proper to the Faithful; not subject to Vomitings, or Corruption, and not common to wicked men, and vile beasts, but always working to the salvation of the true Receiver: so shall he abhor all your Capernatticall fancies.  
Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Union; the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ, whereunto we proceed, not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men, as hitherto we have done, peremptory in their Assertions, Unconscionable in wresting of the Fathers, and vain, fantastical, and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions.     

THE six BOOK,  
Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence, which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Romish Mass, arising from the depraved Sense of the former words of Christ; [THIS IS MY BODY:] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.]  
The State of the Controversy.  
WHosoever shall deny it (say your Fathers of 
a Si quis dixerit, non offerri Deo verum & proprium Sacrificium, aut non esse Propitiatorium, Anathema fit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Con. 1. & 3. Visibile. cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium. cap. 2.  Trent) to be a true and proper Sacrifice: or that it is Propitiatory, Let him be Anathema, or Accursed. Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies (as you 
b Prima Controversia est, sit nè Missa verè & propriè dictum Sacrificium. Secunda, sit nè Propitiatorium. Bellar. Praef. ante Tract. de Missa.  know) One, Whether the Sacrifice in the Mass be a proper Sacrifice. 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatory. Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both; Protestants deny both; so that, Proper, and Improper, are the distinct Borders of both Controversies. And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers, that is, the Cursers, or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God, we are forthwith to examine. We begin with the Sacrifice, as it is called Proper.  
This Examination hath four Trials: 


1. By the Scripture.  
2. By the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
3. By Romish Principles; and  
4. By Comparison between this your Mass, and the Protestants Sacrifice, in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist.     

CHAP. I.  
Our Examination by Scripture.  
SCriptures alleged by your Disputers, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice, are partly out of the new Testament, and partly out of the old. In the new, some Objections are collected out of the Gospel of Christ, and some out of other places. We beginning at the Gospel, assuredly affirm that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice, it must necessarily appear either from some special word, or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ, at the first Institution.  

First of Christ's words.  
That there is no one word, in Christ his first Institution, which can probably infer a Proper Sacrifice; not the first and principal words of Luc. 22. [HOC FACITF: DO THIS.]  
SECT. I.  
WHen we call upon you for a Proof, by the words of Christ, we exact not the very word Offering, or Sacrifice, in the same Syllables, but shall be content with any Phrase of equivalency, amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice. In the first place you object those words of Christ, [Hoc facite, Do this,] from which your Council of 
a [Hoc facite] Tunc, ut à Sancta Synodo definitum est, Christus Sacerdotes instituit, praecepitque ut & ipsi & qui successuri cis essent, corpus ejus immolarent. Catechis. Trid. de Euch. num. 58.  Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ: which your Cardinal avoucheth with his 
b Certum est, probari Sacrificium Missae his verbis [Hoc facite] etc. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12.  Certum est, as a Truth without all exception; as if [Do this,] in the literal sense, were all one with [do you Sacrifice.] But why? because, forsooth, the same word in the Hebrew Original, and in the Greek Translation is so used, Levit. 15. for do, or Make, spoken of the Turtledove prepared for an Holocaust, or Sacrifice: and 1 Kings 18. 23. where Elias (speaking of the Priests of Baal, and telling them that he meant to have a Sacrifice,) said, Do, or Make. So he, together with some other Jesuits. But vainly, ridiculously, and injuriously.  
I. Vainly, because the word, Do, in those Scriptures did not simply in itself import a Sacrifice, but only consequently (to wit) by reason of the matter subject then spoken of, which was a matter of Sacrifice: and are so explained by just circumstances, as may appear in the places objected, Levit. 15. where was speech of a Turtledove appointed for a Sacrifice. And so likewise in 1. Kings 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullock to be ordained for a Sacrifice. Whosoever, having spoken of his Riding, shall command one servant, saying, Make ready: and after, being an hungry, and having spoken of meat, shall command another, saying likewise, Make ready, None can be so simple as to confound the different senses of the same word Make, but knoweth right well that the Significations are to be distinguished by the different subjects of Speech; the first relating to his horse, and the other to his meat, and the like, wherein the different Circumstances do diversify the sense of the same word.  
II. Ridiculously. For if the Hebrew and Greek 
c Gnaschah, Heb: the same in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin, Facio. jud. 6. 29. Ios. 5. vers. ult. joh. 13. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Marc. 11. 3. Si quis dixerit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;  Editions, which signify Do this, do necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice, then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and odd kinds of Sacrifices; one in Gedeon his destroying of the Altar of Baal: another in Moses his Putting off of his shoes. A third in Christ's washing of his Disciples feet. A fourth (to go no further) in the Man's Losing of his Colt. In all which Instances there are the same original words now objected, by interpretation, Do, or Make.  
III. Injuriously. First, to the Text of Christ, wherein the word is not indefinite, Do, but determinate, [Do this.] Next, Injurious to your own many Authors: for the words, [Do this] (by the 
* See above Book 5. Chap. 2. §. 2.  confessions of your own Jesuits and others) have reference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration, then specified; as namely, Blessing, Breaking, Eating, etc. Yea and, if your Cardinal's Answer were held so Certain among yourselves, than would not your jesuit Maldonate have so far slighted it, as to say, 
d Maldon. Non quòd contendam illud verbum [Facite] illo loco significare idem quod sacrificare. Lib. 7. de Sacram. Tom. 1. part. 3. de Eucharist.  I will not contend, that in this place the word [Do] signifieth the same with, Do sacrifice. Next, Injurious to antiquity, which (as is confessed) 
e Quod olim dicimus, Missas facere, Veteres quoque dixerunt Divine mysteria celebrare. Hilar. etc. Ex Cassand. Liturg. cap. 16.  called Doing Mass the Celebration of the Sacrament. Besides, Injurious to your own Mass, in the Canon inserted by 
f Alexander Papa & Martyr, Passionem Domini inserens Canoni Missae, ait, [Hoc quotie scunque feceritis,] Id est, Benedixeritis, Fregeritis, Distribueritis, etc. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. ●9.  Alexander Pope and Martyr, of the Primitive age, in these words; [Do this as often] that is, Bless it, Break it, Distribute it, etc. A plain and direct Interpretation of the words [Do this.] Lastly, Injurious to S. Paul, who, in his Comment upon the words of Christ his Institution, doth put the matter out of question, 1. Cor. 11. where, after the words [Do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me,] vers. 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing, expresseth the Acts of Doing, thus: As often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, etc. Which his Command of Doing, by Eating and Drinking, was spoken generally to all the faithful in Corinth; that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests.  
Other Romish Doctors also, if they had been so sure of the force of the word [FACITE,] as your Cardinal seemeth to be, then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgil's Calf, where it is said; cum faciam Vitulâ— and were therefore noted by Calvin and Chemnitius of bold Ignorance. But these two Protestants, for so saying, have been since branded by your 
g Operaepretium erit imposturam Adversariorum refutare. Calvinus fingit Catholicos ●irà probare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis, cum faciam vitula, etc. 〈◊〉 Kemnitius ridet Catholicos.— sed errant, nec bon● fide referunt argumenta Catholicorum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, c. 12.  Cardinal with a mark of Imposture, as if they had falsely taxed your Romish Authors of such fondness. But now what shall we say to such a Gnostick, who, as though he had known what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and ●ented, durst thus engage his word for every one? It may be, he presumed, that none of them could be so absurd. But your jansenius will quit the report of Calvine and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falsehood, who witnesseth, concerning some Romish Authors of his time, sa●ing; 
h Sunt qui ex verbo [Facite] Sacrificium ostendere co●antur, quia al●quandò accipitur pro Sacrificare, ut cum Virgilius dicit— cum faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse veni●o. Ianse●…. concord▪ in eum locum. cap. ●31. p. 904.  There are some who endeavour to prove the word [Facere] to be put for [Sacrificare] by that saying of Virgil,— cum faciam vitula. So he. And why might not they have been as absurd, as some others that came after, yea (by your leave) 
i Et Poeta, Cum faciam vitulâ, etc. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de Sacrif. Missae, c. 4. §. Fatentur. p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi, ut cum Poeta dicit, cum faciam Vitulâ, etc. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 27. pag. 205. §. Septimo.  jesuits' themselves, of your Bellarmine's own Society, who in like manner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calf; but as wisely (according to our Proverb) as Walton's Calf, which went etc. For the matter subject of the Poet's Sacrifice is there expressed to have been Vitula, a Calf. You have failed in your first Objection.   

That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christ's Institution; Is GIVEN, Is BROKEN, Is SHED.  
SECT. II.  
THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. [Which Is broken, Is given, Is shed] in the Present Tense; and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood; wherein, according to the Greek, there is a varying of the Case: whereupon your Disputers, as if they had cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other: some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text, by two Arguments, one in respect of the Case, and another in regard of the Time.  

Of the Grammar point, concerning the Case.  
This is the new Testament in my Blood:] Now what of this? 
a Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 1. cap. 1, 2. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dicit, Calix qui funditur, non hic est sanguis qui funditur: itaque indicant sangu●…em fundi, ut erat in Calais.  It is not said (saith your Cardinal) This is the Blood shed for you, but, This is the Cup shed for you: Therefore is hereby meant The Blood, which was in the Chalice, because wine could not be said to be shed for us for remission of sins. But how gather you this? Because in the 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek (saith M. 
c M. Breely Liturg. tra●●. 3. c. 3. subd. 2.  Breerly) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 varieth the Case from the word [Sanguine,] and the Genus from the word [Testamentum,] and agreeth evidently with Calix: which drive Beza unto a strange Answer, saying that this is a Soloe cophanes, or incongruity of speech. So he; which Objection he learned, peradventure, of the 
d Rhemists A●…. upon Luc. 22. 20.  Rhemists, who are vehement in pressing the same; their Conclusion is: This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Chalice. In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances. 1. As if a Soloe cophanes were a profanation of Scripture by incongruity of speech; which (as one 
e Rodolph. Goclenius Professor Marpurg. Problem. Gram. lib. 5. Demosthenes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cic. 2. de Orat. Benedicere autem, quod est peritè loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regionem, cujus terminis septa teneatur. Vox [Septa] non congruit cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benedicere, sed referenda est ad vocem Eloquentiae. He observeth the like in Plato, Virgil, Homer, pag. 232, 233, 261, 262.  Protestant hath proved) is used as an Elegancy of speech by the two Princes of Orators, Demosthenes for the Greek, and Tully for the Latin; and by the two Parents of Poets, among the greeks Homer, and by Virgil among the Latins.  
2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes, which is but a Seeming incongruity, like a Seeming Limping, who themselves confess 
f Sixtus Sen●●sis Biblioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fa●… nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editione inveniri, etiam Soloecismos, & Barbarismos, hyperbata, etc.  Ingeniously that in their Vulgar Latin Translation (which is decreed by the Council of Trent to be Authentical) there are mere Solecisms, and Barbarismes, and other faults, which we may call, in point of Grammar, down right halting. 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech, or that this could be denied by them, who defend Solecisms, and Barbarismes, which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures, saying that 
g Rhemists' Preface before the New Testament.  Ancient Fathers, and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations, that they would not change their Babarismes of the Vulgar Latin Text, [as nubent, & nubentur] and the like. 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case, whereof you have received from 
h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin.  D. Fulke diverse 
Apoc. 1. 4. & 8. 9 & 3. 12. etc.  Examples. 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable, which is defended by the Mirror of Grammarians 
i joseph. Scaligeri Notae in novum Testamentum. Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Mera est Antiptosis, pro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  joseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis, and explained anciently by 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Reg. Moral. 21.  Basil a perfect Greek Father: referring the Participle [Shed] unto the word Blood, and not unto the Chalice; which marreth your Market quite. And that this is an undeniable Truth, will appear in our Answer to the next Objection of Time; for if by Given, Broken, and Shed is meant the time future, than these words Shed for you, for remission of sins, flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Cup, but on the Cross. Let us proceed therefore to that point.    

Of the Time signified by the Participles Given, Broken, Shed.  
These words being of the Present time, Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking, Giving Christ's Body, and shedding his Blood is in the Supper, and not on the Cross: So your 
l Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss. cap. 12. Datur, Frangitur, Funditur, in Praesenti tempore, docet apertissimè non fusum esse in Cruc● sanguinem, sed in Coena.  Cardinal: most invincibly say your 
m Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20.  Rhemists, and M. Breerly, as dancing merrily after their Pipes; 
n M. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319.  This point (saith he) is clearly determined by the Evangelists themselves in their own origin all writings, Broken, Given, Shed. And 
o Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319.  The Evasions, which our Adversaries seek, whereby to avoid this, are enforced, racked, and miserable shifts. And again, for corroboration sake. 
p Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317.  The word Broken also, spoken in regard of the outward forms, which are in time of Sacrificing, is more forcible, because not meant of the Cross: for when they saw he was dead, fulfilling the Prophecy [A Bone of him shall not be Broken] they broke not his legs. joh. 19 33. So he, and so they. Alas! what huge Anakims', and Giants have we to deal withal, no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident, Forcible, and Invincible; yet may we not despair of due Resistance, especially being supported by your own Brethren, as well the Sons of Anak, as were the other: besides some better aid both from Fathers, and Scriptures, for proof that these words Broken, Given, Shed, spoken in the Present time, do signify the Future time of Christ's Body being Broken, and Bloodshed; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Cross.  
What Authors on your side may satisfy you? whether your Two 
* See above. chap. 2. 〈◊〉. 4.  choice Jesuits, Salmeron and Valentia? or will you be directed by most voices, whereby it is confessed (namely) that 
q jansenius referring it to the Cup, yet saith: [Qui effunditur] communiter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cruse, & rectè. Concord. 131.  By Blood shed, is commonly understood of it shed upon the Cross. But what need have we of the several members, when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us, rendering the word shed, in the Future Tense [Fundetur,] shall be shed, as referred to the Cross? What think you by this? say M. Breerly. 
* Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1.  Our Adversaries are in great straits, when they are glad to appeal from the Original Greek Text which they call Authentical, unto the Latin Vulgar Translation, which they call old, rotten, and full of corruptions. This were well objected, indeed, if that Protestants should allege your Vulgar Latin Edition, as a purer Translation, and not as a true Translation of the words of the Text▪ to teach you that it is meant of the Future Time: and that this were urged by them, as a ground of Persuasion to themselves, and not rather (as it were by the Law of Arms) an Opposition, and indeed Conviction upon their Adversaries, who, by the Decree of your Council of Trent, are bound 
* See hereafter Book 〈◊〉.  Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. And to have this your own Authentical Translation to make against you, is to be in straits indeed, because all the Decrees of that Council, by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to be believed under the bond of an Oath.  
Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles? Yes, M. Breerly can, by an admirable Trick of wit: 
r Liturg. in the place above cited.  Nevertheless (saith he) I answer in behalf of the Vulgar Interpreter, that as he translateth in the Future Tense, [which shall be shed] so doth he use the Present Tense in the other words Given, and Broken, to signify that it was then given in the Sacrament, and afterwards to be given upon the Cross, both together. As if you should tell us in plain English that your Church in her Vulgar Latin Text doth equivocate, teaching that It shall be shed, in the Future, doth signify also the Present Tense Is shed, that is, It is, shall be. A fit man (forsooth) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes. But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signify the Future? We tell you, because you have in Scriptures, and other Authors thousands of Examples of the Present Tense put for the Future, to signify the certainty or instancy of that which is spoken: but was it never heard nor read, that the Future Tense was taken for the Present Tense, because there is no Course, nor Progress to the time past. And if Shed be taken not in true sense, then shall it be lawful for every petty Romish Priest at every Masse-saving to correct your Romish Missal, authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers, which hath it 
s Missale Rom. Calix Sanguinis— qui effundetur.  Shall be shed.  
One word more with M. Breerly, only desirous to know of him, if he allow of the Tense either Present or Future, whether it was straightness, or looseness, that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense 
t Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd. 3. p. 145.  Was shed. But he will expect that we answer his Reason.  
He urged the word, Broken, that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Cross, for that His Legs were not there Broken (according as it was prophesied) therefore it must infer it to have been Broken at his Supper, when he uttered the word Broken; which is like his other manner of Reasons, blunt, and broken at the point, as it became one not much conversant in Scripture: else might he have answered himself by another Prophecy, teaching that the word Broken is taken Metaphorically by the Prophet Esay, chap. 53. speaking of the crucifying and Agonies of Christ, and saying, He was Broken for our iniquities: (namely, as two of your 
u Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangitur, i. e. Clavis, Lanceâ, Flagellis laniandum est. Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord. c. 4. è Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. quod fiangitur, hoc est, quod Clavis frangitur.  Jesuits acknowledge) By nails, spear, and whips; and is to be applied to the Breaking of his sinews, nerves, and veins, as your 
x Bellarm. Vtcunque possit fractio, etc. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad quartum.  Cardinal confesseth.   

That the words of Christ, [Given, Broken, Shed,] are taken for the Future Time; proved by the same Text of Scripture, and consent of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. III.  
AS for ourselves, we, before all other Reasons, and against all opposition whatsoever, take our light from the same Scripture (immediately after the Text objected) wherein it is said of judas, 
* Luc. 22. 21.  He that betrayeth me; and again, Christ of himself, 
* Vers. 22.  I go my way, both in the Present Tense, but both betokening the Future: because neither judas at that instant practised any thing, nor did Christ move any whit out of his place. Lastly, if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent 
a Origen. Hom. 9 in Levit. [Effundetur] Teste Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 3. in Marc. [Tradetur] Teste Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. [Confringetur.] Athanas. in 1 Cor. 11. [Tradetur.] Missa Basilii [Effundetur.] Isidor. Com. in Exod. 1. 50. [Effundetur.] Theodoret, in eundem locum, [Tradetur.] Alexand. Epist. 1. Decret. [Tradetur, Fundetur.] Teste Greg. Valent. Ies. l. 2. de Sacrific. Missae. c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost. Dabitur. in 1 Cor. 11.  Expositors, we have Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Isidore, Pope Alexander, and Chrysostome, All for the Future Tense, by their Confringetur, Tradetur, Effundetur. What, my Masters, is there no learning but under your Romish caps?   

That the objected words of Christ, and the whole Text, do utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Mass.  
SECT. IV.  
AMong the words of Institution, the first which offereth itself to our use, is the formerly-objected word, BROKEN; which word (said your jesuit 
* See above Book● 2. Chap. 2.  Suares) is taken unproperly, because in the proper and exact acception it should signify a dividing of the body of Christ into parts. So he, and that truly. Else why (we pray you) is it, that your Roman Church hath left out of her Mass the same word [Broken] used by Christ in the words, which you term words of Consecration?  
Although you (peradventure) would be silent, yet your Bishop 
a Ex qua intellige, ●a verba [Quod provobis frangitur] non esse ad Consecrationem necessaria: sed consultò à Latinis praetermissa, ne esset locus absurdae intelligentiae, quâ quis existimare possit verè frangi corpus Christi. jansen. Concord. cap. 131. in Matth. 26.  jansenius will not forbear to tell us, that It was left out, lest that any man might conceive so fond, as to think the body of Christ to be truly broken. So he. It is well.  
The word, [Shed] is the next, which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veins of Christ; But, That Blood of Christ (saith your 
b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad secundum. Sanguis Christi reipsa non e●… de Corpore.  Cardinal, speaking of the first Institution) did not pass out of his Body. Even as 
* See above Book 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.  Aquinas had said before him. But most emphatically your Alphonsus. 
c Alfo●sus lib. 6. adversus Haeres. Tit. Eucharistia, ●●res. ult. Cum Sanguinem p●o nobis semel in ara Crucis e●●usum, post resurrectionem nunquam eum fu●urus sit: convincitur inde etiam, nunquam sanguinem verum il●…s integrè alicubi e●●e ●ine ejus corpore vero.— Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat, non tamen species illae totum Christum significant, sed solùm sanguinem e●●usum in Cruse, & à corpore separatum.  Christ his Blood was once shed upon the Cross, never to be shed again after his resurrection, which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body. And accordingly your jesuit 
d Coster. Euchirid. cap. 9 de Sacrificio. §. Ex quibus. Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruse, sanguine ipso à corpore separato. Hic vero tantum illius mortis repraesentatio.  Coster; The true effusion of his Blood, which is by separating it from the Body, was only on the Cross. So they.  
Harken now. These words, Blood shed, and Body broken, were spoken then by Christ, and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sense of shedding, or they are not. If in a proper sense, then is it properly separated from his Body, (against your former Confession, and Profession of all Christians;) But if it be said to be shed unproperly, then are your Objectors of a proper Sense of Christ his words to be properly called deceitful Sophisters, as men who speak not from conscience, but for contention: who being defeated in their first skirmish, about Christ's words, do fly for refuge to his Acts, and Deeds; whither we further pursue them.   

That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ, which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice; proved by your own Confessions.  
SECT. V.  
THere are six Acts of Christ, which your Proctors, who plead for a proper Sacrifice, do pretend for proof thereof, as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ, and are as readily and roundly confuted by their own fellows, as they were by others frequently and diligently fought out, or vehemently objected: which the Marginals will manifest unto you, in every particular▪ to be no essential Acts of a proper Sacrifice. 1. Not 
a Sotus cum ali●● hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertinere aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrific●● existimant. Sed dico, esse tantum Ceremonialem actionem, ab Ecclesia institutam, nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. disp. 75. §. 3. Per hanc primam actionem negandum est Christum sacrifica●e. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27, & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam pertinent. Alan. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alii.  Elevation, because it was not instituted by Christ. 2. Not the 
b Non consistit in fractione, quia non est haec necessaria. Salmer●n Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. p. 222, 223.  Breaking of Bread, because (you say) it is not necessary. 3. Not Consecration, although it be held, by 
c Pro sola Consecratione facit ●mni● nostra superior Explicatio. Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15.  your Cardinal Alan, The only essential Act; yet (as 
* Quorundam opinio est, non esse d● essentia hujus Sacrifici● ipsam Consecrationem. Suarez quo sup 966.  Some think) Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice. And why should not they so judge? (say we,) for many things are Sacrata, that is, Consecrated, which are not Sacrificata, that is, Sacrificed. Else what will you say of Water in Baptism, yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle? of your Pots, Bells, Vestments? which, being held by you as Sacred, are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals. Besides, if Consecration made the Sacrifice, than Bread being only consecrated, it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Mass. 4. 
d Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis, his verbis, [Memento Domine.]— Alii di●unt esse de essentia. Sed dico, tam cer●um esse hanc oblationem non esse de Essentia, quam illam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem,— 〈◊〉. quia Christus non adhib●it eam in coena. 〈◊〉. Quia non constat Ecclesiam ●●m semper adhibuisse: nec est de Institutione Christi, sed Ecclesiae. Suarez Ies. 〈◊〉. sup. pag. 964. Non est de ●ssentia, quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in princip●o ●â ●si sunt, nec sit in persona Christi, sed Ministri & Ecclesiae. Bellarm. lib. 1. de M●ss●, cap. 〈◊〉. §. Quinta Prop.  Not Oblation, whether before, or 
e Oblatio prae●●den● Consecrationem non pertine● ad essentiam: n●● oblatio quae consequitur. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa▪ cap. 27. §. Q●arta, & Quinta.  after Consecration. 5. 
f Immersio in chalice— Hanc tenuit Canus. Sed constat Christum, pe●…●…llam actionem non sacrificari. Suarez. 〈◊〉. sup.  Not dipping of the Host in the Chalice. 6. (Although your 
g Consumptio utriusque speciei per os Sacerdotis, quatenus est immolatio victimae obla●ae. Bellarm. 〈◊〉. sup.  Cardinal preferred this before all others) 
h Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad E●●entiam, quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium & participationem ipsius▪ 1 Cor. 10. Nonnen qui edunt hostias, parti●ipe● sunt Altaris? Salme●… T●m. 9 Tra●●. 29. pag. 23●.  Not the Consumption of the Host by the Priests eating it. Which your jesuit Salmeron, and Cardinal Alan, together with your jesuit 
i Non in Consumptione, quia aliud est Immolare, aliud de Immolatis participate, & ratio●●m p●tius habet Sacramenti quam Sacrificii.— Et frequenter rese v●… Populi communionem, non esse perfectè sacrificatas, vel saltem tùm, quando conceduntur à p●p●lo sacrificari. Alan. lib. 2. de E●●h. cap. 17.  Suarez, accompanied with with seven other of your Schoolmen do gainsay; because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament, than to a Sacrifice. And for that also (if it were essential) the People might be held Sacrificers, aswell as Priests. So they, of these Particulars; whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards. 
(ay) Suarez. Sumptionem Sacerdo●alem non esse de Essentie, t●… Tho●as, Bonaventur●, Major, & ex modernis Alan, Ca●●alius, Cath●rinus▪ Palacius, Turrian. In 3. Thom▪ disp. 75. Sect. 5. And Suarez himself: Sola consecratio est sufficiens, ut in qua tota essentia constar. Ibid.   

CHALLENGE.  
COnsider now (we pray you) that (as you All 
k Tota Essentia Sacrificii pendet ex Institutione Christi. Sua●●z, & Salme●on suprà.  confess) The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ. And that 
l Non est in potestate Ecclesiae instituere Sac●●ficium. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 28. p. ●19. Idem al●bi, v●de supra at (h)  It is not in the power of the Church to ordain a Sacrifice. Next, that if any Sacrifice had been instituted, it must have appeared either by some word, or Act of Christ, neither of which can be found, or yet any shadow thereof. What then (we pray you) can make more both for the justifying of your own Bishop of Bitontum, who feared not to publish in your Council of Trent, before all their Fatherhoods, 
m Quidam bitontinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. (ut Canus & Alii re●erunt) tentavit defendere, Christum 〈◊〉 n●cte Coenae non obtulisse Sacrificium. Suarez q. s●p. disp. 74. Sect. 2. p. 949.  That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice? As also for the condemning of your own Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ? Upon this their Exigence whither will they now? To other Scriptures of the new Testament, and then of the old. Out of the new are the two that follow.     

CHAP. II.  

That the other objected Scriptures, out of the new Testament, make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians, to wit, not Acts 13. 2. of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  
SECT. I.  
ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the public Ministry, wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were ●ow exercised, saith [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] which two of your 
a Bar●… in An●. 44. nu●. ●3. Ministrantibus, Graecè est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Sacrificantibu●. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 13. Hac voce Sacrificium proba●ur, quia non significat publicu m●●us, quia non potest significare ministerium Verbi, aut Sacramentorum, quia haec non exhibentur Deo; at hîc ministrantibus & Domino; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eum ad sacra accommodatur & absolutè ponitur in Scriptures semper acci●●tur pro ministerio Sacrificii. Vt Lu●. 1. de Zacharia. Et Cl●… de Sanctes pr●f in ●…ssas Graecorum.  Cardinals translate, They sacrificing. But why Sacrificing, say we, and not some other ministerial Function, as preaching, or administering the Sacrament, seeing that the words may bear it? They answer us, because 1. This Ministry is said to be done To the Lord, so is not Preaching. 2. For that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] whensoever it is applied to sacred Ministry and used absolutely, it is always taken for the Act of Sacrificing. So they. When we should have answered this Objection, we found ourselves prevented by one, who for Greeke-learning hath sca●… had his equal in this our age, namely, that 
b Casa●box Exercit●t. 16. cap. 41. Vocem hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usus Ecclesiae aptavit ministerio & cultui Dei pub●ico, sed dive●●imodè. Apud Dionys●… Ar●op. Diac oni dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in patrum libris ●●t mentio Liturgrae matutinae & vespertinae, & in Acts Concil. Ephes. notat Balsa●on Liturgiam constare ●ola oratione ●ine ulla Sacramentorum administratione, peculiarite●●…dum ad celebration●● Eucharistiae, cujus p●rtes duae sunt, Recitatio Scripturarum, & Administratio Coenae. Jus●●niani novella 7. Quod Bellarm. ait, quoties haec vox ad 〈◊〉 a●co●●odatur, & absolu●è povitur, pro ministerio sacrificii s●…, infig●is est error, name in exemplo quod subjungit Luc 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nen est Sacrificium, sed vox generalis omnia ministeria sacer●… & Levitica complectitur. Zachariae autem, ut Lucas ait, contigera● sors soffitus offerendi, non ●ute● sacrificandi— Ne● minus errat, quod s●…cet vix a●… hanc vocem a Patribus ac●●pi, quam promi●isterio Sacri●…i, 〈◊〉 observatio quam sit aliena, satis ex dictis constat.  Phoenix M. Isaac Casaubon. Look upon the Margin, where you may find the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration, (even for sole Praying, where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice) and he instanceth in the Fathers, mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church. But you will not say (we think) that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times.  
What can you say for your Cardinal his former lavish assertion, who is thus largely confuted? Nay, how shall you justify yourselves, who are bound by Oath not to gainsay in your Disputations the Vulgar Latin Translation, which hath rendered the same Greek words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Ministrantibus eyes, that is, They ministering, and not, They sacrificing? which might be said as well of preaching, praying, administering the Sacrament; all which (to me●t with your other Objection) being done according to the will of God, and belonging to his worship and service, might be properly said to have been done unto God.   

That the Second objected place out of the new Testament, to wit, 1 Cor. 10. cannot infer any Proper Sacrifice.  
SECT. II.  
1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel— are not they who cat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? then vers. 20, 21, 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devils, and not unto God, and I would not have you partakers with Devils: ye cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the table of Devils. Hence Bellarmine; 
a Postremum Argumentum ex Scripturis habetur, 1 Cor. 10. Ubi primò Mensa Domini comparatur cum Altari Gentilium. Ergo, Mensa Domini est quoddam Altar, & proinde Eucharistia Sacrificium. 2. Ita vult Sacrificium Deo oblatum in Eucharistia, sicut sunt Sacrificia à Iudaeis Deo, vel à Gentilibus Daemonibus suis oblata. 3. Docet ita manducantem Eucharistiam participem esse Altaris Dominici, ut manducans Idolothyta particeps ●rat Altaris Idolorum, per Sacrificia. Ergo Eucharistia est Sacrificium. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 14.  Here (saith he) the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles: Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar, and therefore it hath a Sacrifice. 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered, as were the Sacrifices of the jews. And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar, as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idols are said to be partakers of the Idols Altar. So he; following only his own sense, and not regarding the voice or judgement of any other. If we should say, in Answer to his first Objection, that your Cardinal wanted his spectacles, in reading of the Text, when he said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord, whereon the Eucharist is placed▪ with the Altar of the Gentiles (which was the Altar of Devils) it were a friendly answer in his behalf▪ for the words of the Text expressly relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles, and Devils; and not with their Altar. And although the Heathen had their Altars, yet (which crosseth all the former Objections) their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idols was not upon Altars, but upon Tables, in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes, and not in Sacrificing, as did also the 
* Aenaeid. 8. p●st Sacrificium Aenaeas invitat●… estad Epulas.  Gentiles.  
The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idol Solemnities whatsoever; and the sum of his Argument is, that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony, made essential to any worship professed, he maketh himself a partaker of the profession itself, whether it be Christian, vers. 16. or jewish, vers. 18. or Heathenish and Devilish, vers. 20. And again; the Apostle's Argument doth aswell agree with a Religious Table, as with an Altar; with a Sacrament, as with a Sacrifice, and so it seemeth your 
b Aquinas. Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere & Daemoniorum ●…ul.] Quoad Sacramentum sanguinis. Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, quoad Sacramentum corporis, & mensae Daemoniorum. In 1 Cor. 10.  Aquinas thought, who paraphraseth thus upon the Text; You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body, and of the table of Devils. To an Objector, who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion, it may be sufficient for us to oppose, albeit but any one. Primasius therefore, expounding this Scripture, maketh the Comparison to stand thus: 
* See above Book 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. at the letter (ay).  As our Saviour said; He that eateth my flesh abideth in me, so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devils. But this participation of Devils must needs be spiritual, and not corporal; you know the Consequence.    

CHAP. III.  
That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly produced, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist.  
THe Places of Scripture, selected by your Disputers, are partly Typical, and partly Prophetical.  

That the first objected Typical Scripture, concerning Melchisedech, maketh not for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist.  
SECT. I.  
The State of the Question.  
WE are loath to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministering Bread and Wine to Abraham, and his Company; whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God, or (as Divers have thought) only of refreshing the weary Soldiers of Abraham; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers, who have called it a Sacrifice. Wherefore we yield unto you the full scope, and suppose (with your 
* Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.  Cardinal) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had been sacrificed by Melchisedech to God, and not as a Sacrifice administered by him to his Guests. Now, because whatsoever shall be objected will concern either the matter of Sacrifice, or else the Priesthood & office of the Sacrificer, we are orderly to handle them both.   

That the Testimonies of the Fathers, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice, are Sophistically, and unconscionably objected out of Psalm. 110. and Heb. 5.  
SECT. II.  
SOme of the objected Testimonies (See the 
a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Ambrosio. Panem & Vinum obtulit. De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod to●o orbe celebratur. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & 6. August. lib. 17. de Civit. Dei, cap. 17. & alibi. Primum apparuit Sacrificium, quod nunc offertur Deo to●o orbe terrarum, quod protulit Melchisedech. Et Epist. 95. ad Innocent. Prolato Sacramēco mensae Dominicae. Chrysost. Hom. 36. in Gen. Panem & Vinum attulit. Primas. in cap. 5. ad Heb. Panem offerens Deo, non lauta animalia. Similiter Cassiod, in Ps●l. 109. & Occum. in 5. ad Heb. Theophyl. in 5. ad Hebr. Hic solus Melchisedech, in morem illius, Pane & Vino sacrificabat. Rabbi Samuel, Sacrificans panem, & vinum sacrificans. Rabbi Phinëes, Tempore Messiae omnia Sacrificia cessabunt, sed Sacrificium panis & vini non cessabit. Haec Bellarm. lo●o supracitato. M. Breerly citeth Aug. de C●vit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 19 Visibile Sacrificium. In his Liturgy, Tract. 3.  Margin) comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist, in the name of a Sacrifice, do relate no further than Bread and Wine, calling these Materials, The Sacrifice of Christians: such are the Testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophylact, O●cumenius, and Cassiodore, together with two jewish Rabbins; promising that at the coming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease, Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. This is your first Collection, for proof that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice. But first Unconscionably, knowing and 
* See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1.  confessing it to be no better than a jewish Conceit, to think the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherefore, to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice, in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice, do you not blush? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sense, as it might signify any sacred ministration, as Isidore doth instruct you? Who, if you ask what it is, which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech? he will say, that it is Bread and Wine. 
b Isidor. Victimas jam, non quails Judaei, sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes: Id est, Panem & Vinum. i e. corporis & sanguinis Sacramen●um. Lib de Vocat. Gent. cap. 26.  That is (saith he) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Jerome long before him; 
c Hieron. Epist. ad Evag. Pane & vino simplice, puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum.  Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ: distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice, and naming the thing, that is said in a sort to be offered, Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Sacrament of both.  
Your second kind of objected Sentences of Fathers do indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In this Rank we reckon the 
d Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Cecil. Christus idem quod Melchisedech panem & vi●um, idem sc. suum Corpus & Sanguinem. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 5. Demonstr. cap. 3. Sacerdotes v●no & pane, & Corporis & Sanguinis ejus mysteria repraesentant, quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Sp●… divino cognoverat. Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. Melchisedech in Typo Christi Panem & Vinumobtulit, & Mysterium Christianum in Salvator●s sangume & Corpore dedicavit. Et Quaest. in Genes. Melchisedech obl●to pane & vino, i. e. Corpore & Sanguine Domini Jesus. Eucher. Lugdun. lib. 2. c. 18. in Gen. Vt O●lationem Panis & Vini, i. e. Corporis & Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium Christus inst●r illus [Melchiz.] offerens, panem & vinum, carnem viz. & sanguinem suum. H●c Bellarm. lib. 1. de M●ssa, cap. 6.  Testimonies of Cyprian, Hierome, Eusebius, and Eucherius, saying that Melchisedech himself offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice: which Body and Blood of Christ you will All swear (we dare say) was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of years before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh, to take unto him either Body, or Blood. And therefore could not the Fathers understand, by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood; these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith, as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius do declare. Which is a second proof of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers, by enforcing Testimonies against common sense.  
But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game, and that three manner of ways? First, your ordinary guise is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers, as properly used, whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude, and at liberty. Secondly, and more principally, wheresoever you hear the Father's naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, o then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body; and behold it's Corporal presence, and that most evidently! this is your common shout. And yet behold in your own objected Sentences of Fathers, that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech, was notwithstanding by the forenamed Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ: A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, figuratively.   

That the Apostle to the Hebrews, in comparing Melchisedech with Christ, did not intimate any Analogy between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  
SECT. III.  
But, 
a Bellarm. Non videtur po●se negari, etc. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. §. Acc●dit.  you preoccupate, viz. The Apostle, speaking of Melchisedech, saith, [Of whom I had much to say, and that which is uninterpretable, because you are dull of hearing.] Chap. 5. vers. 11. Whence it may seem (saith your Cardinal) a thing undeniable, that the Apostle meant thereby the mystery of the Eucharist, because it was above their capacity, and therefore he purposely forbore to mention either Bread or Wine. So your Answerer. To whom you may take, for a Reply as in our behalf, the Confession of your much-esteemed jesuit Ribera, who telleth you that 
b Ribera Jes. Id non ideò dixerat, quod sermonem illum tacere vellet, erat enim id, id quod in hac Epistola agit, valdè accommodatum, sed ut magis illos excitaret studio audiendi, & intentiores redderet— Non desperate Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi, si animum attendant, aut certè à nonnullis eorum, qui eruditiores erant, per quos coeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent. Com. in Heb. 6. num. 1. Where also he hath these words: Cum ●llorum & imbecillitatem & tarditatem accusat, ideirco facit, ut pudore ad melius intelligenda incitarentur: [Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta, & ad perfectionem feramur.] Hoc est, Date operam ut mecum intelligatis, quae perfectis dici solent.  The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable, and calling them Dull, meant not thereby to conceal the matter employed (which was so pertinent to that he had in hand) from them, because of the want of their Capacity: but did, in so saying, rather excite them to a greater Attention; showing thereby that he did not despair, but that they were capable of that which he would say; at least the learned among them, by whom others might have learned by little and little. So he, proving the same out of those words of the Apostle, [Passing by the Rudiments, etc. Let us go on unto perfection:] that is, (saith he) Do your diligence in hearing, that you may attain unto the understanding of these things, which are delivered unto those that are perfect. This is the Brief of his large Comment hereupon. Notwithstanding, what our Opposites fail of, in the point of Sacrifice, They intent to gain from the Title of Priesthood.   

Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood, out of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
SECT. IV.  
The State of the Question.  
Aaron's Priesthood (said your 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Epip●anio. Sacrificium crucis peractum est, ergo aliud Sacrificium esse oportet, quod jugiter offeratur— Ig●…ur necesse est in Ecclesia veram Sacrificandi actionem admittere; quae Christo summo Sacerdoti per Ministros suos tribuatut, qualis actio nulla erit, si Missae Sacrificium auferatur. Ibid. §. Est etiam. Ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium necesse est ut Christus saepiùs offerat per se, vel per suos Ministros, jam quidem civentè, etc. Ibid. §. Respondeo quod.— Sacerdos verè & propriè non est, qui Sacrificium proprium offerre non potest. Ibid. §. Respondeo autem. Propriè tamen non dicitur Sacrificium aeternum, quod semel ●actum est, nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium cum non jugiter sacrificatur. Ibid. §. Secunda Causa.  Cardinal) is translated into the Priesthood of Melchizedech, and this into the Priesthood of Christ, [A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech:] which, because it is perpetual and eternal, cannot be performed properly by Christ himself, and therefore must be executed by his Ministers, ●s Vicars on earth. So he, accordingly as your 
b Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. C. 1. Christus Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech; & si semel obtulit in cruse, ut aeternam redemptionem operaretur: quia tamen p●r mortem ejus Sacerdotium extinguendum non erat etc.  Council of Trent hath decreed. Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministry of the new Testament to issue 
c Novi Testamenti ministerium jam inde à Melchizedech petitum, jam & Christus voluit secundum ejus ordinem dic●▪ Sacerdos, & Presbyteri sunt Ministri Christi, i. e. ejus, qui fuit Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchizedech. Sand. de Visi●. Monar●●. lib. 1. pag. 20. §. Quae cum.  Originally from Melchizedech. This is a matter of great moment, as will appear; which we shall resolve by o●rtaine Positions.  
The foundation of all the Doctrine, concerning Christ and Melchizedech, is set down in the Epistle to the Hebrews.   

That the Analogy between Melchizedech his Priesthood, and the eternal Priesthood of Christ in himself, is most perfect, and so declared to be, Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chop.  
SECT. V.  
THe holy Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ jesus, in one order of Priesthood, showeth between Both an absolute Analogy, although not in equality of Excellence, yet in similitude of qualities and offices. As first in Royalty, Melchizedech is called The King of justice and Peace. So Christ (but infinitely more) is called Our justice and Peace. Secondly, Melchizedech, in respect of Generation, was without Generation from Father or Mother (according to the formality of Sacred Story:) so Christ, according to the verity of his Humanity, without Father; and, in his divine nature, without Mother: of whom also it is written, Who shall declare his Generation? Thirdly, in Time, Melchizedech a Priest for ever, having neither beginning nor end of Days (according to the same Historical Tenure:) so Christ an eternal Priest, Chap. 5, 6. Fourthly, in Number, only One, who had no Predecessor, nor Successor. So Christ, who acknowledged no such Priest before him, nor shall find any other after him for ever. Fifthly, Christ was universally King and Priest, as the Apostle noted, Chap. 7. 4. saying, That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ, in juda. That is, that Christ's Power might be both Regal, and Sacerdotal, saith 
a Mutatum Sacerdotium de Sacerdotali in Regalem, ut eadem ipsa sit Regalis & Sacerdotalis. Chrysost in Heb. 7. Horn. 13. Fuit in Melchizedech singularis dignitas, quòd Sacerdotium administrabatur per Regem. Teste Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4.  Chrysostome; which was a singular dignity, as your jesuit well observeth.   

That the nature of every other Priesthood (be it of your Romish Highpriest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech, as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priesthood of Christ.  
SECT. VI  
IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood, whom would you rather that we should instance in, than in your entitled Summus Pontifex, that is, the High Priest, your Pope: who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King, as Melchizedech, much less as Christ, 
a Bellarm. Regnum spirituale Christo proprium:— item Regnum divinum universale, ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis; item gloriae in Beatitudine: Temporale terrenum Christo conveniebat. Lib. Recog. pag. 28.  Everlasting. Secondly, Much less a King of Peace, who hath been reproved by Antiquity for being 
b Victor, Pacis perturbator. Irenam apud ●useb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 24.  A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church: And generally complained of by others, as being 
c Non tantum contra Barbaros, sed etiam ejusdem patriae, sanguinis, & fidei Principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarii. Esp●nc. in 1. Tim. digress. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 273.  Nothing less than the Vicar of the God of Peace, because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation, Blood, and Faith: And for 
d Leodiens. Epist. ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo; Novello schismate Regnum & Sacerdotium scindeba●. Teste Espencaeo q● sup.  Distracting the Estates of Princedom and Priestdome. Thirdly, not King of justice, because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sons to rebel against their Liege Sovereigns and Parents. Fourthly, not Originally without Generation, by either Father or Mother; some of them having been borne in lawful wedlock, and of known honest Parents: albeit of othersome the mother's side hath been much the surer.  
It will be no Answer to say, as Pope 
e Non secundum ordinem Aaron, cujus Sacerdotium per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit, & cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit: sed secundum ordinem Melchizedech, in quo aetorni Pontificis forma praecessit. Leo Papa Serm. 2. in. Annivers. die Assumpt. ad Pontif.  Leo in effect did, viz. that, as Priests, you are not as were the levitical; by natural propagation; but by a spiritual ordination: because a spiritual Propagation is no proper, but a metaphorical Generation. Fifthly, not without Succession; seeing that Succession, as from Saint Peter, is the chief tenure of your Priesthood. Nor will that of Epiphanius help you, in this Case, to say that 
f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundum successionem eligitur, sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur. Epiphaa. cont. H●r●s. 55.  You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron: because although this may exempt you from the levitical Priesthood, yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchizedech, or of Christ, whose Characters of Priesthood was to be Priests solely, individually, and absolutely in themselves.  
As little can your ordinary Answer avail, telling us that you are not 
g Salmeron Ies. Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarii— Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere. Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp. 19  Successors, but Vicars of Christ, and Successors of Peter; because, whilst you claim that the Visible Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church, which is perpetuated by Succession, you must bid farewell to the Priesthood of Melchizedech. But if indeed you disclaim all Succession of Christ, why is your jesuit licenced to say, that your 
h Ribera. Successor quidem Christo Petrus, & reliqui post cum Pontifices in officio gubernandi Ecclesiam, & pascendi oves Christi Verbo praedicationis, & Sacramentorum Administratione. At non successit in officio redemptionis, & Pontificis per se Deum iratum placantis— in quo non sunt Successores, sed Ministri Christi. In Heb. 10. numb 8.  Roman Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorship over the Church, although not in their Priesthood by offering Sacrifices, expiating sins by their own virtue? Are not the titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ? Sixthly, not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession, which was Immortality, because the Popes showed themselves to be sufficiently mortal, insomuch that one Pope maligning another, after death hath dragged the Carcase of his Predecessor out of his 
i Platina in Vitis Sergii 3. Formos●, stephan's, Christopheri.  Grave; to omit their other like barbarous outrages. Seventhly, not Personal Sanctity, 
* Heb. 7. 23.  Holy; impolluted, and separated from sins. For whosoever, being merely man, shall arrogate to himself to be without sin, the holy Ghost will give him the 
* Heb. 7. 26.  Lie. As for your Popes, we wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please, and we doubt not but you shall find upon record, that many of them are noted to have been as impious and mischievous in their lives, and in their deaths as infamous and cursed, as they were contrarily Bonifaces, Innocents', or benedict's in their names. Can there be then any Analogy between your high Roman Priest and Christ, the Prototype to Melchizedech, in so manifold Repugnances? Yet notwithstanding, every 
(*) 1 Io●. 1. 8.  one of you must be (forsooth) a Priest after the order of Melchizedeck.  
Nay, but (not to multiply many words) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray itself from 
k Lombard. de Ordinat. Pr●sb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino, & patinam cum Hostiis, ut sciant se accipisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi. Hic ordo à filiis Aaron sumpsit initium. etc. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. lit. 1.  Peter Lombard, Master of the Romish School, who Anno 1145. taught (how truly look you to that) that every Priest at his Ordination, in taking the Chalice with wine, and platter with the Host, should understand that his power of sacrificing was from The order of Aaron. Nor may you think that this was his private opinion, for He (saith your 
l P. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologorum, & Magister Theologorum scholasticorum dici meruit. Lib. de Script. Eccles. T●t. Petrus Lombardus.  Cardinal of him) collected the sentences of Divines, and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolmen. Thus far of the Person of Christ, as Priest; in the next place we are to inquire into his Priestly function.   

Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinal his Doctrine sacrilegiously detracting from it.  
SECT. VII.  
BY the doctrine of your Cardinal, in the name of your Church, 
a Bellarm. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum, sed effectum ejus— nec dicitur aeternum quòd non jugiter sacrificatur— non in coelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationem, nec mediante oblatione Victimae, quià tùm necesse est eum semper offer.— Ergo Eucharistia & Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur— Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium— ergò non est verè ac propriè Sacerdos, cum verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest. Lib. 1. de Missa, c. 6. sparsim. And,— Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter, nisi in Eucharistia. Bellar. ibid. cap. 25. §. Quod autem. And, Sacrificium crucis, respect Christi● norum. Ibid. cap. 20. And, Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia: hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium. Bellarm. ibid. cap. cod. ad finem.  The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ: Every Priest (saith the Apostle) must have some thing to offer, else he were no Priest. Thus his Priesthood is called Eternal, and must have a perpetual offering, which was not that upon the Cross. Nor can that suffice, which the Protestants say, That his Preisthood is perpetual, because of the perpetual virtue of his sacrifice upon the Cross; or because of his perpetual Act of Intercession, as Priest in Heaven; or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven, whither his Priesthood was translated. No, but it is certain that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himself, He doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist, Because the sacrifice of the Cross, in respect of Christians, is now invisible, and seen only by Faith: which although it be a more true sacrifice, yet it is not, as our Adversaries say, the only sacrifice of Christian Religion, nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof. And again, His sacrificing of himself in the Sacrament, by his Ministers, is that by which only ●e is said to have a perpetual Priesthood. Accordingly your Cardinal 
b Alan. Christus in ipso coelo non aliquid Sacerdotale facit, nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti, quod ipse per nostrum ministerium efficit continuò & offered. Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 8. §. Reliqua.  Alan; Christ (saith he) performeth no Priestly function in Heaven, but with relation to our Ministry here on earth, whereby he offereth. So they for the dignifying of their Romish Mass, as did also 
c Rhemists. Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church. Annot. in Heb. 7. 17.  your Rhemists; but with what Eclipse of judgement and good Conscience, is now to be declared.  
If we take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing, which is destructive; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One, and Once, Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice, once so offered to God upon the Cross, and after his Ascension entered into Heaven, and so is it a perpetual Sacrifice presentative before God. For as the high-Priest of the Law, after the Sacrifice was killed, entered into the holy place once a year, but not without Blood, Heb. 9 7. so Christ having purchased an eternal redemption, by his Death upon the Cross, went into the holy place (of Heaven) with the same his own blood. V. 12. To what end? Always living to make supplication for us. Ch. 7. V. 3. and 25.  
Hence followeth the continual use, which the souls of the faithful have, of his immediate function in Heaven: Having a perpetual Priesthood, he is able continually to save them that come to God by him. V. 24, 25. Whence issueth our boldness and all-confidence, always to address our prayers to him, or by him unto God: We having an high Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, infull assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience. Ch. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawn from your jesuit Ribera (even then, when he professeth himself an earnest defender of your Roman Mass) these Acknowledgements following 
d Ribera Ies. in his Comment upon the places alleged, Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2, & 3. Chap. 9 23. His Book is familiar with you, where you may peruse the places.  viz. upon the Ch. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest, and all other do partake of his Priesthood, in offering sacrifice, only in remembrance of his Sacrifice: And that he did not perform the office of Priesthood only upon earth, but even now also in heaven: which function he now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Cross. He proceedeth. No man (saith he) will deny this Position (namely) that Christ now ever exercizeth the office of a Priest, by presenting himself for us. So he.  
This is still Christ's function of Priesthood, whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians, at all times of need to make their address; which Saint john propoundeth as the only Anchorhold of Faith in his Propitiation, 1. john 2. If any sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the righteous, and he is (what?) The Propitiation for our sins. The which every faithful Christian doth apply, by faith, unto himself, as often as he prayeth to God, in Christ's name, for the remission of sins, saying, Through jesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his function of Priesthood, without extreme sacrilege, be held Insufficient to his Church, for obtaining pardon immediately from God, who seeth not? As for other your ordinary Objections, taken from two sentences of the Apostle, speaking of the Examples of things celestial, and of Purging sins now with better Sacrifices, you should not have troubled us with them, knowing them to be satisfied by your own Authors 
e Ribera Ies. Thomas Expositionem a●…fe●●, nempè pe● [Coel●…stia] ap●…psum coelum, cujus figura erat tabernaculum. Etemundari dicitur, quia homines per Christum emundari sunt, qu●…llud ingredientur. Thomam secutus est Lyranus.— Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet, ●…men [Coelestia] appellari coelum ipsum, quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur. Et cogit quod sequitur, 〈…〉 enim in manufac●a ●ancta Iesus est ingressus, sed in exemplaria verorum:] nempè, Coeli, quod cap. 8. dici●… Tabernaculum verum, quod Deus fixit & non homo. Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus. In eum locum.  Ribera, and 
f Aqumas. [M●horibus hossiis] Id est, meliori sanguine. Ob. Illa erat una hostia. Resp. Licet non sit in se, tamen ploribus hostus veteris Legis figurabatur. In Heb. 9 [Meaning, that the Apostle used the plural number, because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices.]  Aquinas longago.   

That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christ's Priestly function in Heaven, is contradicted by ancient Fathers; first in respect of Place, or Altar, and Function.  
SECT. VIII.  
THeodoret is 
a Th●●d in Psal. 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus, non ipse aliquid ●…ens, sed voca ur Caput Offerentium, quando quidem corpus ●●um Ecclesiam vocat. Objected by Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.  alleged by you, as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himself, but only in the Church: albeit he saith not so, simply; but, that he offereth not in the Church personally, which all confess: for otherwise Theodoret presently after 
b His words immediately following are these: Et proptereà Sacerdotio fungitus ut homo: recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Dens. Offered autem Ecclesia Corporis & ejus sanguinis symbola. So Theod.  expresseth, that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man. As for the Church, his words are not, that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice, but, The Symbols of his Body and Blood. Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected. But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity. 1. If you ask of the Offering, Ambrose answereth you, that 
c Ambros. Nunc Christus offertur, hic in Imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patr●… Auvocatus p●o Nobis. Lib. 1. d●offic. cap. 48. sub fi●em.  The offering of Christ here below is but in an image: but his offering with the Father is in truth. If of the Priest, Augustine telleth you, 
d Aug. in Psal 94. Impo●…us in ara Sacrificium, quando Deum laudamus: at verò Sacerdotem si requiras, super coelos est, interpellat p●o te, qu●… terris mortuus est pro te.  The Priest is to be sought for in heaven, even He, who on earth suffered Death for thee. There is some difference then sure.  
As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and only Testimony of Augustine, 
f Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi & Presbyterr (inquit) sunt propriè Sacerdotes. Bellarm. obji●it. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17  Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes: which ho●pake not absolutely, but comparatively (namely) in respect of Lay-Christians, who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests. (As your own 
* Duplex Sacerdotium, alterum Interius, omnium fidelium, qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt, Apoc. 1. 16.— alterum Exterius tantùm eorum, qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium, sacrumque ministerium as●…untur. Catechis. Rom. par. 2. de Ordine, num. 22.  Catechism distinguisheth, calling the former the Inward, which only the Faithful have by the Sacrament of Baptism; the other Outward, by the Sacrament of Orders.) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the old Testament (although most proper) but a Sign, in respect of the Spiritual Sacrifice of this work of mercy; which he 
g Aug. ibid. In Apo●. 20. 6. [Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi, & regnabunt cum Eo, etc.] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriè jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quià membra unius Sacerdotis, etc. [For there is a double Reason of naming Christian's Priests; one is in general, because of their offering up spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers, and Praises to God, 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in special, by public Function, commending the same spiritual Sa●…es, in public Service, in the name of the Church. And s●, according to the s●… e●… of terming them properly Priests, wherewith before (as you have heard) in comparing Alms with the jewish Sacrifice, he called Alms the true Sacrifice, and the other but The sign of it●… notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the jews was, in propriety of Speech, The true Sacrifice, other but Analogical.]  calleth True, namely in the Truth of Excellency, although not of propriety, as you may see. And lastly, here you have urged one, than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamental Article of your Sacrifice, which is the Corporal existence of Christ in the Eucharist. All which notwithstanding, the dignity of our Evangelicall function is nothing lessened, but much more amplified by this comparison.  
If furthermore we speak of the Altar, you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture, Heb. 13. 10. We have [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, an Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle. This 
h ●…s in their A●●otat. upon the place: and M. Breerly in his Book of the Liturgy Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Subd 4.  some of you greedily catch at, for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass, and are presently repulsed by your 
i Aquinas. Istud altar ve● est crux Christi, in quâ Christus immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo, & per quem preces nostras offerimus: & hoc est Altare a●…um, de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum.  Aquinas, expounding the place to signify Either his Altar upon the Cross, or else his Body, as his Altar in Heaven: mentioned Apoc. 8. and called The golden Altar. If we ourselves should tell you, how some one affirmeth that This Altar, spoken of by the Apostle, is the Body of Christ himself in Heaven, upon which, and by which all Christians are to offer up their spiritual Sacrifices of Faith, Devotion, Thankfulness, Hope, and Charity; you would presently answer, that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist, the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garb: notwithstanding you may find all this in the 
k Antididag. colonians. de Missae Sacrificio. §. P●sthac.— [Habemus Altar] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [Aureum altar,] in q●o, & pe● quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritual●a fidei, devotionis, gratiarum actionis, spei, & charitatis Deo Patri debent osterre.— Atque ità fit, ut Christus sit altar, Sacerdos, & Sacrificium. August. lib. 10. de Trinitate.  Antididagma of the Divines of Collen. And your Argument drawn from the word Altar, in this Scripture, is so feeble and lame a Soldier, that your 
l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruse, vel de Christo ipso; non urgeo eum. Lib. 1. de Misso, cap. 14.  Cardinal was content to leave it behind him, because Many Catholics (saith he) interpret it otherwise.  
But we are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers, be it so. If then we shall demand where our high Priest Christ jesus is, to whom a man in fasting must repair, 
m Origen. Jejunans debes adire Pontificem tuum Christum, qui utique non in terris quaerendus est, sed in coelis: Et per Ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo. In Levit. cap. 16. Hom. 10.  Origen resolveth us, saying, He is not to be sought here on earth at all, but in Heaven. If a Bishop be so utterly hindered by persecution, that he cannot partake of any Sacramental Altar on earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortify him, as he did himself, saying, 
n Greg. Nazian. Si ab his Al●…bus me ar●●bunt, at aliud habeo, cujus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis cernimus, super q●od nec as●ia▪ nec manus asc●…, nec ullum Artificum instiumentum auditum est; sed men●is hoc opus est, huic que per contemplationem astabo, in hoc gratum immolabo Sacrificium, oblationes & Holocausta, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] tantò praestantiora, quantò Veritas un brâ. Oral. 28. pag. 484.  I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these (Altars) are but signs; a better Altar, to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, they will I offer up my oblations: as great a Difference (doubtless) as between Signs and Things. This could not he have said of those Altars, if the Sacrifices on them both were, as you pretend, subjectively and corporally the same. If we would know how, what, and where the thing is, which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon, when he is exercised in this our Eucharistical Sacrifice? 
o Chris●st. in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. ●●ud sanè tremenuum Sacrificium, ut cum concordia ad illud ac●●damus, ut Aquilae sacti ad ipsum coelum evolemus: ubi enim cadaver, ibi aquilae. Cadaver Domini corpus, propter mortem: Aquilas autem non oportet ad inferiora trahi aut repere, sed ad superiora volare, & solemn justuiae intuer● oculo mentis acutissimo. Aq●…ilarum enim haec men●a est, non Graculorum.  Chrysostome is ready to instruct him, Not to play the Chough or jay, in fixing his thoughts here below, but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is, namely (for so he saith) in Heaven. According to that of the Apostle, Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. V. 12. What therefore? Therefore let us draw near with an Assurance of faith. V. 22.  
If we would understand wherein the difference of the jewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth, in respect of Priesthood, 
p Aug. adversus judaeos, cap. 9 Name & Aäron & Sacerdotium jam nullum est, in aliquo templo, & Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo.  Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood; and the Priesthood of Christ is eternal in Heaven. And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions. For if any would know the Reason why we must have our Confidence in the Celestial Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar; 
q Oecumen. in Heb. 10. supper haec verba, [Cum certitudine fidei.] Cum deinceps nihil visibile supersit, neque Templum, hoc est coelum; neque Pontifex, id est, Christus; neque Hostia, quae Corpus illius est, fide deinceps opus est.  Oecumenius and 
r Ambros. in Heb. 10. Cum fiducia, ait Apostolus: nihil enim hic visibile, neque Sacerdos, neque Sacrificium, neque Altar.  Ambrose will show us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible; neither Temple, ours being in Heaven; nor Priest, our being Christ; nor Sacrifice, ours being his Body; nor yet Altar, saith the other. Hear your own Canus: 
s Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio, quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit. pag. 421.  Christ offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven. Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our high Priest, and his Function, which hath been already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Council of Nice. And thus far of the place of this Altar the Throne of Grace; something would be spoken in respect of Time.   

That the former Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by Scriptures and Fathers, in respect of the Time of the execution thereof.  
SECT. IX.  
CHrist his bodily existence in Heaven (as we have 
* See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9  heard) is set out by the Apostle in these terms: He abideth a Priest for us. He continueth a Priest. He having a continual Priesthood. He, without intermission, appeareth before God for us. Thus the Apostle. But what of this, will you say? Do but mark. Are you not All heard still proclaiming, as with one voice, that your Romish Sacrifice of the Mass is the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
a Barredas'. Quod singulis diebus Christus offered incruentè, Hoc juge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmeron. E●●usio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest, modò jugiter offeratut. In Heb. 10. Disp. 19 Becanus. Juge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo, ratione determinationis temporis: sicut ille offerebatur mane & vespere, ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem. Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus— Lib. de Analog. utriusque Testam. cap. 13. num. 14.  juge Sacrificium, that is, the Continual Sacrifice; Continually offered: Whereof the [judge] and Continual Sacrifice of the Law was a sign. So you. But it were strange that the judge Sacrificium of the Law, continuing both Morning and Evening, should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice, which is but only offered in the Morning. As if you would make a picture, having two hands, for to represent a Person that hath but one. But, not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist, may be called a judge Sacrificium (for so some Fathers have termed it:) Yet, they no otherwise call it judge, or Continual, than they call it a Sacrifice, that is, Unproperly; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestial of Christ in the highest Heaven, where Christ offereth himself to God for us day and night, without Intermission.  
Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar, 
b Irenaeus. Nos quoque Victimas offerre ad altar frequenter. Est ergò Altare in coelis, illuc etiam prec●s nostrae & orationes dirigendae; & templum— ut ex Apoc. apertum est. Lib. 4. cap. 34.  Which Altar (saith he) is in Heaven, and the Temple open. Apoc. 11. 19 
c Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immolat, qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis inearnationem demonstrat. Moral. lib. 1. cap. 24. in job.  Where (saith Pope Gregory) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission: And whereupon your jesuit Coster, out of Ambrose, affirmeth, that 
d Coster En●…irid. contro. cap. 9 Solut. ad Object. 1. ex Ambros. Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum, olim in cruse vulneratum & occisum, tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet: ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortui & exanguis offered. [That is objectively; for it is the Bloody Body, that is presented by us in the Eucharist.]  Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Cross, and slain, as a [juge Sacrificium] that is, a Continual Sacrifice, perpetually unto his Father for us. And to this purpose serve the forecited Testimonies of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Oecumenius; some pointing out the Altar in Heaven, as the Truth, Some by Exhortations, and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continual Approach unto the Celestial Altar.  

CHALLENGE.  
NOw you, who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Mass, upon your sublunary Altars and Hosts, and appropriate the judge Sacrificium thereunto (in respect of Time) during only the hours of your Priestly Sacrificing; allow your attention but a moment of Time, and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession.  
The judge Sacrificium of Christ, as it is presented to God by him in Heaven, hath been described to be Continual, without Intermission, Always (that is) without any Interruption of any moment of Time: to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithful Suitors, soliciting God by him, might find (as the Apostle saith) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Help at any time of need. The gates of this Temple, Heaven, being ever open: the matter of this Sacrifice, which is the Body of Christ, being there ever present. The Priest, who is Christ himself, ever executing his Function. Whereas, contrarily, (you will confess, we dare say) that the Doors of your Churches may happen to be all locked, or interdicted; your Sacrifice shut up in a Box, or lurched, and carried away by Mice; your Priest taken up with sport, or repast, or journey, or sleep: yea, and even when he is acting a Sacrifice, may possibly nullify all his Priestly Sacrificing Act, by reason of (
* See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 5.  Confessed) Almost infinite Defects.  
Therefore the sacrilegiousness of the Doctrine of your Mass is thus far manifested, in as much that your own Ministerial Priesthood doth so prejudice the personal Priesthood of Christ, as it is in Heaven, as the Moon doth by her interposition eclipse the glory of the Sun: by confounding things distinct, that is, (as we have learned from the Fathers) Image with Truth; The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly; Matters Visible with Invisible; Signs with Things; Worse with Better; jays with Eagles; and the like.    

Of the second Typical Scripture, which is the Passeover: showing the weakness of the Argument taken from thence, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass.  
SECT. X.  
FIrst it is meet we hear your Objector speak, even your 
a Bellarm. Immolatio Agni Paschalis potest quidem dici figura Passionis: nam fi Agnus ille fuit figura Eucharistiae, Eucharistia autem figura Passionis, quis negat Agnum istum figuram fuisse & Repraesentationem Passionis? Quarè Joh. 19 Videmus Evangelistam reddere cansam, cur non fuerant crura Christi confracta in Passione, quia scriptum est de Agno Paschali, [Os non comminuetis ex eo.] Tamen magis immediatè & principaliter Ceremonia Agni Paschalis potius fuit figura Eucharistiae, quam Passionis. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 7. §. Illud.— Quod celebratio Agni Paschalis fuit figura celebrationis Eucharistiae, probatur ex Scriptures, 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulcmur in azymis Veritatis— Dicent Adversarii impletum fuisse hoc in Cruse— At constat Apostolos in coena manducasse carnem Christi,— Verum Agnum Paschalem, ad cujus epulum nos hortatur Apostolus. 1. Cor. 5. Epulemur, etc. Bellarm. ibid. §. Quod igitur, & §. Dicent.  Cardinal, who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Cross, yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof (saith he) more immediately and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion, which is proved by Scripture, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth.] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Cross; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lamb, the flesh of Christ, at his Supper: and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keep our feast, etc.] So he, bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments, wherewith to blear our eyes, lest that we should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Cross, than in the Eucharist. We willingly yield unto his alleged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogy, do all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally mean the Eucharistical Sacrifice (as if the jewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, than on the Cross) not one.  
It were a tedious work to sift out all the Dross of his Argumentations; Nevertheless, because he putteth Protestants unto it, saying us followeth, 
b Bellarm. q● suprà §. Dicent etc. Dicent Adversarii Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruse facta: at nos probabimus figuram illam propriè impletam fuisse in c●●na.  But our Adversaries (saith he) will say, that the Apostle, in saying our Passeover is offered up, speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Cross, but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his S●pper: (So he) We will now show you that other Adversaries, than Protestants, are ready to encounter this your Champion.  
First, the choicest Chieftain of his own side, armed with the Authority of Christ himself, joh. 13. 1. [Before the day of the Passeover, jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he must pass out of the world unto the Father.] Now when was this spoken? Even then, saith 
c Job. 13. 1. [Antè diem Paschae sciens jesus, quia venit hora, ut transiret ex hoe mundo ad Patrem.] Hîc mortem Transitum vocat.— Alludit ad Pascha, ac fi Latinè diceret, Antè diem festum Transitûs, sciens quia venit hora ut transiret ipse: Ipse enim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus— Optimus autem terminus, Transitus ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem. Tolet. Ies. Com. in ●um locum.  Tolet, your Cardinal and jesuit, When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that is, at his last Supper. But what was meant hereby? namely, Christ alluded unto the jewish Passeover (saith he) in signification of his own passing over by death to his Father. So he. So also your jesuit 
d August. in Psal. 68 Cum venit Dominus ad Sacramentum sanguinis & corporis sui, ità loquitur, [Sciens quod ho●a venit, ut transiret ad Patrem de mundo.] Quibus verbis expressit transitum Paschae Teste Pererio jes. in Exod. cap. 12. Disp. 8.  Pererius, out of Augustine.  
A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, Christ:] that is, As the figurative paschal Lamb was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt, so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people, and so passed by his passion to his Father. So your 
e 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, ergò Epulemur Azymis sinceritatis, & veritatis. [Aquinas assignat Rationem, quare fideles debent esse Azyme: quae quidem Ratio sumitut ex my●… Passionis]— Sicut Agnus figuralis immolatus est à fil●s Israel. ut populus liberaretur— it à Christus occisus ab Israëlitis, ut populus liberaretur à servitute Diaboli. Christus enim per passionem trans●t ex mundo ad Patrem. Joh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimony before cited. So Becanus Ies.  Aquinas. [Our Passeover.] Namely, by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Cross. So your jesuit 
f [Pascha nostrum. 1. Cor. 5] Nempè per immolationem in cruse, & effusionem sanguinis illius, liberatum est genus huma●um. Analog. utrius●u● Testam. cap. 13. pag. 313.  Becanus. And, By this his Passeover on the Cross was the Passeover of the jews fulfilled. So your Bishop 
g Impleta erat figura Paschalis, quando ●erum nostrum Pascha est immolatus Christus jesus, & nos per ejus sanguinem liberati eramur. jansen. Concord. 〈◊〉 vang. c●p. 131. pag. 895  jansenius, as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be.  
A third Scripture we find, joh. 19 [They broke not his legs, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which is written, A bone of him shall not be broken:] which your 
h Joh. 19 [Cruta non confregerant, ut imple●e●ur quod scriptum est, Osnon comminuetis ex eo.] Bellarm. q● sup. yet gainesaith with his. Tamen etc. §. Illud.  Cardinal himself confesseth to relate only to Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross; and notwithstanding dare immediately oppose, saying, Nevertheless the Ceremony of the Paschall Lamb did more immediately and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion: wherein, whether he will or no, he must be an Adversary to himself. For there is no Ceremony more principal in any Sacrifice than are these two, viz. The matter of Sacrifice, and the Sacrificing Act thereof. Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lamb, the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof, and offering it up killed unto God. Whether therefore the Paschall Lamb did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Cross, or your imagined Invisible in your Mass, whether the slain Paschall Lamb bleeding to death, did more properly and immediately prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ, than that his Body wounded to death, and bloodshed, Common sense may stand for judge.  
The Ancient Fathers, when they speak of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, in a precise propriety of speech, do declare themselves accordingly. If in general, then as 
i Origen. Sacrificium, pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo & figura praecesserunt, unum & perfectum immolatus est C●ristus. Hujus Sacrificii carnem quisquis tetigerit, sanctificabitur. In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4.  Origen: All those other Sacrifices (saith he) were prefigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice. If more particularly, then as 
k Chrysost●mus de Cruse & Latrone. 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus: ●estivitas ergò etc. Vides crucis ●ntuitu perceptam laetitiam? in cruse enim immolatus est Christus: Ubi immolatio, amputatio peccatorum; ubi amputatio peccatorum, reconciliatio Domini— novum Sacrificium— nam ipse Sacrificium erat, & Sacerdos; Sacrificium secundum carnem, Sacerdos secundum Spiritum, offerebat secundum Spiritum▪ offerebatur secundum carnem— & altar Crux fuit. Chrys●st. T●●. 3. pag. 826.  Chrysostome, from the objected Text of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, Christ, Let us therefore keep our feast, etc.] Dost thou see (saith he) in beholding the Cross, the joy which we have from it? for Christ is offered upon the Cross, and where there is an Immolation, there is Reconciliation with God: this was a new Sacrifice, for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed, his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer, and the Cross his Altar. In so much that, elsewhere he teacheth every Christian how, as a spiritual Priest, he may 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem. Tom. 5. Serm. 88 Edit. Savil. pag. 602.  Always keep the Passeover of Christ. What greater plainness can be desired? and yet behold, if it be possible, a greater from 
m Sacrates Hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi, praeceptum de Paschate ad divinam contemplationem traduxit: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Origen, calling the Sacrifice on the Cross the the Only true Passeover. Which saying his Reporter Socrates embraceth, as a Divine Contemplation. From Typical Scriptures we descend to Prophetical.    

CHAP. IU.  
That the objected Prophetical Scriptures of the old Testament are by your Disputers violently wrested, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass.  
The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers. 1.  
THE Texts are two. The first, which is, Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinal in this manner: [From the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place shall Sacrifice, and Oblation be offered to my name.] This, saith your Cardinal, 
* See the Testimony following.  Is a notable Testimony for the Sacrifice of the Mass.  

The State of the Question.  
BE so good, as to set down the State of the Controversy yourselves, 
a Insigne testimonium pro Sacrificio Missae, Mal. 5. 1. in his verbis [Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificatur & offertur nomini meo Oblatio munda: quià magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, dicit Dominus. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. Tota controversia est, An Malachias loquatur de Sacrificio propriè dicto, quale est in Ecclesia Eucharistia, an verò de Sacrificio impropriè dicto, quales sint laudes & Orationes, etc. Bellarm. Ibid. Argum. 1. Propheta utitur voce Minhhah, quod est Sacrificium absolutè, absque adjuncto, ut cum dicitur, Sacrificium laudis, etc. Argum. 2. Vox [Munda] opponitur immundis oblationibus Judaeornm, quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantum, quia opponit illis oblationem: non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco, cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri. Argum. 3. Dicitur, [Non accipiam munus à manibus vestris.] Hinc colligimus, non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram, sed & novam.— Argum. 4. Ex Antithesi. Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificiis, non in privato cultu tantùm. Ergò gloria Oblationum apud Christianos erit in publico Sacrificio. Argum. 5. Opponit Malachias non omni populo, sed Sacerdotibus tantùm veteris Legis, non omnes Christianos', sed certos homines, qu● Sacerdotibas succedunt. Ergò non loquitur de spirituali, sed de Sacrificio propriè dicto.  The whole Controversy is, whether this Scripture spoke of a Sacrifice properly so called, or of an Unproper Sacrifice, such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving, etc. So you. You contend for a Proper Sacrifice, and We deny it: and how that we are to grapple together, we shall first charge you with alleging a corrupt Translation, as the ground of your false Interpretation.   

That the Romish Objection is grounded upon a false Text, which is in your Romish Vulgar Translation; even by the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. I.  
YOur Romish Vulgar Translation (which was decreed in the Council of Trent to be the only Authentical, and which thereupon you are enjoined to use in all your Disputations; and not this only, but bound also thereunto by an Oath in the Bull of Pius Quartus, not to transgress that Decree) doth deliver us this Text [In every place is sacrificed and offered to my name a pure Oblation, etc.] without any mention of the word Incense at all: whereas (which your Cardinal 
b Bellarm. In Hebraea, & Graeca Editione sic leg●mus [Incensum offertur nomini meo, & Sacrificium mundum.] Quo supra.  confesseth) Both the Hebrew and Greek Text hath it thus: [Incense is offered in my name; and a pure offering, etc.] and that More plainly, saith your 
c Septuaginta Apertiùs. Valent. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4. p. 526.  Valentia. Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false, as we shall now prove, and you perceive, without any far Digression. For we meddle not now with the general Controversy, about this Translation, but insist only upon this Particular, that as A Lion is known by his claw, so your vulgar Translation may be discerned by this one Clause, wherein the word, Incense, is omitted quite.  
If ye will permit us, without being prejudicated by your Fathers of Trent, to try the Cause by impartial judges, which are the ancient Fathers of Primitive Times; especially now, when you yourselves are so urgent in pressing us with multitudes of their Testimonies, for Defence of your Romish Sacrifice, even in their Expositions of this Text of Malachy: Look then upon the 
d Bellarm. Vocem illam [Incensum] interpretatur Tertull. Orationem, ut & ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorum. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. 〈◊〉 altero.— Hieron. Thymiama, i. e. Sanctorum orationes Deo offerendas. In Mal. 1. Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. Thymiama purum vocat Preces, quae post Hostiam offeruntur, ut Psal. 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tanquam Incensum, etc. Euseb. Caesar. demonstr. Evang. lib. 1. cap. ult. De Orationibus Propheta: Oratio mea fiat Incensum, Psal. 140. Aug. In omni loco Incensum nomini meo, Graecè, Thymiama. Apoc. Orationes. Lib. 1. contr. Advers. Legis & Prophet. cap. 20.  Marginals, and you shall find mention of the word Incense (according to the Hebrew and Greek Texts) in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierom, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine. Notwithstanding, we should not be so vehement, in condemning your Romish Translation in this point, if the matter, now in hand, did not challenge us thereunto: the word, Incense, being sufficient in itself to satisfy all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers, and urged by virtue of the word, Sacrifice, and Oblation, as will appear.   

That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, by the Expositions of ancient Fathers.  
SECT. II.  
TWo words we find in this Prophet, concerning the new Testament: One is, Incense, in the Text now alleged; the other is the word, Levites. The first in Chap. 1. vers. 3. [In every place there shall be an Offering of Incense, and a Sacrifice, etc.] You All affirm of Prayers, Praises, and holy Actions, that they are Spiritual, and no proper Sacrifices. But the Fathers, by you objected, (to wit, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierome, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine) do 
* See the preceding marginals.  Expound Incense to signify these Spiritual Duties, which are unproperly called Incense. Therefore may we as justly conceive, that the word, Sacrifice, used by them, and applied to the service of God in the new Testament, was meant Improperly; and that so much the rather, because your Cardinal hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word, Sacrifice, which he looseth not by the word Incense, from point to point.  
For the first Objection we oppose, saying, The word Incense, is likewise used without 
a See in the Testimonies above cited, for it is called absolutely Incense, and not Incense of Prayer, etc.  Addition. To the second, We accordingly say, Incense was meant also to be Pure: for you will not imagine, that God would promise to his faithful in Christ Impure things. To the third; It is as well said concerning Incense, as of Sacrifice (against the jews, vers. 10.) I will not receive any offerings at your hands: 
* Isaiah 1. 13.  Incense is an abominination unto me. To the fourth, The same Godless jews did jointly contemn God's worship made by Incense, as by Sacrifice; except you shall think it credible, that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God. To the last, Malachy in the same sentence (and as it were with the same breath) equally taketh exceptions to the jewish Priests, in both Sacrifice, and Incense. Therefore as the word, Incense, so accordingly the word, Sacrifice, was used improperly of the Fathers. Do you not now see what reason your Cardinal had, to make choice of a corrupt Text, wanting the word Incense? which he peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage.  
The second word in Malachy is [Levite,] I will purge the sons of Levi; which was spoken (as your Cardinal 
b Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias [offertur nomini meo oblatio munda] Exponit cap. 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio: Purgabit, inquit, filios Levi: Vbi, per Filios Levi, non possunt intelligi Levit●… veteris Testamenti— sed nostri Sacerdotes. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. Quintum.  confesseth) of the Ministers of the new Testament. Well then, did the Prophet call the Ministry & service of the new Testament, Pure Sacrifice? And did he not in the like manner call the Ministers of the new Testament Purged Levites? as also some of the Ancient 
* Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Leo.  Fathers (you know) used to do: And as your Church, in degrading of Archbishop Cranmer from his order of 
c M. Fox Act. Monument. pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus.  Deaconship once did. Therefore both alike were used Improperly, in imitation of this Prophet, and also of that in 
* Isa. 66.  Isaiah, I will send them Priests and Levites.   

That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice, even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. III.  
PErmit you us, for brevity sake, to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinal's Objections, and our Solutions or Answers. 1. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure, Ergo, Christ's Body. Sol. And Chrysost. (who is 
a Chrysost. in Psal. 95. (objected) Malachias appellat Thymiama purum, sacras preces.  objected) termeth Prayers, Pure Incense. 2. Ob. The word, Sacrifice, signifieth not Prayers, Praises, or Pious Actions, for these are improperly called Sacrifices, Ergo, etc. Sol. First, 
b Tertull. ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. cont. Martion. ex Psalm. 57 In Ecclesiis benedicite Dominum Deum, ut pariter concurreret Malachiae prophetia, In omni loco Sacrificium mundum: Gloriae sc. relatio, & Benedictio, & Laus, & Hymni. [Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Praises only, in the Mass; whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in general.] Again, Lib. 4. advers. Marc. a little after the begiuning. Dicente Malachia, Sacrificium mundum, s●-simplex oratio de conscientia pura. [Where he expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Prayer.]  Tertullian (objected) expounded the word Sacrifice, to signify Benedictions, and Praises. And secondly, 
c Euseb. Demonst. lib. 1. cap. 6. In omni loco Incensum & Sacrificium, etc.] Quid aliud significat quam orationis Incensum, & Sacrificium, quod [mundum] dicitur? est enim non per cruores, sed per pias actiones summo Deo offerendum.  Eusebius (objected) calleth this Pure Sacrifice, Pious Actions and Prayers. Which your Cardinal could not Answer, but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion. 3. Ob. By the word, 
d Bellarm. Resp. Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum, seu Sacrificium, sed illud quod per Orarationem, i. e. per verba Consecrationis perficitur. Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes, sen mysticas preces interpretari. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. [First sondly, for the words of Consecration contain in them no term of Prayer: And secondly falsely, for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer. Both which have been amply discussed.]  Sacrifice, were not meant Spiritual Sacrifices, etc. Sol. Yet 
e Hieron. (objected) Mal. 1. Vt sciant Judaei carnalibus Victimis spirituales successuras. Thymiama, hoc est, Orationes Sanctorum offerendas, Oblationem mundam, ut est in Ceremoniis Christianorun. Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat Orationem, tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam: dicit enim offerri in Ceremoniis Christianorum. [Be it so, but the Question is, whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spiritual, that is (as is confessed) an Unproper Sacrifice.  Hierome (objected) expressly nameth the Sacrifice, in Malachy, Spiritual.  
To come to your Cardinal's principal Reason. 4. Ob. The jewish Sacrifices were called Unclean, not in respect of the Offerers, but of the Offerings; intimating thereby, that this Offering in the new Testament can be no less than the very Body of Christ. Sol. Irenaeus (objected) plainly putteth the difference to be made, by Malachy, between the Sacrifices, as they were the Offerings of the wicked jews, and the Sacrifices of godly Christians; and he giveth this Reason, because 
f Irenaeus (●b.) advers. Haeres. lib. 4. cap. 34. speaking as well of Sacrifices in Judaico populo, as in Ecclesia, saith; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem, sed Conscientia pu●a ejus, qui offered etc. Then of Eleemosynae, which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem: Oportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura. And then, Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram, offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus. Judaei autem non offerunt, quia manus eorum plenae sanguine etc.  The jews (saith he) offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts, but the Christians perform theirs with pure Consciences. And that the jewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves, but for the impiety of their Sacrificers; your own jesuit 
g Ribcra Ies. Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli. Apud S. Clementem lib. 6. Const. Apost. C. 22. in hunc modum. Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis, atque existimantis Sacrificiis eum, & non poenitentiâ placatum iri. Idem docet Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 33. In Hos. 6. num. 24.  Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitutions of Pope Clement, and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus. A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen, that they presume 
h Antididag. Colon. Tract. de Sacrif. Missae, §. De Consecratione. Quis ignorat vetera Patrum Sacrificia, quae Christum figurabant, vel ob id quod Deus ea praecepisset, per se munda fuisse? Nihilominus tamen frequentius immunda vocantur in Scriptures, non ratione sui, sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium.  None to be ignorant; for that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all clean and pure, because God hath ordained them, and they became impure by the wicked hearts of the Offerers. And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Reason, why God, in rejecting them, said, 
i Tertull. lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Sacrificia rejecta, qui à non secundum Dei religionem celebranda, sua jam, non Dei fecerant. pag. 160. And, Sacrificia spiritualia accepta, which he nameth above, Cor contribulatum, laudem, etc. Lib. adversus judaeos.  I will no more of your Sacrifice, and not of my Sacrifice.  
But you will say, Some of the Fathers spoke directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament. We answer, that as they apply it to the Eucharist, they meant no proper Sacrifice, as the Subject, but only as the Object therein, which was that of the Cross. In which respect 
k Chrysost. (objected) in Psal. 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sacrificium, summeque venerandum. Est autem in nobis varia differentia: Lex multas habet Hostias, Gratia nova unam— Vis scire Victimas, quas Ecclesia habet?— quando fit Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum? audi Scripturam Tibi palàm exponentem hanc differentiam. Et Sacrificium, quod antea dixi spirituale, illud mysticum donum, in q ᵒ Apostolus Ephes. 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium.  Chrysostome (objected) calleth it that Sacrifice, whereof Saint Paul writeth, saying, [Christ gave himself up a Sacrifice for his Church.] Eph. 5. Lastly, Cyprian (objected) calleth it the 
l Cypr. (ob.) ex lib. 1. cont. judaos, cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium, Sacrificium Laudis.  New Sacrifice of Praise: which is, you know, a Spiritual, and no Corporal or Proper Sacrifice. The first Prophetical Text is finished.   

The second Prophetical Text (as is pretended) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning an [Handful of Corn in the Top of the Mountains:] objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Mass; but yet as very Romishly, as were the rest.  
SECT. IV.  
OF this Corn your 
a Psalm. 72. juxta Heb. [Et erit pugillus frumenti in summitatibus montium] vulg. Lat. [Et erit firmamentum in terra in summis Montium.] Galatinus de Arcanis Cath. Veritat●, lib. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est, dicit Chaldaea Translatio Rabbi Jonathae, Et e●t Sacrificium panis in summis montium— Cum ergo ait, Erit placenta frumenti in terra, in capité montium, vult dicere, quod placenta panis fiet Sacrificium in Capitibus Sacerdorun, qui sunt Ecclesia. Haec ibi— Nec mirum de sapientibus antiquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam trumenti, & frustum panis iuturum dixisse. The same hath Coccius Thesaur. Cath. lib. 6. Art. 4. pag. 679. He addeth other Authors, 〈◊〉 wit, P. Galatinus, Claud. Sanctesius, & Genebrard. in hunc Psal. Coc●…i●s▪ ibid. Art. 16. pag. 763.  Disputers Coccius, Duraeus, Sanctesius, Genebrard, out of Galatinus, and He out of the Chaldee Translation, and other his supposed jewish Rabbins, have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountains. But what of this? This Cake, forsooth, was by their Doctrine a Prophetical prediction of the Romish Wafercake, which is heaved up over the head of the Priest for, a Sacrifice. And this is called, by Master Breerly, 
b M. B●eerly in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the jesuit to have urged the same out of Galatini●….  A most strong Argument, in behalf of the said Doctrine. But we must tell you, that your Galatinus is too credulous, and that his rabbinical Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torn shoes, and mooldy bread, seeming to have come from far, even from old Rabbins, when as they were invented and brought from their latter Rabbins and Glozers, as it were from the next bordering Countries: because your Author Galatinus (who produceth the foresaid Rabbinish prediction of that Cake) is branded, for such like his Conceits, with the mark of a Vain man, by your judicious 
c Senensis Biblioth. lib. 2. §. Traditiones. Non possum satis mirari studium Petri Galatini, qui— in eam Vanitatem devenit, ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum verti oporrere, & publicè in Scholis Christianorum explicari.  Senensis. And the Chaldee Paraphrase, which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake, is rejected, as being a corrupt Puddle of jewish Fables, (and fabulous in this very point) by your great Roman Dictator 
d Bellarm. in Psal. 71. verse. 16▪ Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldaica adferat ad probandum hoc in loco Sacrificium Missae: sed scio etiam quam multis fabulis Judaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat, ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionum Judaicarum hau●…, etc.  Bellarmine.  
Which we speak not, as being offended to hear any Rabbi calling that, which is in the hand of your Priest, and above his head, A Cake, which in your Romish Phrase is called a Wafer-cake: for if it be indeed & truly a Cake, then is not it Accidents only, but hath still in it the substance of Bread. And so farewell your Helena of Trent, called Transubstantiation. Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it, it followeth that the Sacrifice is not properly the Body of Christ, but the Element of Bread. And thus your Authors (after their laborious kneading and moulding, their greedy longing, and their sweetly chewing hereof) are at length in a manner choked with their own Cake.    

CHAP. V.  
Of our Second Examination of this Controversy, by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, showing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly.  
Our general Proposition.  
The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice: proved by many Demonstraations.  
THE Demonstrations, which we are to speak of, are many; some taken from the proper, and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist; some from the parity of like speeches of Fathers, as well in other Sacraments, Acts, and Adjuncts, as in these which are belonging to the Eucharist.  

The first Demonstration is, That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist, but Unproperly.  
SECT. I.  
THat Ancient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice, even before Consecration, we have it confessed asseverantly by your own 
a Maldon●●. Ob. Iren●um lib. 4. cap. 32, & 34. Scribit Christianos' Deo offer pri●itias creaturatum panem & vinum— Dicebatur etiam sacrificare homo profanus, qui Sacerdoti tradebat victimam, ut eam pro se sacrificaret: non quòd illa traditio esset Sacrificium. Ita ●ocuti sunt etiam Christiani antiqui, ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemof. Locuples matrona fine Sacrificio in Dominicum veniens. Nec necesse est (ut Irenaeus ●oquitur) de proprio Sacrificio, quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtuli●●e rem ullam corpoream & ●errestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujus●…d, Sacrificia terrena. Maldonat. loco ci●at●. Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negati non debet, panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri, & pr●inde pertmere ad rem praesentem: na● cum ante Consecrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Sancte Pater, hanc tuam immacula●am Hostiam] certè pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod tunc manibus tenemus, id autem panis est. Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucae sententiae, quae panem offerri apertè sanè demonstrant. Denique veteres Patres passim idem tradunt, Iren. lib. 4. cap 32. dicit Ecclesiam offerre Sacrific●●m ex creaturi●. Et Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino & aqua mixtam. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Re●pondeo ut.  jesuit, where he will have you furthermore to observe, that Bread and Wine, before Consecration, is called an Immaculate Sacrifice, even in your Roman Mass. And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine, Sacrifice, after Consecration also, we have likewise proved in two full 
* See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  Sections: which your Cardinal is bound to acknowledge, who, to prove that Melchizedech Sacrificed Bread and Wine, produced the Testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to conclude them to have been Figures of the Eucharist, which we desire you to carry still in mind, until we end this Section.  
Hereupon we demand, whether you think that Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, can be called of Christians a Sacrifice properly, either before, or after Consecration? No (saith one 
b Valent. Ies. obj cienti Melchizedechum o●tuli●●e panem & vinum ca●ùm. Resp. Sacerdotium Christi secundùm ordinem Melchizedech— Etiam ratione rei oblatae, non quatenus oblatione illius substantiae determinatae, sepanis & vini exercebatur. Lib. 1. de Miss, cap. 4.  jesuit) Because it is not agreeable to our Priesthood. No (saith a 
c Bellarm. respondens quaestioni. An cum solus Panis muta●ur, si propriè sacrificaretur? Inquit, Id absurdissimum esset: tùm haberet Ecclesia Sacrificium inanimum, & vilius multò quam habuerint olim Hebraei. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Sed haec.  Second) because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a lifeless Sacrifice, and consequently more vile than was the jewish. No, (
d Nefas est, credere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldon. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. part. 3. §. Primum Argumentum.  saith a Third) because it were an heinous impiety now, after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the jews, to believe that the Church of God should profess an Offering of Corporal and earthly Sacrifices. No (
e Salmeron. Communis sensus est omnium Christianorum, non esse aliud Sacrificium quam Corpus & Sanguinem Christi— At si panis esset Sacrificium, sequeretur, quòd res inanimata sacrificarentur—— Et quòd summa Latria esset circa panem & vinum. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. §. Quinta.  saith a Fourth) for it is the judgement of all Christians, that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion, but the Body and Blood of Christ: because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof, being a Divine Worship, should be exercised upon Bread and Wine. So they. We would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide, for our better security, he (as is likewise 
f Bellarm. Apostolus declarat, non esse terrenú aliquid quod offert Christus, si esset super terrain, ex Heb. 〈◊〉. 4. Etostendit nunc mellores hostias offerri. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. §. Resp. quid.  confessed) teacheth, that God now is not to be worshipped, by way of Sacrifice, with any outward thing.  
Oh that your Divines would exercise their quills in publishing such sound Truths as this is, we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings. Notwithstanding, upon consideration of the Premises, we are enforced to complain of the unconscionableness of your Cardinal, who, to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, did (as you may remember) produce the Testimonies of five Fathers, wherein that, which they called a Sacrifice, they expressed to be Bread and Wine; which by the joint and consonant Confession of the Cardinal himself, and other prime Jesuits of his own society, cannot be held to be proper Sacrifices without Absurdity and Impiety. And the like obliquity of judgement you may find in your Romish Divines, in alleging the Testimonies of Irenaeus, for proof of the Sacrifice of your Mass, which your jesuit Maldonat hath truly observed to have been spoken of Bread and Wine, even 
* Rhemists' Annot. in Luc. 22. 19  before Consecration.  
One word more. By this you may perceive another proof of the Idiom of Ancient Fathers, in Extending the word [Sacrifice] beyond its literal sense: which (beside the former) the last annexed Testimony of 
g To these former, we add another objected Testimony of Augustine. Lib. de fide ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19 Nullatenus dubites unigenitum Dei filium obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis, cui nunc cum Patre & Spiritu Sanct● offerimus Sacrificium panis & vini, in fide & charitate, in Catholica Ecclesia per universum mundum.  Augustine confirmeth, showing, that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine. This may serve for the present, concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist, Bread and Wine. We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject, which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ. 
(*) See above at (a).    

Our Second Demonstration is, that the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist, in calling it a Sacrifice.  
SECT. II.  
HOw cometh the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist? Your Cardinal will tell us, to wit, Bread and Wine are consecrated, and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ: so that now 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, 〈◊〉. 27. §. His igitur.— In Missa Sacrificio requiritur ut res prophana sit sacra: sic hic, ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi— §. Respondeo, etc. Non panis sed quod ●x pane factum propriè sacri●●catur. [For still the Question is that of Lomba●ds; Quae●●tur si quod gerit Sacerdos, sit propriè Sacrificium. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. li●. G.]  Not Bread (saith he) but the Body of Christ is the Thing sacrificed. This is plain dealing, and as much as if he had said, If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body, by Consecration, then cannot Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice. But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, hath been proved to be the judgement of Ancient Fathers, by many Demonstrations throughout the third and fourth Books. A stronger Argument there needeth not.   

Our Third Demonstration is, because the objected places of Antiquity, for proof of a Representative Sacrifice, properly so called, do not point out any where the Body of Christ as the proper Subject, but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of.  
SECT. III.  
The necessary use of this Distinction.  
Our Distinction is this. These words, The Body and Blood of Christ, as they are applied to the Eucharist, in the name of Sacrifice, may admit of a double Acception; one is to take them subjectively, as being the proper Material Subject of this Sacrament, the other is to understand them objectively: that is, to account the Body and Blood of Christ, as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, to be only the proper Object of a Christian Celebration, according to the Direction and Institution of Christ, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject; we nay, but the proper Object of our Celebration. This Distinction, well learned, will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thread, to wind him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities, and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers; out of all the confused Subtleties and equivocal Resolutions of your Romish Disputers; and out of the Perplexities wherewith some Protestants also may seem (in some sort) to have been entangled.   

The Demonstration itself is, Because the Eucharist, being only Commemorative and Representative, cannot be a proper Sacrifice: answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law.  
SECT. IV.  
THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice, which is only for Commemoration and Representation, is the Conclusion of your own 
a Bellar. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificii crucis, tùm non potest di●i oblatio in hunc modum: Offero tibi Pater, etc. ac à Patribus oblatio dicitur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. § Quartò.  Cardinal; although it cannot be denied, but that Improperly it may be called, as well as you may call the Image of Christ crucified, the Crucifix. But, to come to your Objection, your 
b Rhemists Annotat. in L●c. 22. and Bellar. Finis ●rat Sacrificiorum praecedentium reptae●entare Sacrificium Crucis, ut futurum, Et ficut veter● Sacrificia non amit●ebant verans & propriam rationem Sacrificii, ex co quòd essent representativa● ita nec Sacrificium Eucharistiae amittit propriam Sacrificii rationem, propter Commemoratione●. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Quod verò.  Romish Divines and Romish Cardinal are very earnest and instant in proving that because the jewish Sacrifices, being Representations of the passion of Christ, were notwithstanding true and proper Sacrifices: Therefore the being Representative, can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice. So they. But yet so, as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose, because the jewish Sacrifices, albeit they were Representations of Christ's Passion, yet were they not only Representations thereof, as the Eucharist is, but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves, and so ordained to be by God; first in their matter, as Bulls, Sheep, Goats; next in their Sacrificing Act, which was destructive, as to be slain; and lastly, in their proper and peculiar end, which was (as your 
c Bellarm. Sacrificia illa Levitica non culpam & poenam aeternam, sed immunditiem legalem, & poenam temporalem explabant.— Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione peccatorum; ex mensura Sacrificii majori● & minoris pro majore & minore delicto. Levit. 6. & 4, & 5. At pro peccatis gravioribus, ut blasphemia, homicidio, etc. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia. Lib. 4. de Penitent. cap. 15. §. Respondeo. & §. Ex his. Non quoad culpam & poenam Gehennae, nisi quatenus figna erant protestantia fidem in Christuum, ut docent communiter Theologi. Idem lib. 2. de effect. Sacram. cap. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacrifieia vera, & signa●ula promissionis Christ● venturi & morituri. Idem lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 24.  Cardinal witnesseth) for expiation of legal Pollutions, and remission of temporal punishments. Each one of these may satisfy your Objection.   

The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Father's first Explaining of themselves.  
SECT. V.  
SAint Ambrose setting forth two kind of Offerings of Christ, here on earth, and above in Heaven, he saith that 
a Ambros. Vmbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in coelestibus: antè agnas offerebatur▪ nunc Christus offertur quasi Homo, quasi recipiens passionem, & offered seize ipse quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Pattem pro nobis quasi Advocatu● intervenit. Lib. 1. de office cap. 48.  Christ here is offered as one suffering, and above he himself Offereth himself an Advocate with the Father for us. And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image; and that above he calleth the Truth. Clearly showing, that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only, as it is Crucified, which is the Object of our Commemoration; But the same Body, as it is now the personal subject of a present Time, and Place, they behold it in Heaven; even the same Body, which was once offered on the Cross by his Passion, now offered up by himself to God, by Presentation in Heaven; here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth.  
Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us, where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ, he 
b August. H●jus Sacrific● caro & sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur; in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem: post Ascensum per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. Con. Fau●●. lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom 6. Nun semel immolatus est Christus, & tamen in Sacramento quot: diè immolatur? He addeth, Nec tamen mentitur, qui dicit Christum immolari: si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum, quas repraesentant, non essent Sacramenta. Ex qua similitudine nomina corum accipiunt. Aug. lib. Epist. 23. S●● of this above, Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Andye● again more plainly in his 20. Book against Fau●tus, Cap. 21. it followeth; Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrum; sic, H●c est corpus meum.  saith first, that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices: meaning, his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices. Secondly, in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth, or proper Sacrifice, this was on the Cross. And thirdly, after his Ascension, The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament, or Sacramental Representation. So he. For although the Sacrifices of the jews were true Sacrifices, yet were they not truly the Sacrificing of Christ. Note you this Assertion. Again, speaking of his own Time, when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated, he saith, That Christ was once sacrified (namely upon the Cross) and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament; nor shall he lie (saith he) that saith Christ is sacrificed. So he.  
No, holy Augustine, shall he not lie, who saith that Christ, as the personal Subject of this Sacrament, is a proper Sacrifice in the literal Sense? (for, whether Proper or Unproper, are the two Seals of this Controversy.) Now interpose your Catholic Resolution. Say first, why is it called a Sacrament? tell us; 
* See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.  If Sacraments had not a similitude of things, which they represent, they were no Sacraments, from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things (to wit) The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body, as Baptism is called a Burial. Be so good as to explain this by another, which may illuminate even a man, in the point of Sacrifice also, although otherwise blinded with prejudice. 
c Epist. 23. add Bonifac. Paulò ante verba superiora, nempè, Pascha Appropinquante saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem, cum ille ant● multos 〈◊〉 passus fit, nec omninò nisi semelista passio facta 〈◊〉, nempè isto die: (dicin us) Christus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt, cum nemo ita ineptus sit qui nos ita loquentes arg●at nos esee men●●tos— ut dicatur ipse Dies, quia non est ipse, sed similis— nun semel immolatus est Christus? etc.  As when the day of Christ's Passion (faith he) being to morrow, or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one; we use to say of the former, To morrow is Christ's Passion; and of the other, when it cometh, it is Christ's Resurrection, yet will none be so absurd as to say, we lie in so saying, because we speak it by way of Similitude: even so when we say, this is sacrificed, etc. So Saint Augustine.  
Who now seeth not, that as the Burial of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptism, but only the Representative Object thereof; and as Good Friday, and Easter-day, are not properly the days of Christ his Passion or Resurrection, but Anniversary, and Represensative, or Commemorative Resemblances of them: So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Cross, and not materially the same. We omit Testimonies of other Fathers, which are dispersed in this and other Sections. Although this one Explanation might satisfy, yet shall we adjoin others, which may satiate even the greediest Appetite.   

The fourth Demonstration, from the Father's Explanation of their meaning, by a kind of Correction.  
SECT. VI  
ANcient Fathers in good number call that, which is represented in the Eucharist, and which we are said to offer, The same Host, not many; the same Oblation, no other; the same Sacrifice, and none but it: but they add by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Correction of the excess of their speech, or rather for Caution-sake, (lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present) saying in this manner; We offer the same Sacrifice, or Rather the Remembrance thereof; alluding sometime expressly to the Institution of Christ, [Do this in remembrance of me.] The Fathers are these, viz. 
a Chrysost. in Heb. 10. Hom. 17. pag. 1171. [Christus semper suo sanguine intrat] Ipse Sacrificium Sacerdos, & Hostia: si hoc non esset, multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri, saep. ùs oportebat crucifigi.— Eandem ipsam Hostiam, quam Christus immolabat, offerimus, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] vel potius Recordationem ipsisius, etc.  Chrysostome, 
b Theophylact. in Heb. 10. pag 885, 886. Nunc & ipsi sine sanguine immolamus? Ita quidem, Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur obitus: & una nobis est immolatio, non multae, quandoquiden & ille semel immolatus est. Eundem semper offerimus, quin po●…s Oblationis illius memoriam facimus, perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus. Quocirca unum effe hoc nost●um Sacrificium constat.— Vnicum est & semel oblatum— nam & unus est sanguis, & semel fosus.  Theophylact, 
c Theod. in Hebr. cap. 8. Cumeffecitur alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria, cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturgiam seu Sacrificio●● peragant? sed clarum est iis, qui sunt in rebu● divini● eruditi, nos non aliud Sacrificium offer, sed unius illius sal●taris memoriam peragere— Dixit enim, Ho facite in memoriam mei.  Thodoret, 
d Ambros. in Heb. 10 Offerimus quidem, sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus, & una haec Hostia, non multae.  Ambrose, 
e Euseb. Demonst. Evangelic. lib. 1. cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendim●is, a●●âs autem magni Sacrificii illius memoriam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius, and 
f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus etc. Offer●●● quidem Sacer●●●es nostri, sed ad reco●dationem mortis ejus— sicut ipse dixit, Hoc facit● in Commemo rationem 〈◊〉— Vn● hostia, non multae— Corpus unum cum illo, quod suscepit in utero virginali, non autem multa Corpora, nec nunc quidem aliud magnum, aliud minu●.  Primasius.  
Your only Answer is, that their Exception, here used, was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present, which was offered upon the Cross, but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood, as that was; which is indeed a Part, but not the whole Truth. For survey the Marginals, and then tell us; If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present, why should Theophylact apply h●s qualification not to the manner, whether Bloody or Unbloody, but to the person of Christ, saying,▪ We offer the same Christ, who was once offered, or rather a Memorial of his Oblation? And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing, [Non aliud] We offer not another Sacrifice, but a memorial thereof? why Eusebius, We offer a Memorial in stead of a Sacrifice? plainly notifying unto tis, that they meant the same very Body, which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Cross, to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist, but not the Subject therein.  
Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose, Our offering up of Christ in an Image; and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance. Semblably, as Hierome speaks of the Priest, who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament, so that, He (saith 
g Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezech. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium, ita ut verus Sacerdos sit, imò Imitator ejus, qui est Sacer ●o● secundum ordinem Mele●izedech. Idem Tom. 9 lib. 4. cap. 26. in Match. Sicut Melchizedech panem & vinum offerem, ipse quo que veritatem corporis & sanguinis sui repraesentet.  Hierome) be a a true Priest, or rather an Imitator of him. But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented. Master Breeley is not Christ. Lastly, The same (said Primasius) in all places, which was borne of the Virgin, and not now great, and now less. So he. But have we not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar, at one Time? and yet the Fathers say, We offer not many, but the same, which must needs be the same one, as Object; else show us where ever any Father denied but that upon diverse Altars were diverse Breads; or that but, according to their outward Dimensions, they were now greater, now less; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ, as hath been proved in discussing the 
* See above Book 4. cap. 9 Sect. 4.  Canon of the Council of Nice.   

The fifth Demonstration: Because the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament, cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers; against your vain Instance in a Stage-play.  
SECT. VII.  
THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament (by you called the same Sacrifice, which Christ offered up upon the Cross) ought to be Representative, and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion, is a matter unquestionable among all. In which respect the Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration, Representation, and Remembrance; and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucified, and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion, is a point as questionless, which acordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution [Do this in remembrance of me,] and too the Exposition of Saint Paul, to be a [showing fo●th of the Lords death until he come:] yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers, calling it A Sacrifice of Christ, or rather a Remembrance thereof.  
The only Question will be, how This, which you call The same Sacrifice, meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist, being invisible, can be said to represent, figure, and resemble the same Body, as it was the Sacrifice on the Cross? We yielding unto you a possibility, that one thing, in some respects, may be a Representation of itself. Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say, that 
a Co●…. Trid. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibil●, quo cruentum illud in cruse peragendum repraesentaretur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.  Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church, whereby his Body sacrified upon the Cross should be represented. So they. From whom (it may seem) your Rhemists learned that lesson, which they taught Others, that 
b Rhemists' Annot. in Luc. 22.  Christ's Body, once visibly sacrificed upon the Cross, In and By the self same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread & Wine, and is most perfectly thereby resembled: and therefore i● most properly Commemorative; being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers. And again, This nearly and lively resembleth that. So they. But this we utterly deny, because although a thing may in some sort be represented by itself, yet (say we) there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ (as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist) of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the Cross. And upon the Truth or Untruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause, concerning the Question of Sacrifice, now controverted between us.  
Two of your jesuits have undertaken to manifest your Representation (by a more fit example than do your Rhemists) thus; 
c Barradas Ies. Eri tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus. Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam, etc. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena per●onatur, i. e. speciebus panis & vini velatur, etc. Tom. 4 Concord. Evang. lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus. And Bellarmine.  Even as a King (say They) having got a Victory, should represent himself, after his war, in a Stage-play in sight, etc. So they, even in earnest, which hath been as earnestly, yet easily; confuted by us 
* [See above 2. Book, Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered.] Corpus & sanguis Domini sub specie panis & vini signa sunt corporis ejus passi, & sanguinis effusi, etc. See above also in the same place, Cham 3.  already; although, indeed, the Play deserveth but laughter: and that so much the rather, because the Representative part (as your Council of 
* See hereafter, Cham 6. Sect. 1.  Trent hath defined) is in your Mass a visible Sacrifice, whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross might be represented, as you have heard.  

CHALLENGE.  
YOu (except you will be Players, and not Disputers) must tell us, where ever it was seen or heard of a King, as Conqueror; or yet of any other, of what condition soever, acting himself, and that visibly, perfectly, and truly (as you have said) yea or else any way semblably representing himself, when as yet the same King, or party, was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible? If you can, then show where this was acted, whether it were not in Utopia? and who was the Actor, if not 〈◊〉? and of what disposition the Spectators were, whether not like the man of Argos, who is said daily to have frequented the Theatre and Stage alone, void of all Actors, yet seeming to himself to see all Varieties of Actions, occasioning him to laugh, and applaud at that which he saw represented to himself only in his own fantastical brain?  
Now have you nothing else to answer, but (which you have already said) that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible, by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine. Whereas it had been much better you had answered, indeed, nothing at all, rather than not only to contradict that, which was said by your Fathers of Trent, (decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar itself; and more expressly by your 
* See above, at (b)  Rhemists, In and by the same Body in the Eucharist:) but also to expose yourselves to the reproof of your Adversaries, and Scorn of any man of Common sense; as if you would persuade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes, which he hath therefore locked up close in his Coffer, lest any man might see it. But this we have discussed sufficiently in the 2. Book, and 2. Chapter, §. 6.    

The sixth Demonstration of the no- Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, because diverse Epithets objected, as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice, are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice.  
SECT. VIII.  
IT is objected by your Cardinal, that Ancient Fathers gave certain Epithets, and Attributes to the Eucharist, 1. Some calling it a Full and pure; 2. some terrible Service; 3. some termed it in the plural number Sacrifices and Victimes; and 4. some Anunbloody Sacrifice. So he, 
a Bellom. lib. 5. de Miss, cap. 5 § Quintò— Parts ad nomen Sacrificii Epitheta ●ae, è addunt, quae soli vero Sacrificio conveniunt, & quae ineptè dicerent de ●ola ●● praesentatione. Cyp. li. 2. Epist. 3. Plenum & verum Sacrificium. Chrysost. Hom. ad pop. Antioch & omnes Graeci, Passion terribile Sacrificium & horroris plenum. Aug. lib. ●0. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium. Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. Evang. cap. ult. Sacricrificium Deo plenum. [This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist.] Ibid. §. Secundo.— Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi repraesentativum, nunquam dixissent in numero multitudinis off: ri Deo Victin as, & Sacrificia. Of the Epithet (Unbloody) in the next Section.  concluding from each of these, that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. We encounter all these four kind of Instances with like Epithets given by the same 
b August. de Civitat. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6. Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum, ut Deo adhaereamus, factum. Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum, gloriae scilicer & rogatio, benedictio, laus, hymni Lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Rursus, Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientia. Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post 〈…〉 'em. justin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Preces & Gratiarum actiones, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Fathers to other Things (in your own judgement) improperly called Sacrifices; as namely to Prayers, Praises, giving Thanks, and Hymns, instiled True, Pure, and Clean, and the only perfect Sacrifices, by Primitive Fathers. Secondly, they are as zealous concerning the second 
c Cyrill. Apol. Lectio Scripturatum terribilium. Teste I well● art. 17. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. M●m. 40. De Baptismate pauld post initi●●, post pronunciationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  point, in terming holy Scriptures Terrible; the Rules touching Baptism, Terrible words, and Horrible Canons; and the Christian, duly considering the nature of Baptism, One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment. Whereof more 
* See Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1.  hereafter. And indeed what is there, whereby we have any apprehension of God's Majesty, and Divine Attributes, which doth not work a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly?  
And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest, because the holy 
d E●seb. lib. 1 Demonst Evang cap. 10. Po●●ò has rursus incorporeas & intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant orac●la. Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis & Orationes sanctas, etc. Iust. Martyr. Dialog. cum Tryphon. pag. 269. Supplicationes & gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo.  Fathers named Prayers, Giving of Thanks, and other holy Actions, Sacrifices, and Hosts, in the plural number. And is not there in the Eucharist, Prayers, Hymns, and Thanksgivings? nay, but know, that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the plural number Hosts, and Sacrifices, it proveth that they were not of your Romish Belief of Concomitancy, to think (with you) that Bread being changed into Christ's Body, and Wine into his Blood, make but one Sacrifice; for there can be no Identity in Plurality. The Answer to the fourth Epithet followeth.   

The seventh Demonstration of no- Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist: Because the principal Epithet of Unbloody Sacrifice, used by the Fathers, and most urgently objected by your Doctors, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice, doth evince the Contrary.  
SECT. IX.  
IT hath been some pains unto us, to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers, for this point, out of your diverse Writers, which you may peruse now in the Margin, with more ease, and presently percelve, both what maketh not for you, and what against you; but certainly for you just nothing at all. For what can it help your cause, that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, An unbloody Sacrifice, a Reasonable & unbloody Service or Worship?  
In the first place three 
b Basil. in his Mass, ob. by Salmero 〈◊〉, Tom. 9 Tract. 30. §. Sed contutans: and by Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos app●opinquantes Altari tuo sulcipere, & dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (Lindanus, non carnis, sed mentis) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Salmeron Ies. Absque sanguine hostiam: & admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [And not till long aster the words of Consecration, beginning at [Respice, Domine.] Missa Chrysost. Ob. abe●sdem qo suprà. Hanc nostram supplicationem, tanquàm ad Altar, admittere non recuses, & ●ac nos idoncos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris prop●●●atis offeramus. Idem Sa●neron. Offerimus Tibi rationabile & incruencum obs quium. [Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration (Edit. Aatuer●. ex officina Plantin. 1960. cum privilegio Regis.) but which Lindan will have to be s●t after Consecration.] The Liturgy of S. ●ames: Pro oblatis, sanctificatis, pretiosis, immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum— acceptis eyes in supercoeleste, mentale, spirituale Altar, in odorem spiritualis fragrantiae, etc. Paulò post: Deus Pater, qui oblata tibi dona mera, frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis. [And after followeth the words of Consecration: Sancto, qui in Sanctis, etc.— Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificiistuis.]  Liturgies, or (if you will) Masses are objected, to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice, and Reasonable and unbloody worship, is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Mass; one of Basil, another of Chrysostome, and (by some others) the Mass of Saint james of jerusalem. In which Epithet of Unbloody (say we) could not be signified Christ's body. Our reasons: because (as the Margin showeth) the word Unbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine (both unbloody) before Consecration, called in Saint james his Liturgy, God's gifts of the first fruit of the ground: who also reckoneth Hymns among unbloody Sacrifices: (But Christ's Body is the fruit of the womb) or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration, in Supplication, Thanksgiving, and Worship of God (all unbloody) naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service, which they had termed an unbloody Sacrifice, as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed. Which Chrysostome also styled Spiritual (mark you) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Service, or Worship. Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is himself rather the person to be worshipped?  
Secondly, Reasonable, could this point out Christ's Body in the sense of the objected Fathers? suffer Chrysostome to resolve us. 
c Chrysost. Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium? quod per animam, quod secundùm Spiritum offerrur: quicquid non indige● corpore, quicquid non indiget instrumentis, neque locis, in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex, ut mansuetudo, patientia, etc. Sacrificium laudis, justitiae, spiritus contribula●i.  Reasonable Service (saith he) is that which is performed with the mind, without Bodily help.  
Thirdly, The unbloody Sacrifice is called Spiritual (as you hear) how shall this be properly applied to the Body of Christ? You will say, not in its natural Essence, but in the manner of being Invisible, Impalpable, and the like. But we demand; the same head of a man's Body, is it more Spiritual in the dark than in the light?  
Lastly, all these terms in these Liturgies of Unbloody Sacrifice, Reasonable Service, and Spiritual, are spoken before Consecration, when the Body of Christ, even in your own Faith, as yet can have no being in the Eucharist; and therefore cannot be the Unbloody Sacrifice here meant by you. Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons? The word, Unbloody, whether it point out Bread and Wine, or the Act of outward worship in this celebration, called a Reasonable Service, and Spiritual Sacrifice, it must betoken a thing void of Blood, which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ. We proceed.  
Eusebius saith indeed, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Caesar. l. 4. de vita Constant. c. 45. de Euth. Al●i sacras literas interpretantur: Alii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & myst●…s consecrationibus divinum numen placabant, & supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant. Et Demonst. lib. 1. cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum.  We offer an unbloody Sacrifice; but what he meant thereby, he doth not express, whether the Signs of Bread & Wine, which he elsewhere with others (as you have heard) called Sacrifices: or whether, as Basil and Chrysostome have done, he understood together the public Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death. This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ, as of the Unbloody Subject herein. But whereas furthermore you may observe that Eusebius (objected) calleth 
h Non per cruores, sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas. After, there ●olloneth an Oration of Constant ne, Ad Sanctorum coetum. Tale Sacrificium peragitur, vacuum languine, & ab omni violen iâ. As ●ob. Dad●…us D●ctor Paris. transtateth it.  Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices; and also termeth 
i Again, Demonst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Has rursus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia, intelligentiâ praeditas hostias, Prophetica nunciant oracula? Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis— Hymnos & sanctas Orationes celebrantes.  Holy Prayers [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, without Material Substance, as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] that is, Unbloody: These show that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood; which neither the word of God will permit us; nor your Council of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ, and therefore must needs wound your Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart.  
Nazianzen (objected) is as directly opposite to your Mass, as East is to West, and will strike the matter dead, call it 
k Nazianz. Invect. 1. adversus julian. ante med. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. We ab incruento Sacrificio manus elueret, per quod nos Christo, ipsiusque passionibus, & divinitate communicamus. [Mark, Incruentum, per quod, is distinguished from, Christo, therefore was not Christ the Incruentum, objected by the Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19]  The unbloody Sacrifice, whereby (saith he) we communicate with Christ: Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby, from Christ himself, with whom the Faithful do communicate in this Sacrament.  
Ambrose (objected) prayeth to God, 
l Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit, Ergò memores glorios●ssimae ejus passionis, offerimus Tibi immaculatam hanc Hostiam incruentam, & hunc panem sanctum, & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae.  To accept of this immaculate, and unbloody Host, which are the very words of your Roman 
m Suseipias in sublimi Al●…i tuo, per manus Angelorum, sicut accipere dignatus ●s munera Abel, etc.] To be expounded, as Bellarmine doth almost the same words in the Roman Mass.  Mass, and which your Cardinal seeketh to justify by S. Ambrose. But this he cannot do, except their meaning be both the same. Let then your Cardinal but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Mass, and you will soon apprehend the judgement of Saint Ambrose. In our Mass (saith your 
n Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negari non debet panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri, ac proinde pertinere ad rem, quae sacrificatur. Nam cum antè Consecrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Pater, hanc immaculatam Hostiam] certè Pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus, id autem panis est. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Respondeo ut. [Because the Cardinal doth often in this and other Chapters justify the Roman term of Mass, by the like in Ambrose.]  Cardinal) it is said, Receive, holy Father, this immaculate▪ Host; where the pronoun This (saith he) doth demo astrate Bread and Wine, because spoken before Consecration. So he. And the Body and Blood of Christ (you know) are not Bread and Wine. Let Athanasius put Per●od to this Section, who saith that 
o Athanes. Melchizedech dedit Abrahamo vinum meracum addito panis (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) frusto— hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] meruentum san●… oblationem. Hist. de Melchizedeth. ad sinem. Tom. 2.  Melchizedech) in giving ●read and Wine, was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice. But Melchizedech's was Unbloody, negatively, having no Blood at all in it. So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection, according to our Christian Belief.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHat a fair piece of service (do you think) have these Objecters done, for the patronising of your Roman Sacrifice, out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? whilst they, alleging their words, citing their Books, and quoting their Chapters, have so handled the matter, as if they had meant, by prevaricating in their own Cause, to betray it: seeing that it is apparent, that they have delivered unto us the worship, in stead of the thing worshipped, out of the Council of Ephesus, Basil, Chrysostome, and Eusebius: Next by the word, Unbloody, being spoken before Consecration (and therefore concerneth not the Unbloody Body of Christ) they have obtruded the thing, Distinguished from Christ, instead of Christ, in the Testimony of Nazianzen. But especiaily, because in the 
* [Do but examine the places again, and you shall find Basil to have spoken of Service before Consecration? Chrysost. Of Blood 〈◊〉 Wine, before Consecration: Eusebius in one place is inter preted (by your own Doctor and Translator) to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood; Nazianzen speaketh of something in the Eucharist, differing from Christ: to whom you may join Athanasius.]  most, of the Sentences, the word, Unbloody, must needs be taken negatively for want, or absence of of Blood: and so you may bid your Corporal Presence adieu▪ All which may be strong Arguments unto us, both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors, and of the desperateness of your Cause. Other Testimonies, wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood, come now to be discussed.    

A Confirmation of the former Demonstration, from the use of the word, Unbloody, in the objected Sentences, wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
SECT. X.  
THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former: but only seemeth. Clemens Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, calleth (indeed) the Eucharistical Celebration 
a Clemens Rom. Const. lib. 6. cap. 2●. Pro Sacrifieio c●uento, Rationale & incruentum; ac illud mysticum Sactificium corporis & sanguinis Christ●, quod insymbolum mor●… ejus c●… lib. ●Const. cap. 26. Adhuc agimus Tibi gratias, Pater nost●r, pro pretioso corpore & san●… cuj●… A●…typa celebramus, ut mortem ejus denuntiaremus, per ipsum enim Tibl glori●. Athen.  〈◊〉 unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which sentence the Unbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood, whereof it is a Sacrifice; even as both the Act▪ and Service of Commemoration have been oftentimes above, and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, in respect of the Object thereof, which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Cross. This is manifest by two especial Reasons; the first, because that which he calleth Unbloody, he termeth also a Reasonable Service.  
Secondly, Clemens calleth the same Unbloody Sacrifice the Sign and Type of Christ's Body and Blood, thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types. You will then ask, what is this Body and Blood, whereof they are said to be Types? Yea marry, This being known will set all strait. And Clemens telleth you, that it is his Precious Body, and his Blood shed, which (properly taken) all Christians profess to be Proper to his Body crucified, and Blood shed on the Cross, for the proper object of our Typical Remembrance, as we have formerly proved, and you yourselves confessed already.  

c Cyril. Hierosol. My●●ag. 5. Postquàm confec●mus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Aliquant● p●st, Obsecramus Deum pro etc. Et Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Ob. à Salme●on● Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 30.  Cyril of Jerusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens, and in a sort treadeth in his steps. The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death, he calleth a Spiritual Sacrifice, and an Unbloody worship; wherein, against the jewish Sacrifice, he opposeth Spiritual against Corporal, as he doth Unbloody against Bloody. But by, Spiritual, he meant that which wanteth a Body. Therefore by, Unbloody, he meant that which was properly void of Blood. So far was Cyril from signifying thereby the Unbloody Body of Christ, as the subject matter in the Eucharist. As for the Body and Blood of Christ itself, which he calleth Propitiation, Cyril expoundeth himself to mean (for so he nameth it) Christ slain for our sins, which still we say, and you cannot deny, is only the Object of our whole spiritual service of Remembrance and Commemoration. Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies, as spoken under a form of Prayer, whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen, judge you.   

The eighth Demonstration of the no- Proper Sacrifice of the Mass; Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice, which all you will confess to be Unproperly spoken.  
SECT. XI.  
TAke but unto you your own Allegations (set down in the 
a Salmeron. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. cap. 8. in Levit. Dicit Christum cum coenaret seipsu● occidisse. Chryso●t. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. In Eucharistia Christùm pati & occidi. R●rs●● Tract. 31. pag. 238. Alii docent in Eucharistia offerri cruentum Sacrificium. Alexander Papa Epist. 1. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus. Hieron. in Dialog. advers. Luci●er▪ Christum plu●ies passum confitemur, Paschatius de Corpore & Sanguine Domini. Sacrificium Crucis interatur.  Margin) of the Sentences of Antiquity, and you shall find how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth, is slain, slayeth himself, suffereth often in this Sacrament: and that His Passion and bloody Sacrifice is offered herein. Sayings of the highest Accent, as you see, and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these, Alexander, & Gregory both Popes, Chrysostome, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyril of jerusalem, Hesychius, Pascatius. What think you of such sayings? Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament? 
b Quis unquàm Catholicus dixit Christum rursùs mor●? R●bera jes. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25.  Never any Catholic said so (saith your jesuit Ribera.) What then could be the meaning of such words? If you should be ignorant, your Cardinal Alan would teach you, and he would have you 
c Observandum est Christum ●icet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento, tamen dici à Pat● ibus mortalem, imò mortuum & pass●m in Sacramento, eatenus quidem, quatenus ex modo Consecrationis, ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors, & passio Domini commemorantur atque repraesentantur. Alan. Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem.  Observe what he saith: Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer (saith he) and to die in this Sacrament only so far as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein. And so speaketh also your Roman 
d Gloss● de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sir. Hoc est, ejus Mors repraesentatur.  Gloss.  
What now hindereth but that whensoever we hear the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist, we understand them in the same impropriety of speech, that they meant only Representatively? especially when as we see your other grand Cardinal coming somewhat home towards us, and to confess as followeth; 
e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Respondeo si, etc. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae verè Christum mori, argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid virium: sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori, nisi in Sacramento & signo repraesentante mortem ejus, quam aliquando obiir, tantùm abest, ut Missa obliteret Christi mortem, ut potius efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur.  If Catholics should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament, this Argument might be of some force: but they say he dieth not; but in a Sacrament and Sign representing. So he; which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creep out at. First, because there is as well a Figurative, as there is a literal Truth; for, If I should say of Easter day (said 
* See above, chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Augustine) it is the day of Christ's Resurrection, I should not lie, and yet it is but the Anniversary day, betokening the other. When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament, [This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood] he spoke by a double figure, said your jesuit 
* Book 2. chap. 2. Sect. 4.  Salmeron, yet truly.  
Secondly Christ, who is Truth itself, in saying of Bread, This is my Body, or Flesh, spoke a Truth, as you all profess; and was it not likewise a Truth, when he called his Flesh Bread? yea, and also 
* Io●. 6.  The true Bread.  
Thirdly, the Fathers, as they said that Christ is dead, & suffereth (as you now object) in this Sacrament in a Mystery: so have They also said of his Body, in respect of the Eucharist, It is sacrificed in an 
* Ambrose, August. above, Chap. 5. Sect. 5.  Image, in a Sacrament, or Mystery, according to that their general Qualification, saying, It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered, or 
* Above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6.  Rather a Remembrance thereof.  
And lastly, the Fathers, who named Baptism a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist▪ doubted not to stretch Baptism up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist, saying, 
f Chrys●●t. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi.  Baptism is the passion of Christ: and 
g Ambros. de P●●nitent. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei.  In Baptism we crucify Christ. To signify, that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object, and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament.   

An Elucidation of the Premises, by a Similitude of a Stage-play, manifesting how the same Unproper Sacrifice might furthermore have been called both Bloody and Unbloody, by Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. XII.  
A Similitude, for explanation sake, would be had; give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-play, for manifesting a Truth, as well as 
* Bo●ke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7.  you have done another from thence, for palliating a Falsehood. You may recognize with us that Tragical end of the Emperor Mauritius, by the command of one Phocas, (once his slave) that grand Patron of the Popedom, by privileging the Church of Rome, to be the Head of all Churches, as diverse of your own Historians do relate. But to the point. By the commandment of this Phocas (as you 
* See Baren. Anno ●02. etc.  know) were slain two of Mauritius his sons, three daughters, and his wife, and all these before his own eyes, and at last the Emperor Mauritius himself was also murdered.  
Were now this doleful Spectacle acted on a Stage, might not any Spectator say (at the horrid sight thereof) This is a bloody Tragedy, namely, in respect of the Object represented herein? And might he not also say as truly, This is an Unbloody Tragedy? to wit, in respect of the representative Subject, Action, & Commemoration itself, wherein there is not shed any one drop of man's Blood? And from the same Evidence it will be easy to perceive, that the Greek Fathers used to term the Eucharist [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and the Latins Tremendum, that is, a Terrible and Dreadful Sacrifice, (namely) for the Semblance-sake, and Analogy it hath with Christ's Death: even as one would call the Act, representing the cruel Butchering of the Emperor Mauritius, an horrible and lamentable Spectacle. This is a clear glass, wherein any may discern the open visage of Truth, from the feigned Vizard of Error.   

The ninth Demonstration, Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptism a Sacrifice, for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death; which is Argumentum à paribus.  
SECT. XIII.  
WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument, taken from Baptism, before that we have made known the force of the Consequence thereof. First one of your Cardinals thus, 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. Si Patres existima●unt Eucharistiam solùm ●sse Sacrament●●, & non etiam Sacrifici●, nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia, quam de Baptismo. Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium, nec dicunt▪ Baptizare esse Sacrificare, vel immolare. Quo modo igitur possible est Patres in modo l●quendi nobiscum; in sententia cum Adversariis conveni●●e? §. Hic igitur. Ru●sùs, Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi, Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt: non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse po●uit, cur actio coenae Sacrificium appellaretur. Ibid. §. Tert. bapt.  If the Fathers had held the Eucharist only a Sacrament, and not also a Sacrifice, there had been no cause why they should not have called Baptism a Sacrifice, it being a Representation of Christ's death: But the Fathers do no where call Baptism a Sacrifice. So he. Another Cardinal thus, 
b Card. Alan. Patres a●usos esse nomine Sacrificii— quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari, cum hoc solum eo nomine app●llent, nec alteri ferè Sacramento unquam tribuunt? Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14.  Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spoke abusively, in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seeing this is the only Sacrament, which they call a Sacrifice, and no other. Next, take your learned'st jesuit with you, who would be loath to come behind any in vehemency and boldness, thus; 
c Suarez Ies. In mu●tis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum— Solum est observandum, propter Hae●eticos, qui hoc etiam ad metaphoram detorquenr nomen, Sacrificium. Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi, aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificii, cum tamen Sacrificium M●taphoricè sumptum in eo conveniet. Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter & absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant, signum est ●os propriè de Sacrificio loqui. Tom. 3. Disp. 74. Sect. 2. p. 952.  Ancient Fathers never called Baptism or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically: which we note (saith he) because of the Heretics, who pervert the speeches of the Fathers, as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically, and improperly. So they, to omit 
* M. Fisher, ●or one.  Others. Now than if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors, it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus; If you Heretics (for so they call Protestants) could s●ew that the Ancient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptism a Sacrifice, which we confess to be only a Representation of Christ's death, then should we need no other Reason to persuade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also Improperly, only because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ Sacrificed on the Crossè. Thus for the Consequence, confessed by your chiefest Advocates.  
The Assumption lieth upon us to prove, to wit, that the Fathers called Baptism a Sacrifice, even from the words of the Apostle, Heb. 10. 20. wheres, speaking of Baptism; he saith; To them that sin voluntarily there remaineth no Sacrifice for sin. Saint Augustine testifieth of the Doctors of the Church Catholic, before his time, that 
d H. b. 10 26. [Voluntariè pecc●ntibus non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccato] Qui diligentiùs pertiactant hunc locum Apostoli, intelligunt de Holocausto Dominicae passionis, quod eo tempore offert qui●que pro peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide baptizatus: Vt sit sensus, [Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccaris] hoc est, non potest denuò baptizando purgari. August. Tom. 4. Expos. ad Rom. Col. 1185, 1186, 1187.  They, who more diligently handled this Text, understood it of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, which every one than offereth, when he is baptised into the faith of Christ. So that holy Father, who is a Witness without all Exception; yet if, peradventure, we should need any testimony out of your own Schools, the witness of your Canus may be sufficient, confessing and saving, 
e Melchi●r Canus. Quaeris quid Causae plerisque Antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum Hostiam appellaverint, ideoque dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato? (Heb. 10.) quia Baptismus repeti non potest— Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia cr●cis. Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè Hostiam nuncuparunt. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424.  That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptism, which they so called Metaphorically, because by it the Sacrifice of the ●rosse is applied unto us. So he. Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect, and of the speech of Ancient Fathers, both in calling Baptism a Sacrifice, and of the Reason thereof, to wit, for Representation sake only; and Consequently, that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject, but the represented Object of his Sacrifice? What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire, than to be (as now your Disputers are) answered according to their own Demands?   

The tenth Demonstration: Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, in respect of diverse such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors, out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice.  
SECT. XIV.  
THE Acts excluded by your Cardinal out of the number of Proper Sacrifices, are 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Sed omissa. Omne Sacrificium est oblatio, sed non omnis oblatio Sacrificium, hoc fit cum r●s oblata consumitur.  Oblations, or Offerings of any thing thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest, such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People, before it be Consecrated. Next 
b Bellarm. Opera virtutum non sunt propriè dicta Sacrificia. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Haec. Non quae in sola actione consistant, ut Psalmodia, genuflexio, & opus quodlibet ad honorem Dei factum. Ib. §. Secundum. Non quae in sola oblatione fita, ut aurum, argentum, etc. Ibid. §. Secundò. Non decimae aut primitiae. §. Sed in. Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium, id quod solum est figura, & commemoratio Sacrificii. §. Tertiò. Non pia voluntas, quia invisibilis. §. Secundò. Non Eleemosynae, quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò. Nulla reverentia externa, ut genuflexiones, preces, quia actiones transeuntes. §. Sexto. Passiones Martyrum, & alia omnia bona opera, largo modo— non autem propriè & in rigore, Sacrificia dici possunt. Ibid. cap. 3. §. Resp. Martyrum.  All works of Virtue are unproperly called Sacrifices. All works which consist in Action, being transient, as bowing, singing of Psalms, or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross: together with all such Acts performed to God, which otherwise are yielded to man, as the Gesture of Uncovering the head in God's service, Bowing the knee, and all outward signs of Reverence, yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding. All these spiritual Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices. But that all these kinds of Acts, so far forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God, are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers, can never be denied by any that ever was acquainted with their Writings.  
Now our Demonstration is this, that most of these Acts, which are here confessed to be Unproper Sacrifices, being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord, occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist itself a Sacrifice; and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice. As first (by your own 
c Cassand. Liturg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam, secundùm Romanos, celebrante Pontifice, extractus ex variis libellis— Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Elcemosynas suas, i. e. panem & vinum, tàm masculi quam foeminae. Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis & vini, I●en. lib. 4. cap. 32. Primitias creaturarum offerentes— Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori, offerens cum gratiarum actione. Ibid. In expositione ordinis. R●mani, exscriptis Greg. Papae. Oblationes fidelium fuisse tantùm panem & vinum— Et Collectae in usum Pauperum, veltestitutionem Ecclesiarum, opportuno tempore, non inter solennia Missarum,— quae populi donaria, non certè Sacrificia— Sacrificium autem, ficut Isidorus, dictum quasi sacrum factum, quià prece mystica consecratur. Cassand. ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologes appellâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis. Maldenas. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. part. 3. §. Praeter haec. pag. 322.  Confession) that the Fathers called The oblations of Bread and Wine, made by the people, before Consecration, Sacrifices; the Alms, and Collections for the poor Sacrifices; Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God (whereof the Eucharist hath its name) Sacrifice: and that many other Circumstantial Acts are called Sacrifices, even the Sole Act of our Commemoration, as will appear in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants.   

Our Eleventh Demonstration; because the Relatives of Sacrifice, which are Altar and Priest, objected as properly taken, are used Unproperly of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. XV.  
YOur Cardinal his Objection is this; that Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice are Relatives, and have mutual and unseparable Dependence one of each other. So he, and truly. But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, observed by the same 
a Bellarm.— Sunt Relata, ità ut Sacrificium propriè 〈◊〉 sacerdotio propriè dicto: & Sacrificio impropriè dicto impropriè dictum sacerdotium respondeant. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Quintum.  Cardinal, that An unproper Sacrifice cannot infer a proper Priesthood: nor an unproper Priesthood a proper Sacrifice, etc. otherwise, your jesuit can tell you of a 
b Maldonat. Ies. Serpens aeneus fuit Sacrificium commemorativum futuri Sacrificii Christi, sed tamen non habuit altar. Lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus.  Sacrifice without an Altar, and your 
c Abulens. in jos. 22. Altar hoc non fuerat ad Sacrificium offerendum. Quaest. 9  Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice. Now to take one of these improperly, and the other properly, were as wild Sophistry, as from a wooden leg to infer a Body of Flesh. Now what if we shall say of this point of Appellations, that It was not so from the beginning? Hereunto we claim but your own common Confessions, viz. 
d Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17. §. Neque.— Neque obstat quod Ministri Ecclesiastici non dicebantur Sacerdotes, aut utebantur nominibus Templi, Sacrificii, Altaris, & similibus, quia tempore Apostolorun, vigebat Sacerdorium Judaicum, ideo abstinebant ab iisdem vocibus, ne viderentur cosdem illos ritus innovare.  That the Apostles did willingly abstain from the words of Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar. So your Cardinal, and 
e Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus, lib. 〈◊〉 cap. 1. num. 7.  Durantus, the great Advocates for your Roman Mass: whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Disputers, who 
x See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 8.  have sought a proof of a proper Sacrifice in your Mass from the word Altar, used by the Apostle Paul, Heb. 13. but also themselves, who from Saint Luke, Act. 3. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 
x See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 1.  concluded a proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice.  
But the Apostles did indeed forbear such terms in their speeches, concerning Christian worship, whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason, 
f See the former Testimony at (d.)  Lest that (say they) the jewish Priesthood being as yet in force, Christians might seem, by using jewish Terms, to innovate jewish rites. Which is enough to show, you are persuaded they abstained from the use of these words for some reason. Yet that this could not be the Reason, you may be sufficiently instructed in the word, Baptism, this being as fully jewish, as was either the word Priest, Altar, or Temple: and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of jewish manner of Baptisms: yea, and if the Apostles had thought the Altar, Priest, Sacrifices, to be essential parts of Christian Religion, they neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names, lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession.  
We descend to the Fathers. It is not unknown unto you, how the Fathers delighted themselves, in all their Treatises, with jewish Ceremonial Terms, only by Allegorical allusions, as they did with the word Synagogue, applying it to any Christian assembly; as Ark to the Church; Holocaust, to Mortification; Levite, to Deacons▪ Incense, to Prayers and Praises; and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ. But if any should say, that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper signification, he should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers, and his own Conscience. It were superfluous to urge many Instances, where one will serve. The word Altar, applied to the Table of the Lord (which anciently stood in the 
g Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 4. Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto, Altarique tanquàm Sancto Sanctorum in medio Sanctuarii sito; ne à plebe eò possit accedi, cancellis ex ligno fabrifactus circumclusit. Coccius Tom. 2. Tract. de Altari, in vita Antonii. Altar à multitudine circumdatum. Chrysost. de visione Angelorum, lib. 6. de Sacerdotio.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & D●oxys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [These Testimonies verify the same Assertion of Dt. Fulke against Greg. Martin, cap. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand round about it.]  Midst of the Chancel, so that they might compass it round) was far more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the greeks, or Altar of the Latins, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Mensa, that is, Table; which they would not have done, if Altar had carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar: no, but they used therein the like liberty, as they used to do in 
h Aug. quast. super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9 Altar est populus Dei. Lib. 1. de Serm. in money. Altar in interiore Dei templo, i. e. fides. Lib. 10. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum. And other Fathers ordinarily.  applying the name Altar to God's people, and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart.  
Will you suffer us to come home to you? The Father Gregory Nazianzen, for his soundness of judgement surnamed the Divine, comparing this Inferior Altar, and Sacrifice on earth, with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven, saith that the Sacrifices, which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven, are 
i Nazian. Orat. 28.— Esto, ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia: at novi aliud Altare mentis & contemplationis in coelo, ibi adstabo, & Deo offerani Sacrificia, quae sunt tanto acceptiora, quam ea quae offerimus ad Altar, quantò pretiosior est veritas quam umbra.  More acceptable than the Sacrifices, which are offered at the Altar below, as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow. So he. Therefore (say we) the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven, but objectively here in the Eucharist; here Representative only, as in a shadow, but in Heaven presentatively, in his bodily presence. So vainly your Disputers hitherto (whilst that we required Materials) have objected against us bare words, phrases, and very shadows.  
Lastly, Cyril of Alexandria 
k Cyril Alex. cont. julian. lib. 9 (julian. Ob.) Judaei sacrificant,— vos autem invento novo Sacrificio— quarè non sacrificatis?— illud commune nobiscum habent, etiam Templa, Altaria, etc. (Resp. Cyril. multò post.) Vitae honestas, & ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum— Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum, rationalem cultum nostrum Deo.— Igitur etsi Judaei sacrificarent, ut in umbris praecepta implerent, nos tamen larâ viâ cuntes, ad id quod rectum est veniemus, nempè spiritualem & immortalem cultum proficientes. (julian.) Mosi dicitur, septem diebus azymis vescemini: vobis parum est abstulisse. (Cyril. Resp.) Impletur Lex à nobis in Azymis, maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu, mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo.— Undè scribit. D. Paulus, ut diem agamus in Azymis synceritatis & veritatis. (Rursus julian. ibid. lib. 10.) Offer Sacra in Altari, & sacrificare cavetis. (Resp. Cyril.) Adnibemus Sacrificia spiritualia, sc. & mentalia: nam illi ex sanguine offerebant boves, & oves,— Et ex fructibus similam, eleas, etc. nos tamen tam crasso ministerio relicto tenue & subtle, at spirituale perficimus: offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem, spem, charitatem, justitiam, laudes. Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporeum decet Deum. (julian.) Et Cain obtulit Sacrificium de fructibus terrae: Abel de carnalibus. (Cyril. Resp.) Offerimus mell 〈…〉 oddam quam illi— Sacrificamus enim mentalitèr & spiritualitèr virtutum fragrantias. (R●●sus julian. Ob.) Non circumcidimini, non Azyma, non Pascha servatis. Non possumus, inquiunt, (viz. Christiani:) pro nobis enim sen el immolatus est Christus, & prohibuit Azyma— non Abraham imitantes Altaria erigitis Deo, nec sacrificatoria aedificatis. (Resp. Cyrill.) Circumcisionem habemus Spiritus— In Azymis spiritualia quae habemus. (Et ad Pascha Resp.) Affulsit veritas, Immolatus est pro nobis Christus Agnus verus.  made an Answer to the Objections then published by julian the Apostate against the Truth of Christian Religion. By this conflict between these two wits, as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steel together, such a flash of lightning will appear, as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader, for the understanding of the judgement of Antiquity throughout the whole Clause; concerning Bodily Sacrifice.  
The Apostate objecteth (See the Margin) as an exception against Christians that they are not Circumcised▪ that they use no Azymes, nor keep the Passeover of the jews: albeit, Gain, Abel, and Abraham before the Law, and the Israelites under the Law, and Heathenish Grecians, always without that Law, offered Sacrifices unto God. But they (saith julian, writing of Christians) erect no Altars unto God, offer no such Sacrifices as were of old, nor invent any new, but say that Christ was once offered for them. This Objection (you see) is pertinent to our Cause in hand, and as consonant will the Answer of the holy Patriarch Cyril be; who to the other points held it Satisfaction enough to say (see again the Marginals) That we Christians have the spiritual Circumcision of the heart: That we observe the Spiritual Azymes of Sincerity and Truth: And as for the Passeover, Christ our Passeover was offered up, namely upon the Cross (for so is it answerable to the words objected by julian.) And to the Objection of not erecting Altars, Cyril saith not a word.  
But what for the point of Sacrifice? Harken (we pray you) Although (saith he) the jews Sacrificed to fulfil God's precepts in shadows, yet we doing that which is right, (meaning the Truth opposite to Shadows) perform a spiritual, and mental worship, as namely, Honesty, and an holy Conversation. And again, The jews offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheep, first fruits of the Earth, Cakes, and Frankincense: but we offer that which is spiritual, to wit, Faith, Hope, Charity, and Praises; because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God. And yet again, We Sacrifice to God spiritually, and mentally, the perfumes of virtues. This is the Sum of Saint Cyril his Answer, void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ, as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest, or yet of any Corporal Touch thereof (by eating) with the Bodies of Communicants; no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians.  
Here will be no place for your Answer, to tell us that the Question was of Bloody, and not of Unbloody Sacrifices: No, for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacrifice of Cain, as the bloody Oblation of Abel; and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense, as he doth the Bloody of Sheep, and Oxen.  
Nevertheless, we should confute ourselves, by objecting this Testimony, seeing that the Custom of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveal the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptism, or of the Eucharist, either to Infidels or Catechumenists, and therefore this silence of Cyril, in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Mass, might seem to have been purposely done, to conceal it from both julian, the Patron of Heathenish worship, and all Infidels: So indeed we should have thought, but that then julian and Cyril both would as readily confute us; julian, because he himself had been more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ, even (as namely Gregory Nazienzene witnesseth) once 
l Greg. Nazian. Orat. 3. advers. julian. (De Gallo & Iulian●.) Quinetiam in Clerum seipsos ascripserunt, ut divinos quoque libros plebi lectitarent: non minus id sibi amplum & honorificum existimantes quam aliud quidvis, etc.  A Reader of Scriptures to the people, not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to do; therefore was he not ignorant of the than Christian Doctrine, concerning the Eucharist. And (which is a point as observable) when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices, by and by, as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves, but that Christ gave up himself once; he expresseth this their Answer, as that which he held not to be sufficient. And Cyril also would control us, who in his whole Answer (opposing Spiritual to Corporal) defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians, but that which he calleth Spiritual and mental; as for example, Godly Conversation, Faith, Hope, Charity, Praises, etc. All which are 
* S● hereafter, Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice.  
The Case than is plain. If that the now Romish Doctrine of a Proper Bodily Sacrifice of Christ's Body, offered up in the hands of the Priest, by an Elevation, and after in Consummating the same by eating it with his mouth, which you call a Sacrificing Act, had been Catholic learning in that Age, then assuredly could neither julian have challenged Christians for no Sacrifice, nor Cyril have defended them, by confessing indeed no Sacrifice among Christians, but only Spiritual and Mental.    

CHAP. VI  
Our third Examination, which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Mass, by your Romish Principles.  
The State of the Question.  
WELL have you discerned of the twofold acception of a Proper Sacrifice, which (as 
a Bellarm. Sacrificium Missae accipitur propriè pro re, quae sacrificatur: & etiam accipitur propriè pro actione sacrificandi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Resp. ut.  you say) Is sometime taken for the thing sacrificed, and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinal: and indeed, both these are necessary in a proper Sacrifice, yet neither of these can possibly be found in your pretended Sacrifice of your Romish Mass.  

That the Thing, pretended to be Sacrificed, is not properly in the Roman Mass.  
SECT. I.  
THe things, which your Romish Belief professeth to be Sacrificed in your Mass, is the Body and Blood of Christ, corporally extant therein, as the proper Subject thereof. But that there is no Corporal existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, was the Conclusion of our second, third, and fourth Books. And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice, used in your Mass, is our Conclusion thorough out this whole Book. Of both which you may have a Synopsis and general view in the last Book. Thus of the thing Sacrificed, now that which followeth, concerning your Romish Sacrificing Act, is a point briefly expedited by two Propositions.   

I. That no Act now used in the Roman Mass can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act: proved by your own Principles.  
SECT. II.  
WHatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held, as Proper to a Sacrifice; and assumed, as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Mass, have each one been 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 5.  Confuted by Doctors of your own Church, of singular estimation; and rejected, as utterly insufficient to prove any proper Sacrificing Act in the Institution of Christ: to wit, not Elevation, not Fraction, not Oblation, not Consecration, and lastly, not Consumption of the Eucharist by the mouth of the Priest: Non licet actum agere, said one, and Non libet, say we. But now are we to discuss such Properties as are yet wanting in your Romish Execution.   

II. That that which is properly a Sacrificing Act, is wanting in the Roman Mass; proved by your own Principles.  
SECT. III.  
THree properties are required of you, as necessary to a properly Sacrificing Act, the first is, that the Action be exercised upon a thing 
a Conc. Trid. Christus tradebat visibile Sacramentum sub specie panis & vini. Sess. 22. & Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Secundo.  Visible. Secondly, that the thing sacrificed be of 
b Septimò, ritu mystico consecratur: nam debet res illa, quae Deo offertur, ex profanâ fieri sacra. Idem significat Sacrificare, quod sacrum facere. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2.  Profane, made sacred by the Act of Consecration. Thirdly, that the Act be a 
c Bellarm. Octauò, transmutatur, quid ad verum Sacrificium requiritur, ut id, quod offertur Deo, planè destruatur, i. e. it● mutetur, ut desinat esse id qod antè erat, In quo differt à simplici oblatione, quae interdum mystico ritu elevabatur coram Deo, sed non destruebatur, nisi quando verè sacrificabatur. Ratio duplex, 1. ●b significationem mortis Christi. 2. ad protestationem subjectionis nostrae coràm Deo— Ideò requiritur, ut non solum usus, sed etiam substantia consumatur.— Sacrificium requirit Consumptionem. Pater, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mactare. Matth. 22. Altilia di●unt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occisa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Exhalario, in quo differt ab oblatione; Item 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consumo. Probatur ex Scriptura, ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant, si viventia, per occisionem; si inanimata solida, per combustionem; si liquida, per effusionem. Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes, sic dictas à mola, vel molendo, quamvis vox, Immolare, pro sacrificare sumatur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. per totum. Et idem ibid. cap. 4. §. Nunc.  Destructive Act, whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed, and cease to be in substance that which it was. According to your own objected words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying a Consumption; and therein answerable to the Sacrifices of the old Law, all which suffered Destruction; things living by slaughter, things without life, if solid, by burning; if liquid, by pouring out, and shedding, etc. So you in Thesi, we descend to the Hypothesis.  
But before we enter into this Disquisition, we shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men, whilst we reason the matter with you in few words. First, it cannot be called Properly Visible, which is not Visible in itself. But the Body of Christ, which you call the thing sacrificed, is not Visible in itself, but only (as your Council of 
d Conc. Trid. a●d Bellarm. above cited, §. 3. at a.  Trent hath taught) In the form of Bread; and then, how invisible it is, only blind men can be ignorant. Nor will we think All, among you, to be so blind, seeing that we hear one (and that a jesuit) acknowledging his eyesight, and plainly, without Parables, saying, that 
e Salmeron. Christus cruentus, & incruentus, non differunt, sed quod ille visibilis, hic invisibilis. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. §. Jam do.  Christ in the Eucharist is invisible. So he. Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in Roman Mass.  
Secondly, we will not judge any of you so blasphemous, as to say, that the Body of Christ, by your Consecration, is of a Profane thing made sacred, which we are sure your Ancient Romish School did deny; which concluded that 
f Aquinas. Bénedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminum à quo, non super terminum ad quem, i. e. super corpus Christi. In 1. Cor. 10.  It is not Christ that is made sacred, by benediction of the Priest, but that which the Priest first taketh in his hands to bless. And so your Act of Consecration, by defect of the second property, is no proper Sacrificing Act of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Thirdly, it will be as incredible in your own judgements, that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed. We say, in your own judgements, who therefore are constrained to say, 
g Bellarm. Corpus Christi per consecrationem accepit formam cibi, & ad comestionem & destructionem ordinatur: & licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se, neque amittit suum esse naturale sed amitrit Sacramentale Esse, & proinde desinit esse realiter in altari, & definite esse cibus sensibilis. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Tertiò.  That the Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any natural Destruction, but only Sacramental, that is, Metaphorical. Ergo, your Romish Mass is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction. And again, whereas the word Immolation is taken of 
h Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacerdos gerit fit dicendum Sacrificium aut Immolatio, accipit nomen. Immolationis pro occisione, respondet autem ●ect●ssimè, Christum sem●l tantùm immolatum, i. e. occisum suisse, non autem immolari, i. e. occidi in Sacramento & repraesentatione. Rursus paulò sup●…. §. Ad hanc. Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè & propriè facta est, nunc autem propriè, sed per Repraesentationem. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. §. Post haec.  Lombard for being Slain, or suffering by Death; It was most truly said by him (saith your Cardinal) that Christ is not immolated, meaning not slain, but only in Representation.  
Well then, the State of the Question, as your Cardinal himself hath set it down, is (seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction, and, if it be a living Sacrifice, a Destruction by death) Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed, or no. Mark, we pray you, your Cardinal's Resolution. His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done, but now it is properly done but by Representation. O Vertigo! For, that which is but once only properly offered, can never be said to be again properly offered; and that which is a Bloody Oblation, by your own learning, cannot be Unbloody.  
And as great an Intoxication is to be seen in your Disputers, in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup: For your Cardinal Alan defendeth a Real Destruction in this manner; 
i Alanus de Eucharist. lib. 2. cap. 13. In carnes & sanguinis separatione (undè propriè in animalibus r●actatio) consistit vis hujus mysterii, ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio— sequitur Christum esse praesentem modò immolatio— quod funditur in remissione peecatorum: e●go per modum Victimae praesens est, imò Christus hîc praesens induit eum modum, quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Ciucis. (Aliquantò post haec) Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non moritur.  In creatures living (saith he) the thing sacrificed must be slain, and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery, because Christ is herein, after the manner of Sacrifice, taking upon him the manner of Sacrificing, which he had in offering himself upon the Cross, by separation of his Blood. So he. All which doth infer a Real and Proper separation and effusion of Blood; yet immediately after standeth he to the Defence of Concomitancy, which teacheth an Union of Body and Blood together, in as full a manner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate. But Blood Separated, and United, are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary as can be. How much better would it beseem you to confess plainly and truly with your Costerus, that 
k Costerus Christian. In stitutionum, lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruse solus scipsum obtulit per veram sanguinis effusionem & mortem: hîc per Sacerdotem, tanquain ministrum, se offert sine Sanguinis Effusione & morte, sed per utriusque repraesentationem.  Christ is not offered here with effusion of Blood, but by a representation thereof.  

CHALLENGE.  
A Syllogism will quit the Business; as for Example. Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible, of Profane is made Sacred, and properly suffereth Destruction. (This is your own Proposition in each part.)  
But the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, is neither properly Visible, nor properly of Profane made Sacred, nor suffereth any proper Destruction. (This is also your own Assumption.)  
Therefore the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, is not a proper Sacrifice, nor properly Sacrificed. This (except men have lost their brains) must needs be every man's Conclusion. And that so much the rather, because it cannot be sufficient, that Christ's Body be present in the Eucharist, to make it a Sacrifice, without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheep is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold, nor can every Action serve the turn, except it be a destructive Act: for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorn, nor yet can any destructive Act be held Sacrificing, which is not prescribed by Divine Authority; which only can ordain a Sacrifice, as hath been confessed. But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto been proved.  
Is it not then a miserable case which you are in, to suffer yourselves to be deceived by such Mountebanks, who pretend to direct men's Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith, and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice? and in the end give no other satisfaction than by mere Riddles of a Visible, not Visible, Consecrated, not Consecrated, Destroyed, and not Destroyed, with Blood separated, and not separated from the Body; and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ. Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth.     

CHAP. VII.  
Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS, in the point of Sacrifice.  
IN discussion whereof, we are to consider first the Acts, which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament: and then the Object thereof which is the true and real Body of Christ, as it was Sacrificed upon the Cross. In respect of the Acts we say,  

I. That Spiritual Sacrifices, albeit Unproper, are in one respect more true, and do far excel all merely Corporal Sacrifices according to Scripture.  
SECT. I.  
WHen Christ called himself the True Vine, the True light, the True Bread; in respect of the natural Vine, Light, and Bread; He taught us to distinguish between a Truth of Excellency, and a Truth of propriety, by their different Effects. That which hath the natural property of Bread (although Manna) preserveth but the temporal life, for 
* john 6.  They are Manna, and died: But the Bread of Excellency, which is Christ's Body, preserveth to 
* Ibid.  Immortality. It is a good Observation, which your Canus hath, that 
a Canus. Quià per Sacrificia legis externa res quaedam spirituales potiores praefignabantur, has omninò res Sacrificia, holocausta, hostias sacrae literae appellant: ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo.  Many spiritual things are called Sacrifices, in Scripture, because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lamb: as the kill of Beasts were signs of mortification, which is a kill of sin. So he. And the Thing prefigured (you know) is always held more excellent than the figure thereof.  
First, the Sacrifice of Contrition, Psal. 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart. Secondly, of Righteousness, by Mortification. Psal. 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousness. And Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable Service. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise, Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips. Fourthly, of Almes-workes, Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased. Fifthly, Sacrifice of Preaching, Rom. 15. 16. That I ministering the Gospel, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the holy Ghost. Sixthly, the Sacrifice of Martyrdom, Phil. 2. 17. Yea, and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith, etc. Next we say.   

II. That all these Spiritual Acts, although improperly called Sacrifices, yet are they more excellent than all merely Corpoporall and proper Sacrifices; in the judgement of Ancient Fathers.  
SECT. II.  
Upon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations, for the expressing of the excellent Prerogatives of Spiritual Sacrifices, in respect of Corporal. Of the Sacrifice of Contrition, thus: 
a Non terrenis, sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum. Tertull. adversus jud. eos.  God's wrath is to be appeased with Spiritual Sacrifices. And 
b Erant tum Sacrificia pro delicto, quae nunc sunt Sacrificia poenitentiae de delicto. Ambros. lib. 3. Epist. 28.  They were then Sacrifices for sin, which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sin. And 
c Spiritus contribulatus.— Ostendit Deus, se velle Sacrificium, non trucidati pecoris, sed contriti pectoris. Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 5.  God showeth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slain beast, but of a contrite breast. Of the Sacrifice of Righteousness thus, 
d Mundo moriens, ipse est Sacrificium. Idem.  He that dieth to the world is for himself a Sacrifice. And 
e Tunc corpora pro corporibus; nunc non corpora, sed vitia corporis perimenda. Arnob. c●nt. Gen●es.  Then were creatures slain to cleanse men's bodies: but now are men to mortify their vices: 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Isid. Pelus lib. 3. Epist. 75.  Every one being made a Priest over his own body, to overrule vices. And 
g Illi offerebant oves & boves: nos tàm craffo praeteriro Sacrifici● subtle offerimus, virtutes omnigenas: Sacrificium enim minimè carnale, secundùm naturam incorpoream, decet Deum. Ambros. [The same which he hath translated word for word out of Cyril. Alex. cont. julian. See above, towards the end of Chap. 5.]  They offered those gross bodies of sheep: but we the more subtle and pure of virtues, because unbloody things best agree with God. And 
h Chrys●st. in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This is a new and admirable Sacrifice. And 
i Pe●usiota. lib. 3. Epist. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The best Sacrifice is to have a pure mind, and a chaste Body.  
Of the spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God, thus; 
k Praeces & Gratiarum actiones factae Deo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Dial. cum Tryphone judaeo. And another upon that Psal. 68 of David [Canticum laudis plus placet Deo quam novella] observeth in the Hebrew an elegant Allusion, as if it had been said, Deomagis placet Schir, quam Schior, id est Canticum, quam vitulus. Bellarm. ibid.  These are most perfect and only Sacrifices acceptable to God. Of Preaching the word of God thus, 
l Gladio verbi mactans vitia. Hieron. & rursus in Psal. 26. Hostia jubilationis, hostia praedicationis.  We stay vices with the sword of the word. And of The Function Evangelicall, 
m Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum.  It is a pure Sacrifice, and immaculate. And 
n Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius. Aug.  A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices. Of Almes-workes thus, 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt, vel quòd eâ Deus prae Sacrificiis placere sibi testatur: haec sancta vestis aromata Sanctorum est. Chrysost.  These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him, than all the Sacrifices. And 
p Vbi scriptum est, [Misericordiam magis volo quam Sacrificium] nihil aliud quam Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum intelligi oportet: quoniam quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, fignum est veri Sacrificii. August. lib. 10. de Civitat. cap. 5.  This is a true Sacrifice, whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signs. Of Martyrdom thus, 
r Nos templum Dei sumus omnes, cor nostrum akare Dei, cruentas victimas ca dimus, quandò usque ad sanguinem pro veritate certamus. August. ibid. cap. 4.  We are God's Temple, our hearts his Altars: we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice, when we contend for the truth with our blood. In brief, 
s Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut Deo in sancta societate haereamus: relatumque ad illum finem, ut beati esse possimus. Idem. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. 6.  Every good work done, to the end that we may enjoy God, is a true Sacrifice. Hitherto of our Proposition, by the Determination of holy Fathers: In the next place we say, for the Assumption,   

III. That Protestants profess in their Celebration diverse Sacrifices of chief Excellency.  
SECT. III.  
Corporal and Spiritual Sacrifices are by you distinguished, calling the first, Proper, and the other, Improper; but the spiritual excelleth by infinite Degrees, as you have heard. In which kind, Protestants, in their Celebration, profess four sorts of Sacrifices. For proof hereof, we may instance in our Church of 
a In the English Liturgy.  England, most happily reform and established. First, the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act, and of Martyrdom in Vow, saying, We offer unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be an holy, lively, and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee. Next, a Sacrifice Eucharistical, saying, We desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving. And why may we not, with the Scripture, call this a Sacrifice? seeing that your Bishop jansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice, even 
b jansen. Christum in coena Sacrificium obtulisse, primum quidem satis est significatum, cum dicitur Gratias egisse: Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium, à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit. Con●ord. cap. 131.  Because he gave Thanks: giving of Thanks being a kind of Sacrifice. So he. Thirdly, a Sacrifice Latreuticall, that is, of Divine worship, saying, And although we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service, etc. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which 
* See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 5.  Ancient Fathers called an Unbloody Sacrifice.  
Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession. This Truth we refer unto the Report of your 
c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult,— & Calvinus non solum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult, sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum, & § Expendamus.  Cardinal, and of 
d Canus. Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum, ut eum honore afficiamus. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Quibus rebus. Bel larm. Melancthon, dicit, Missam dici posse Sacrificium, quatenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei, sicut coetera bona opera. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum. Et Calvinus dicit, Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur. Ibid. §. Expendamus. Kemnitius dicit, Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem, Immolationem, & Sacrificium, quia est commemoratio & repraesentatio veri Sacrifici● Christi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Acre modus.  Canus, by whom you may understand the agreement between them, whom you name Lutherans, in their Augustane Confession, and of Calvin; by acknowledging not some one Act, but the whole work of this Celebration (according to the Institution of Christ) both in Communication, Commemoration, and Representation of his Death, with Praise and Thanksgiving, to be a Sacrifice Eucharistical: And also (to use the words of Calvin) Latreuticall, and Sebasticall, that is, a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration, which every Christian may and must profess, who hath either eyes in his head, or faith in his heart: the Celebration of this Sacrament, in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption, being the Service of all Services that we can perform to God. Now wherein, and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory, improperly, will after appear when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein.   

That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ, which was Sacrificed on the Cross, as the Object of Remembrance, and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption.  
SECT. IV.  
NOw we are come to the last, most true, and necessary point: which is the Body and Blood, as the Object of our Commemoration. Still, still do you urge the saying of Fathers, where they affirm that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ, on this Altar, even the same which was sacrificed on the Cross; which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration, As is a King acting himself upon a Stage, as hath been 
* See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 7.  shown.  
We as instantly, and more truly, proclaim that we offer (Commemoratively) the same, undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All sufficient Sacrifice on the Cross, although not as the subject of his proper Sacrifice, but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration; as when the same murder of the Emperor Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance: wherein we cannot possibly err, having Truth itself for our Guide, who said, Do this in remembrance of me, namely, of the same [Me] meaning Christ as crucified on the Cross, as the Apostle commenteth, saying, Hereby you show the Lords Death till he come, even the Same Body, as the Same Death; whereunto bear all the Father's witness, throughout this Treatise. Whereby it will be easy for us to discern the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours, his being the Real Sacrifice on the Cross, ours only the Sacramental Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Second Principal part of this Controversy, which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice, is as it is called Properly Propitiatory.  
THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory. 2. Application thereof, for Remission of Sins.  

The State of the Question of Propitiatory, what it is.  
SECT. I.  
THe whole Difference standeth upon this, whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God, and pleaseth him by its own virtue and efficacy, which (as all confess) is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his own self; or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God, by God's gracious acceptance and indulgence. The Romish profess the Sacrifice of their Mass to be such, in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth. For the Tridentine faith, concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice, is this, viz. 
a Synod. Trident. Sacrificium verè propitiatorium— Hujus oblatione placatur Deus, gratiam & donum poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata, una enim eademque hostia est, idem nam offerens Sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum in cruse obtulit. Sess. 22. cap. 2.  It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sins.  
And lest that there might be any ambiguity, how it doth pacify God, whether by his gracious Acceptance, or the Efficacy of offering, your general Roman Catechism authorised both by your Council of Trent, and the than Pope Pius the fourth, for the direction of your whole Church, instructeth you all, concerning your Sacrifice of the Mass, that 
b Catechis. Rom. (jussu C●ns. Trident. & Pii Quarti Pont. editus.) Vt Sacrificium est, non solum merendi, sed & satisfaciendi quoque efficaciam habet. De Luth. num. 55. Osorius Ies. Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio in Psalm. 4. [Sacrificate Sacrificium.] Vnicum hoc Sacrificium est Sacrificium laudis, gratiarum actionis, expiatorium & satisfactorium pro peccatis, & impetratorium pro vivis & defunctis. Ità tradit Conc. Tri●.  As it is a Sacrifice, it hath an Efficacy and Virtue, not only of merit, but also of satisfaction. So they, as truly setting down the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, as they do falsely assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Mass; which Protestants abhor and impugn as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious; and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory (Improperly) by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance, wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithful.  
Trial of all this is to be made by Scriptures, Fathers, by your own Romish Principles, and by the Doctrine of Protestants. In the Interim, be it known that our Church of England, in her 31. Article, faith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, as it is taught by you, that it is A Blasphemous Fable, and Dangerous Deceit.   

That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ.  
SECT. II.  
YOur only Objection is, that Christ, in the words of his first Institution, said, Take, this is the new Testament in my Blood, shed for you and for many, for the Remission of sins. Hear your Cardinal, 
a Bellarm. Secundum Argumentum sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis, quae apertissimè docent Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Secundum.  These words do most evidently teach, that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sins of his Apostles. So he. But if this his Exposition of Christ's words be most evident, alas! what a number of other blind Guides, of great estimation among you, hath your Church favoured, pampered, privileged, and authorized, who could see nothing in the words of Christ, but the flat contrary? (namely) that they were spoken in the Present Tense (Tropically) for the future, not that it was then shed, but that it was to be shed on the Cross immediately after; among whom have 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  been reckoned Gregory de Valentia, Salmeron, Barradas, three prime jesuits, your Bishop jansenius, yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation.  
And that you may the better discern, how hard the foreheads of your Cardinal, of your Rhemists, of Mr. Breerley, and of such others are, who have made that Objection, you have been likewise advertized, that in the very tenor of your own Romish Mass itself, the word is expressly [
* In the forecited place.  Effundetur] It shall be shed: We say in the Tenor of your Romish Mass, published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fifth, repeated by every one of yourselves (you being Romish Priests) and accordingly believed of all the Professors of your Romish Religion. Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  Fathers, and by Scripture (in the places objected) and by a Reason taken from your own Confession, granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper. This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal's Most evident Argument, as Sunshine to Moonlight.   

That many things are said to pacify and please God, which are not properly Propitiatory, by their own Virtue, according to Scriptures and your own Confessions.  
SECT. III.  
IN Scripture, our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice wellpleasing to God. Rom. 12. 1. Alms, Works of Charity, are likewise called Sacrifices, wherewith God is delighted, Heb. 13. 16. Comforting, and cherishing the Ministers of God, is called A Sacrifice acceptable, and well pleasing to God, Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture.  
And that Spiritual Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God, than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be, is a Confession, which we will take from the quill of Valentia the jesuit, saying that 
a Valent. Omne's actiones 〈◊〉 rectè propi●… Deum aliquâ ratione censeri debent. Lib. 2. de Miss●, cap. 5. Ide●m. Pe●… ratione Precibus propi●… vis in Scriptura tribuitur, quaterius beneficia divina ex misericor●… Dei, per illas impetra●●us. Ibid.  All right and just Actions may be said, in some sort, to be Propitiatory, and to pacify God. As likewise of Prayer; Scripture (saith he) attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers, so far forth as we obtain many Blessings of God, through his mercy, by them. So he. Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory, by the merciful Acceptation of God, distinct from your Propitiatory, which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its own virtue: which mere man must let alone for ever. Thus of our Examination from Scripture.   

The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers, concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
SECT. IV.  
ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversy touching Sacrifice, and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers, that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice, might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority, for Defence of a Sacrifice properly propitiatory; because that which is not properly a Sacrifice, can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory, than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Millstone: Notwithstanding, we would be loath to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers, in this point also. The Objections, which you use and urge, are of two kinds: some, wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all; and the other sort such, wherein they both are named and expressed.    

CHAP. IX.  

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucharist A Propitiatory Sacrifice, in respect of diverse Spiritual Acts therein, without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propititiation itself.  
SECT. I.  
A Propitiatory in God's merciful acceptance we defend, but not in Equivalency of valour and Virtue in itself. First, as it is an Act commanded by Christ, in which sense your jesuit 
* See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 3.  Valentia saith, that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory. Secondly, as it is a godly Act, whereby we do affiance our soul 
* August. See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 2.  to God, Every good work, which is done that we may adhere unto 
* Chrysost. Ibid.  God, is a True Sacrifice. Thirdly, as it is an Act serving peculiarly to God's worship, for religiousness is that (said Chrysostome) wherewith God testifieth himself to be well pleased. Fourthly, as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that only properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, we must grant to your Cardinal, that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacy in itself: But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ, resembled thereby, God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us; in which respect 
a Origen. in Levit. H●m. 13. Siredeas ad illum que●● Deus proposuit Propitiatorem per fidem, & fi respicias ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc facite in commemorationem mei; ista est sola commemoratio, quae propitium facit hominibus Deum.  Origen exhorting Christians to resort unto Christ, whom God hath made a Propitiation through faith in his blood, and also to reflect upon the Commemoration which was commanded by Christ, saying, Doc this in remembrance of me: This (saith Origen) is the only Commemoration which maketh God propitious.  
If any would say, how then shall we not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in itself? We answer, as a man holding in his hand a precious jewel, which is enclosed in a Ring of gold, and putting it on his finger to preserve him from a Convulsion, the Preservative Virtue is not attributed to the Ring, but to the jewel; and yet we say, the Ring is the only means to us, which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue. So say we, Christ his own Sacrifice, which was the only precious subject matter of our Redemption, is made now, by our Remembering, the Object of our Commemoration, and Application of it, for our Remission and justification.  
Nor is Origen alone in this, but all they (who were 
* See Cham 5. Sect. 11.  many) whom you have heard saying that Christ's Death and Passion, yea his Bloody Body is offered herein. Your own jesuit Salmeron is witness unto us (for the Council of Ephesus, Eusebius, and Saint Augustine) that 
b Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 31. 9 Postremò supe●est. pag. 238. Quidam Patres judicant inprimis hac hostia expiari peccata, quòd cruentum memoret Sacrificium. Hanc dicendi rationem sequitur Concil. Ephes. in Ep. ad Nestorem. Euseb. in Demonst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. August. in Psal. 75.  They declared us to have expiation of our sins by this Sacrifice, because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembered and commemorated herein.  
That we say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers, by which through the same Virtue of Christ's Propitiation, we obtain pardon and Remission of sins (whether for Quick and Dead, belongeth not to this Dispute, because whether so or so, they are but Supplications still) together with many other saying Blessings from God. Nor of the Act of Thanksgiving, (from which this Sacrament is called the Eucharist) because this is the destinate end of our Celebration, and therefore of all our spiritual Sacrifices most acceptable unto God, for which cause 
* See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 2.  justine Martyr called it, by the way of Excellency, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, The only grateful Sacrifices. Lastly, in respect of our Application itself, whereof in the next Section.   

That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Objectively, for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, made of the faithful in Celebration of the Memory thereof.  
SECT. II.  
WHen it was asked why the Ancient Fathers called Baptism a Sacrifice, it was answered, 
* See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the letter (c).  Because the Sacrifice of Christ's Death was applied unto us thereby. Yet that Death, truly and only properly propitious, is but only objectively offered in Baptism. The same may be said of the Eucharist, whereof your own great Schoolman, and Bishop 
a Canus. Satis est ut verè & propriè sit Sacrificium, quòd mors Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur, id quod Scriptorum veterum testimoniis confirmatur.— August. Semel immolatus in seipso Christus, & tamen quotidiè immolatur in Sacramento. Paschatius: Quotidiè Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur, & passio ejus in mysterio traditur. Et Cyrillus in Conc. Ephes. Athanas. ad Antioch. Theophyl. in Hebr. cap. 10. Greg. demum Nazian. (ut coeteros omittam) hanc incruentam Immolati●nē vocant. L●c. theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Illud. pag. 422.  Canus saith, that It is sufficient that the Eucharist be called a proper and true Sacrifice, because the Death of Christ is applied thereby, as if he were now dead. Mark, As if he were now dead, which can be but Objectively only, and which (as you all know) is not your Priestly Sacrifice.  
As for the Ancient Fathers, who in their objected Testimonies talked of Christ 
b Cyrill. Mys●ag. 5. Christum mactatum offerimus, ut Deum propitium reddamus. Ob. per Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. Greg. Nyssen. orat. 1. de Resur. & Theophyl. in Matth. Dicunt mactationem esse in hac oblatione, etc.  Suffering, being slain, and dying in the Eucharist; We Protestants subscribe to their judgements with a full faith, in acknowledgement that Christ's Death, the proper work of our Propitiation, is the only Object of our Remembrance and faith: which sayings of the Fathers (saith your 
c Salmeron. Quod benignè interpretandum— nimirùm, mactationem antiquam Christi in cruse inveniri, non novam & realem ab e● distinctam. Si in coena mactatus erat, quomodo ad nonam horam diei usque sequentis vixit? absurda haec sunt, & aliena à veritate. Tom. 9 Tract. 31. §. Quartò.  jesuit) must be understood Sacramentally, to signify the real slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Cross. So he. Which again proveth our Conclusion, that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice only Objectively in the Eucharist. We will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose, thus, 
d Ambros. Hîc imago, veritas in coelestibus, nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem. Offered se ipse, quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem. Lib. 1. de office cap. 48.  Here is an Image offered [Quasi, that is] as it were a man, as it were suffering a Passion, offering himself as it were a Priest, that he may forgive our sins. And of his now being 
* See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter (c).  elsewhere he saith, The truth is in Heaven, there is He in truth with the Father. So he. Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein, from [Quasi homo offertur:] for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporal presence, and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby. Enough of the judgement of Antiquity. Our third Examination followeth.    

CHAP. X.  
Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice, confuted by Romish Principles, as destitute of four Properties of Propitiation.  
THE first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer. The next, the no- proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed. The third, the Vnbloodinesse of the same. And the last, the but- finite Virtue and value, which you attribute unto it.  

I. Confutation, from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice.  
SECT. I.  
FIrst the Reason, why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue, is 
a Bellar. Ratio 2. quare Sacri●…ciū Crucis sit tanti valoris, hoc autem finiti, sumitur ex parte offerentis: nam Sacrificio Crucis ipse offerens est filius Dei per se; at in Sacrificio Miss● est ipse offerens per Ministrum— Illa actio immediatè producta à divino supposito, ipsa ab humano. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4.  Because it is not immediately offered up by Christ himself, as that was of the Cross; but by his Minister. And the Reason of this, you say, is, 
b Salmeron. Ies. Modò Christus in Eucharistia personam induit re● oblatae: & quamvis Christus offerat per Sacerdotes, ut Administros ejus, tamen virtus & causa universalis pro ratione causae secundariae operatur. Sacerdos igitur ejus nomine induit personam offerentis. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 266. de Missis privatis.  Because the Universal Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes. So you. Understanding, by Sacrifice, not the Object of your Remembrance, which is the Body of Christ, as crucified; but the subject matter, in the hand of the Priest. From whence this Consequence must issue, whether you will or no, (namely) that Perfection of the Sacrifice being a necessary property of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacy in prevailing with God for man, it is impossible for any of your Priests (because All are imperfect) to offer up properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God.  
None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law, because they also were twice imperfect; once in respect of the Sacrificer, who was but a mere man: and secondly, in respect of the matter of Sacrifice itself, which was some unreasonable beast, and had no Virtue of Propitiation in itself, for remission either of guilt, or of the eternal punishment of sin, as hath been 
* See above, Chap. 5 Sect. 4.  Confessed; and therefore not properly Propitiatory, but fiuratively; only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ.   

II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
SECT. II.  
SEcondly, in your 
c Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Romish definition, it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Real Destruction, (so that it cease to be in the substance thereof) and a Bodily Consumption. Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphemy, to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer properly a real Destruction. Ergo, say we, by your own Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory.   

III. Confutation from the Apostle's Position, against the Vnbloodinesse thereof.  
SECT. III.  
THe Apostles Position is this, that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9 22. Your Romish Assumption is; The Sacrifice of the Romish Mass is unbloody. Our Conclusion necessarily followeth, which is this; Ergo, say we, your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory. Your Cardinal, in Answering first that the 
d Loquitur Apostolus de Sacrifici●s veteris Legis,— Potest etiam absolutè & generatim accipi, quod quotiescunque fit remissio, fit sanguinis effusio: sed non nisi virtute effusionis sive nunc facta, sive post futura. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Ad illud.  Apostle spoke this of the Sacrifice of the old Law, only standeth twice convicted of a foul Tergiversation; first, by the Apostles Explication of himself, who although he spoke from the observation of the old Testament, Heb. 9 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the new Testament, in the same Chapter, vers 13, 14. But much more by his own Conscience, who having spent some Chapters, in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Mass, doth now deny that this Proposition of [No Remission of sins without shedding of Blood] is to be applied to the Eucharist. He is glad therefore to add a second Answer, given by your Maldodonate, who finding no security in the former Refuge, betaketh himself to another, saying that 
e Si accommodemus ad Evangelium, dicendum est, peccata nunc remitti, non propter praesentem effusionem, sed per praeteritam. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. immediatè antè exitum Tom. 1.  Remission of sins is not now for any present effusion of Blood, but for that effusion which had been. Which Answer (if we may so interpret it) is a plain Prevarication. The Reason may be this; first, because there was never Bloody Sacrifice (Christ on the Cross excepted, which only was of infinite virtue, as well to times past, as to come) but it was always actually by the effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing. These kinds of so ordinary Doubtings and Turnings, which your Disputers use, as men in a maze, do plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute judgements, or else their dissolute Consciences; and in either of both their desperate Cause.  
We have not done yet, but give you further to understand, that as you could find no proper Sacrificing Act, to make your Mass properly a Sacrifice, so neither can ye show any propitiating Act, to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory. This we prove out of your Council of Colen, which 
f Si respicimus corpus Christi, quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propitiatorium, non ratione oblationis, quam Sacerdos facit, sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruse? Conc. Provinc. Colon. de Missa, fol. 105. And a little after. Non propitia●orium, ratione Sacrificii, quod est situm in actione Sacerdotis, seu Missae communicantium, aut Ecclesiae: sed ratione Sacrificii, quod in cruse oblatum.  Concludeth, that your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be called Propitiatory in respect of any Act of Oblation of the Priest, or accommodation of the Communicants, or yet of the Church: but only of the Oblation once made by Christ himself on the Cross. Which oblation how absent it is, who seeth not, that is present with himself? Thus were those Divines driven to an Objective Act of Oblation.   

IV. Confutation from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice.  
SECT. IV.  
THe last is in respect of the value, for Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross you do Christianly esteem to have been of 
a Mirum non est, si cum Christus infinitus extitit, ejus hostia fuit infiniti meriti & satisfactionis. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 265, 266.  Infinite merit and Satisfaction, because it was offered by himself: and that otherwise 
b Erat infiniti valoris: nec enim aliter potuit compensari injuria Deo facta. Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19  He could not have made Satisfaction to an Infinite and Divine Majesty. So you. But of the Sacrifice of the Mass, what? The common opinion of our Church (saith your 
c Valour Sacrificii Missae est finitus. Haec est communis sententia Theologorum: in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis— quod infinitae virtutis erat, & nunquàm repetitur. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. §. Quarta P●op. [And yet it is known that Card. Cajetan, C●nus, and Scotus were of a contrary opinion.] To this last testimony of Ballarmine add also Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 5. Tract. 33. §. Tertiò.  Cardinal) is that it is but of finite value. So he. Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in itself of remission of an infinite guilt against an infinite Majesty.  

CHALLENGE.  
A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there cannot be, than (as you have hitherto done) by defending Positions repugnant to your own Definition, and by obtruding things as proper, which are void of all due Properties. This being all one, as if you, in the Case of Miracles, would deliver unto us a jannes' and jambres, instead of Moses; in Art, Sophistry for Logic; in Commerce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, adulterate Coin for current; and in warlike stratagems, instead of a natural, a Trojane Horse. Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable (to speak mildly) men! Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice, according to your own Explanations thereof.     

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Romish Application of their Sacrifice.  
The State of the Question.  
THat the Eucharist was ordained of Christ, for the Application of remission of sins Sacramentally to all Communicants, is the profession of all Protestants. That the Sacrifice of Christ's Cross is therein offered up Objectively, by Commemoration and Supplication, for all Conditions of men, hath an universal Consent among them, without Exception. But that any substantial Body, as subjectively contained in the Mass, can be the Sacrifice of applying the merits of Christ for remission of sins, (which is your 
a Conc. Trid. Ut visibile Sacrificium— quo cruenti Sacrificii virtus in remissionem peccatorum applicaretur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.  Tridentine faith) hath been hitherto impugned and infringed throughout our whole former Dispute. Furthermore our present Opposition is threefold: first, concerning the sins that are said to be remitted. Secondly, touching the parties, who have Remission. Thirdly, in regard of your Priests, by whom Application of Remission of sin is made.  

I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Mass, for remission of sins or Punishment.  
SECT. I.  
NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sins (say we) which is not absolute, but only partial. Your jesuit 
b Ribera Ies. Quoniam quotidiè peccamus, quotidiè vi●tutem passionis Christi participamus, quod Conc. Trid. docuit, quo cruentum illud, semel in cruse peragendum, repraesentaretur, atque salutaris ejus virtus in remissionem peccatorum eorum, quae quotidiè à nobis committuntur, applicaretur. Et hoc Catholicis quidem hominibus manifestissimum est, Haeretici negare non possunt, quoniam Scripturae verbis apertissimè comprobatur de virtute passionis, ad omnia peccata tollenda. Rom. 3. & 5. Apoc. 1. 1. Joh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num. 16.  Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us, and friendly to join hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission of sins, pretending that this was Decreed in the Council of Trent, as indeed it seemeth to have been, and that from the Authority of Scripture; and he addeth, that Protestants (whom he is pleased to grace with the name of 
* See the last Testimony.  Heretics) do not deny this manifest Truth. So he. Do you mark? a Truth, a manifest Truth, a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Council, and a Truth consented unto by the Heretics, as being a manifest Truth.  
Who would not now look for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception? But behold (even since that Council of Trent) your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction, saying, that to hold 
c Opinio prima. Omnes culpas mortales, & omnia peccata (post Baptismum commissa) per Sacrificium Altaris— sic vult Catharinus— Haec opinio non vera, nisi omnes Theologi fallantur. Ca●●● loc. theol. lib. 12. pag. 432, 433.  All mortal sins to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Mass, is false, except all Divines be deceived. So he, speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church.  
Your jesuit Valentia noteth, among you, another sort of Doctors, maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth only for 
d Vale●t. Ies. Itaque sunt, qui censeant hoc Sacrificium valere tantùm ad relaxationem poenarum, quarum culpa prius condonata fuit. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 5. §. Itaque sunt. pag. 542. Remittuntur venialia. Costerus Christien. iustitut. lib. 1. cap. 8.  Remission of such temporal punishment, the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your own Doctors, throughout out all these former points of Controversy already handled, he will think himself to be among the people called Andabatae, who first blind-folding themselves fell a buffeting one another, not knowing whom they hit; therefore we leave them in their broils, and ourselves will consult with Antiquity.    

That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion, but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sins.  
SECT. II.  
Cardinal 
a Alan. Card. Pro iis peccatis, pro quibus Christus mortuus est. Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 35. [Wherein he bringeth the Testimonies of Chrysostome, Cyprian, Theophylact, and Origen, expounding them of all sins, adding also;] Ego verò nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificii usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata, quam ipsa immolatio crucis. Ibid. pag. 626.  Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers, for proof of an Application for remission of all sins, for which Christ died. The Fathers, whom he produceth, are these, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Cyprian, and Origen. If these will not suffice, you may take unto you these 
b Calix— sive medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates. Cypr. de coena Domini. Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur. August. de Civit. lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio, omnis sortis purgatio. Da●asc. lib. 4. defied, cap. 14. Omne crimen. Jul. Papa apud Gratian. de Consecratione. Dist. 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat. Ambros. lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. [There might be added Justine Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone, Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Ephes. Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil, and others that are extant.]  other, julius' Pope of Rome, justin Martyr, Augustine, Cyril, and Basil. Do you require any more? What needeth it? seeing that the same Cardinal further saith, There is found no Father to the contrary. Thus much of the Application, which is to be made by this Sacrament, the next is, For whom.   

That the Romish Use of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass to Non-Communicants, because of their present Attendance, is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity.  
SECT. III.  
THE Greek and Latin Churches anciently made up the whole Catholic Church. The Greek pronounced an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Begun, to all Non-Communicants: the Latin Church also ordained, that the Deacon should proclaim all Not-Communicants to Depart. From which Custom afterwards the word Mass had its orginal; namely from the words, [Ite, missa est] as 
* See above, Book● 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  hath been confessed. But now the Case is so altered, that if any Non-Communicant being present shall in Devotion apply himself to your Romish Mass, your 
c Canon Missa (De Applicatione)— & omnium Circumstanstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, & nota devotio, pro quibus Tibi offerimus, etc.  Canon of the Mass provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sins. And that, as your jesuit teacheth, 
d Hinc Suarez jes. Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificii est fructuosa ex opere operato: ergò rationi consentaneum est, ut omnes, qui ad illam verè concurrunt, vel per proprium actum, se● concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis. I● 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art. 1. Disp. 79. §. 8.  The fruit of the Sacrifice [Ex opere operato] redoundeth unto him; and not this only, but also to be 
e Costerus Christian. Institutionum, lib. 1. cap. 8. de sacro Missae officio quotidiè audiendo. Quotquot adsunt & dign●●…arant, spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per o● Sacerdotis.  Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest.  
Be you therefore entreated to lend your Attention, but for an Instant of time, and then tell us whether we speak Reason unto you, or no. All Antiquity Catholic (as hath been generally 
* Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  confessed by yourselves) never admitted to that part of the Mass, which you call a Sacrifice, any but such as were prepared to Communicate, in receiving the Sacrament, but shut all others out of Doors; which, we say, they neither would nor could lawfully have done, if they had been of your now Romish faith, to believe that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devontly attend to behold it. For, wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the jews, under the Law, all persons had liberty to partake thereof. We think that this Argument sticketh fast in the Bowels of this Cause.   

That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion, in her Applying of it to others, for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gain in behalf of the Priest; without all warrant of Antiquity.  
SECT. IV.  
HItherto we have expected some Reasons, which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion, in the Application thereof for remission either of sins or punishments. And now at length your jesuit Salmeron cometh to resolve us, saying, 
a Salmeron Ies. Si hoc esset infiniti valoris, & celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omnium animarum, quae in Expiatorio carcere continentur, totum evacuaret Purgatorium: quod non est credendum, quia frustrà tot Missae pro u●o defuncto celebrarentur. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 268. De Missis privatis.  If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value, than one Mass being said for all the souls in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place, and then should it be in vain to say many Masses for one soul. So he. We may not so far digress, as to enter into this Controversy of Purgatory, because we are to finish that which we have now in hand. Else were it easy to show, that the infinite gain, which your Alchemists work out of your forge of Purgatory-fire, hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and graceless Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood: which is so utterly forlorn of all approbation from Antiquity, that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one jota, out of any Father, for warrant thereof.  
Next, in the Sacrifice of your Mass, there is (say 
b Valent. Ies. Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti, quaedam ei, cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare— Quae intentio non tantùm valet pro pluribus, ac si pro uno solo celebretur. Lib. 〈◊〉. de Missa, cap. ●l●. §. Ac primum. & Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro offered, ratione stipendii. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 79. §. 9 pag. 1021.  you) a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone, which is a power to apply, by his Memento, the same Sacrifice to whom he will, so far forth that he extend his Memento upon any one, to whom he shall be pleased to intend it, upon Condition to receive money therefore: in so much that It will be more available for that one, than if it were extended to many. So you. Very well, but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their own advantage? Cardinal 
c Alan. In certarun personarum Caus●… certam Sacrificii aestimationem, ac fructus quantitatem definite non tàm certa loquimur, quià ad ista particularia nec Scripturae, nec Patres quicquam conferunt. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635.  Alan (your Advocate) is ready to answer for you, and we are attentive to hear what he saith; There is not either any Scripture (saith he) or Father showing any such thing for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice. So he.  
In the third place, whiles we are in this speculation, we hear one of you putting this Case. If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter, upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soul of john, departed this life, and he notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soul of Paul, whether now the Priest's Memento should work for the good of the soul of john, according to the Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter, or else for the good of the soul of Paul, according to the Priest's immediate Intention. Here, although some of you stand for the justice of the 
d Inquiri potest, an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitiâ applicare Sacrificium Petro, ratione ab eo accepti stipendii; nihilominus applicat Paulo: vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto, offered pro se. Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operati in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri, sed secundùm obligationem, quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offer. Alii volunt obligationem tenere— Sed operatur secundum intentionem Ministri, quatenùs est Christi Minister▪ Suarez q ᵒ supra. [But your Cardinal,] Sed injustè facere. Alan q ᵒ sup. cap. 35. pag. 640.  Priest's Obligation, yet some others Resolution is, that the Priest's intention (albeit unjust) must stand for good. We have done.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHereas it is now evident, that your Romish Mass serveth so well for your no small gain, by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soul for money, as it were the Cook's fee, and that but only for the pains of a Spiritual Intention; yea, though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser: It can be no marvel, that we hear so often, and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Roman Mass, as ever Demetrius, and his fellow Crafts-mates made for Diana, the Goddess of the Ephesians.  
It remaineth, that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice, which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Book. We hasten to the last Examination, which is of Protestants.     

CHAP. XII.  

That the Protestants, in their Celebration, offer to God a Spiritual Sacrifice, which is Propitiatory, by way of Complacency.  
SECT. I.  
CAll but to mind our former 
* See above, Chap. 1.  Distinction of a double kind of propitiousness; one of Complacency, and Acceptation, and the other of Merit, and Equivalency; and join hereunto your own definition of propitiousness by way of gracious acceptance, when you confess that Every religious Act, whereby man in devotion adhereth entirely unto God, in acknowledgement of his Sovereignty, mercy, and bounty, is propitious unto God. Now then, Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Son of God, and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death, and man's Redemption thereby (a work far exceeding in worth the Creation, if it so were, of a thousand Thousand worlds) and thereby pouring out their whole spirit of Thankfulness unto God (in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other, to be called Eucharistia, that is, A Giving of Thanks, and that most worthily, for as much as the end and efficacy of Christ's Passion is no less than our Redemption from the eternal pains of hell, and purchase of our everlasting salvation:) All these (I say) and other Duties of holy devotion being performed not according to Man's Invention, as yours; but to that direct, and express Prescript, and ordinance of Christ himself [Do this,] It is not possible, but that their whole complemental Act of Celebration must needs be through God's favour propitious, and wellpleasing in his sight. Take unto you our last Proposition, concerning the second kind of propitiousness.   

That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sin than the Romish do.  
SECT. II.  
BEfore we resolve any thing, we are willing to hear your Cardinal's Determination. The Death of Christ (saith 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 3. Mora Christi est Sacrificium propriè dictum, & perfectiffimum.  he) is a proper, and most perfect Sacrifice. So he, most Christianly: But after noting the Profession of Protestants, to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is the only proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion, he denieth this, because (saith he) 
b Bellarm. ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur. Sublato Sacrificio Missae, nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum. Nam si ullum esset, id esset Sacrificium Crucis, illud enim unum Adversarii assignant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium. At hoc commune omnibus veris religionibus, sed semel peractum manet, quoad effectum, & virtutem.  This is common to all true Religions, and being but once done, ceaseth to be any more, but only in the virtue and efficacy thereof. And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Mass, by the hands of the Priest.  
But we, believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as (according to our other distinction) the only subjective, meritorious, and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice, therefore it ceaseth to be so any more; but yet is still objectively perpetual in the Church of God, as the object of our Remembrance of his Death, Representatively and Commemoratively, both in our Acts of Celebration, and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacy and Virtue thereof. In which respect (as Christian Belief professeth) Christ is called 
* Apoc. 5. 12.  The Lamb s●aine from the beginning of the world: so is he the same still, and ever will be until the end thereof; for which Cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A showing of the Lord's Death till he come. So that as by the Bodily Eye, beholding the 
* john 3.  Serpent on a pole in the Wilderness, they that were stung with the deadly poison of fiery Serpents were healed: even so All, who by Faith, the Eye of the soul, behold the Son of God lift upon the Cross, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.  
But what is that propitiousness of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body (will you say) which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God, than that we Romanists do, and wherein doth the difference consist? Be you as willing to hear as to ask, and then know, that first although the whole Act of our Celebration, in Commemoration of Christ's Death, as proceeding from us, be a Sacrifice propitious, as other holy Acts of Devotion, only by God's Complacency and Acceptance; Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ, in his Body and Blood, is to us, by the efficacy thereof, a truly and properly propiatory Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, for a perfect remission of all sins. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if we consider your own outward Acts of Celebration, (where in Ten Circumstances we find Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ, and therefore provocatory to stir up God's displeasure) we think not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance.  
Next, when we dive into the mystery of your Mass, to seek out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest, which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in itself; it hath been found (besides our proofs from Scriptures, and your own Principles) by 
* See a Synops● hereof, Book 8.  Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramental Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ. Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly (that is, Satisfactorily) in itself Propitiatory, than natural Bread can be Christ.  
Lastly, in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Mass, We perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves, whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sins, or else of Temporal Punishments due to such Sinners; or if of Sins, whether of mortal sins, or else of venal sins only: to wit, such as you think may be washed away by your own Holy-water sprinkle. Mark now, we pray you, these three: First, what you offer, namely not to Christ, but his Sacrament. Secondly, by what Acts of Celebration, to wit, most whereof are not Acts of Obedience, but of Transgression. Thirdly, to what End, viz. not for a Faithful, but for a doubtful; not for an absolute, but for a partial Remission, and that also you know not whether of sins, or of punishments: and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happiness of our Protestants profession, concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist, in comparison of your Romish. How much more, when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof, which is our next Task.     

THE SEVENTH BOOK;  
Concerning the last Romish Consequence, derived from the depraved sense of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY;] which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament; contrary to these other words of Christ, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME]  

CHAP. I.  
WE have hitherto passed thorough many dangerous and pernicious Gulfs of Romish Doctrines, which our instant haste will not suffer us to look back upon, by any repetition of them. But now are we entering upon Asphaltites, or Mare mortuum, even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatry; whereinto all their superstitious and sacrilegious Doctrines do empty themselves: which, how detestable it is, we had rather prove, than prejudge.  

The State of the Question, concerning Adoration of the Sacrament.  
SECT. I.  
IN the thirteenth Session of your Council of Trent, we find a Decree commanding thus, 
a Concil. Trid. Cultum Latriae, qui vero Deo debetur, in veneratione huic Sacramento exhibeant. Sess. 13. cap. 5.  Let the same divine honour, that is due to the true God, be given to this Sacrament. After this warning-piece, they shoot of a great 
b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filium cultu Latriae non esse adorandum; Anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 6.  Canon of Anathema, and Curse against every one that shall not herein worship Christ (namely, as corporally present) with Divine honour. That is to say, 
c Suarez Ies. Adoratione Latriae absolutâ, & perfectâ, quâ per se adoratur Christus— Non solùm Christum sub specie●us, sed to●um visibile Sacramentum unico Latriae cultu, quia est unum constans ex Christo & speciebus— Sicut vostis— Magna est differentiae inter has species & crucem, quae reipsa disjuncta est 〈◊〉 Ch●isto. In 3. Thom. q. 79. Disput. 65. §. 1, & 2.  To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ, in the forms of bread and wine, as your jesuit expoundeth it; A worship (saith he) far exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix. Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught, in your 
d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis [Hoc est corpus meum, etc.] hostiam clevat, ●amque adorat— adorandamque ostendit— post genu slexo ad terram usque ipsam veneratur. Ritus c●lebrandi Missam. Post genuflectit; inclinatur Sacramento pectus ter percutiens, dicit, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miscrere nobis, etc. Canon. Missae.  Roman Missal, to elevate the Consecrated Host, and to propound it to the people to be adored; and adoring it themselves in thrice striking their breast, to say, O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us. So you.  
But what do they, whom you call Sacramentaries, judge of this kind of worship, can you tell? 
e Bellarm. Omnes Idololatriam appellant hujusmodi adorationem. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. §. Porrò.  All of them (saith your Cardinal) call it Idolatry. But they, whom you call Lutherans, are they not of the same judgement? say, 
f Greg. Valent. Lutherani nos Idololatras vocant, seu (ut ipsi nugari solent) Artolatras. Lib. 1. de Idololat. cap. 3. §. Sed.  They call us (because of this worship) Artolaters, that is, Bread-worshippers and Idolaters, saith your jesuit. As for our Church of England, She accordingly saith, that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.  
Our Method must now be to treat first of Christ's Institution, or Mass; next of the Profession of Ancient Fathers; then of your Romish Mass in itself; and lastly we shall return again to our own home, to demonstrate the happy Security, which our Church hath in her manner of worship. So that these contradictory Propositions, This Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship, and, Is not to be adored with divine worship, being the two different scales of this Controversy, the one will preponderate the other, according to the weight of Arguments, which shall be put into either of them.   

Of the Institution of Christ; showing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacrament, nor Practice thereof.  
SECT. II.  
NO outward Adoration of the Sacrament was practised of the Disciples of Christ (say we) at the Institution thereof, which you confess with us; and take upon you to give a reason thereof, to wit, that 
g Coster. Ies. Nec opus erat ut genuflexo significationem novam honoris darent, sumentes corpus dominicum, quià cundem habebant piaesentem, & corpus suum porrigentem, quem ment semper colebant. Enchir. de Euch. Tit. Adoratio, Answering this Objection: Apostoli in ultima coena hoc Sacramentum non adorabant.  There was no need that the Apostles should use any outward signification of honour to the Sacrament, because they had then Christ present and visible before them. So your jesuit, which contradicteth your own Objection, of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament, because than he 
* Sec hereafter, Chap. 7. Sect. 2.  Come under the roof of your mouths; for the nearer our approach is to any Majesty, the greater useth to be our outward humiliation. But well; no Practice of outward Adoration by the Apostles at that time can appear, much less have you any Evidence of any Precept for it. If there had been in the words of Christ, or in the volume of the new Testament any syllable thereof, your Cardinal would not have roved so far, as to Deuteronomie in the old Testament, to fetch his only defence out of these words of God, 
h Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. Scriptum est Deut. 6. Dominum tuum adorabis, etc. §. His praemissis.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; (supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Son of God:) which is, as it were, mere Canting, being the basest kind of Reasoning that can be, and is therefore called of Logicians, A begging of the point in Question.  
We contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessary, and essential thereunto, and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver 
* 1. Cor. 11.  Whatsoever he had received of the Lord, concerning this Sacrament (which you hold to be the principal part of your Romish Religion) we are persuaded that he in expressing the other Commands of Christ, touching Consecration, Administration, and Communication of this Sacrament, never taught that your Article of divine Adoration, whereof he gave not so much as the least intimation. The Apostolical times fail you. We shall try if the next, called the Primitive Age, can any whit advantage your Cause, which is our second Station.    

CHAP. II.  

Of the Doctrine of Antiquity, concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist.  
SECT. I.  
THE judgement of Antiquity is objected by you, and the same is opposed by us against you. Let both be put to the Trial; First, by answering of your Objections out of the Fathers against us: and then by opposing their direct Testimonies against you. Your Objections are partly Verbal, and partly Practical; the Verbal are of three kinds, two whereof are specified in the next Proposition.   

That neither the objected manner of Invitation to come with fear, nor of Association of Angels, spoken of by the Fathers, imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist.  
SECT. II.  
Out of 
a Chrysost. in Mom. ad Cor. 24. Cum horrore accedamus ad Deum. Ob. Harding etc. I●em Bellarm. lib. 2. d● Euch. cap. 22. Citati● locis quibusdam Chrysostomis, ad hae● Adversarii neque respondent, neque respondere possint: Si enim Angeli ad altare astant capitibus inclinatis, & cum horrore ac tremore vix audent intueri, propter splendorem inde emicantem, quis negare potest aliud ibi esse quam panem? Et si Angeli adorant, quis homines reprehendere potest si adorent? Paulo superius ex Hon. 4. 〈◊〉. ad Coriath Accedimus ad agnum illum jacentem, & peccata mundi tollen●em deprecantes: ubi apertissimè dielt vocari agnum jacentem, etc. Et Hom. ad Ephes. 3. Hostiam quam Angeli cum tremore suscipiunt.  Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation, that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament, Do come with horror, fear, and reverence. Next, is their talking of the Angels, being present at this Celebration, holding down their heads, and not daring to behold the excellency of the splendour, etc. and to deprecate the Lamb lying on the Altar. These seem to your Cardinal to be such invincible Testimonies, to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present, that he is bold to say, They never hitherto were answered, nor yet possibly can be. So he; taking all Chrysostom's words in a literal sense; whom notwithstanding your own 
* See above, B●●ke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. in the Challenge.  Senensis hath made to be the most Hyperbolising Preacher of all the Fathers: and therefore hath given unto all Divines a special Caution against his Rhetoric, in the point of this Sacrament, lest we understand him literally. Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places Objected, where 
b Chrysost. Orat. in Philogon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem paulò superius.  Chrysostome saith indeed, That we see that Lamb lying on the Altar. And said he not also, even in the same Oration, We see here Christ lying in the Manger, wrapped in his clouts; a dreadful and admirable spectacle? So he. But (say) do you see herein either Cratch or Clothes? or can you talk of Christ's lying on this Altar, who teach that, as he is in this Sacrament, he hath no local Site, Posture, or Position at all? It is also true of the Angels, he said [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] they stand in dread, and the sight is fearful. And he saith no less of the festival day of Christ's Nativity, that It is most venerable, and terrible, and the very Metropolis of all others. Yet doth not this argue any Corporal Presence of Christ, in respect of the day. This answer, taken from Chrysostome, may satisfy for Chrysostome.  
We grant furthermore to your 
c Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Quinto— Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium, & horroris plenum.  Cardinal, That all the Greek Fathers call the Eucharist terrible, and full of dread. But what? As therefore implying a Corporal presence of Christ, and Divine Adoration thereupon? This is your Cardinal's scope; but to prove him an ill marksman, take unto you an answer from yourselves, 
* See above, Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.  who teach with the Apostle, that All profane comers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ; in which respect we do acknowledge it to be Dreadful indeed, especially to the wicked: but yet making no more for a Corporal presence, than the contempt of Baptism, whereby a man maketh himself obnoxious to God's judgements, (as 
* See above, Book 5. Chap. 2 Sect. 7.  Augustine hath compared them) can infer the same. Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers, who, together with the Eucharist, have 
* See above, Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8.  called the reading of Scriptures Terrible; and so were the Canons of Baptism called Terrible, even by 
* Ibidem.  Chrysostome himself.  
As for your objected assistance of Angels, at the Celebration of the Eucharist, it is no such a Prerogative, but that the Prayers of the faithful, and Baptism will plead for the same honour: your Durandus granting of the first, that 
d Durand. Angeli adsunt semper nobis orantibus. Lib. 7. c. 12.  The Angels of God are present with us in our prayers; and for the second, Divine Nazianzen teacheth that 
e Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 40. de Baptism.  The Angels are present at Baptism, and do magnify, or honour it with their presence, and observance: notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism, or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of water therein. If these two may not serve, take unto you this saying of Augustine, spoken of persons baptised, 
f August. de meritis & de remiss. lib. 11. cap. 18. de baptizatis; Illi cum timore ad medicum Christum portantur.  They (saith he) with fear are brought unto Christ their Physician, that is (for so he expoundeth himself) unto the Sacrament of eternal Salvation. Which one saying of so Oxthodox a Father doth instruct us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies; to with, that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ, they ought to come with fear, as if they were in the presence of Christ. And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered, so that this your Cable-rope being untwisted is become no better than loose tow. Now to your third Objection.   

That the most earnestly-objected Phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and Adoration, used of the Fathers, doth not necessarily infer any Divine Worship of the Eucharist.  
SECT. III.  
WE find not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument, than in objecting the word, Reverence, Honour, and especially Adoration, for proof that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist, as to Christ himself, whensoever they find the use of that Phrase applied by Antiquity unto this Sacrament. Our answer is first in General; That the words Reverence, Honour, and Adoration, simply in themselves, without the adjunct and Additament, Divine, cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God. To this purpose we desire you not to hearken unto us, but to hear yourselves speak. 
a M. Breerly. Pon-Pontificales vestas, & calices coeperunt esse honorandi, Sacramenti causâ. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 〈◊〉. Sub●. 2.  The Pontifical Vestments, Chalices, and the like, are to be honoured, say you, but how? with divine Honour? you will not say it; nor will you hold that ancient Bede worthy of Divine Worship, albeit you entitle him Venerable, in a Religious respect. Yea (under the degree of divine worship) we ourselves yield as much to the Eucharist as 
b August. Epist. 164. Baptism Christi ubique veneramur.  Augustine did to Baptism, when he said, We reverence Baptism wheresoever it is.  
Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinal and other jesuits are bold to say, that 
c Ribera Ies. in Apoc. 19 Item Viegas Ies. in eundem locum. Nec nos moveat verbum hoc [Adorare] cum vulgatum sit hoc creaturis tribui, ut Loth cum vidisset Angelos su●●exit, & adoravit eo● pronus in terram. 3. Reg. 1. Inclinaba● se & adorabat Bersheba Regem prona in terram. Rectè igitur Johannes adoravit Angclum laeta nunci●…; Cur Angelus recusavit, Greg. Hom. 8. in Evang. Angelos antè adventum Christi adoratos, post assump●… humanitatem adorationem recusasse. Eodem modo Glossa, Hugo, Rupertus, & alii nonnulli, etc. S● Suarez T●…. 1. D●sp. 54. & Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera, & alium soli Deo, aliam rebu● deberi sacris. Apol. cap. 1. §. Primum. [And he reckoneth A ●oration of Relics, Tombs of Martyrs, etc.  It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to creatures, as to Angels, to Kings, to Martyrs, and to their Tombs. And although your Disputers should conceal this Truth, yet would the Fathers themselves inform us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration. Among the Latin Fathers, one, who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any, viz. Tertullian, saying, 
d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum. Adversus Hermog. post medium. pag. 350.  I adore the plenitude of Scriptures; and Gregory Nazianzen, among the Greek, for his excellency in divine knowledge surnamed the Divine (and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine 
(c) Greg. Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 40.  Worship preposterously or improperly) instructed the partty baptised to say thus to the Devil, Fall down [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and worship me. Thus much in General.  
Let us proceed, You to your particular Objections; and We to our Answers. 1. Ob. Ambrose saith, that 
f Ambros. lib. 3. de Spir. sanct. cap. 12. Iractans illum locum Psal. 98. [Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus.] Per Scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem ca●o Christi, quam hodiè quoque in mysteriis adoramus: & quam Apostoli in Domino jesu adoraverunt. Ob. 1. per Bell. Apol. cap. 8. pag. 107. Hic locus nullam admittit solutionem. Item lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14.  We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ, as the foot stool of his Deity. You call this an Argument infallible: nay (say we) but false, because Ambrose doth not say, that we adore the Sacrament, (which is the point in Question) but that in our mystical Celebration of the memory of Christ his Passion, we are to adore his humanity, namely as it is hypostatically united to the person of his Godhead, which all Christians profess as well as you, yea even in Baptism also. 2. Ob. 
g Aug. in Psalm. 98. Nemo illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit. Ob. Bell. Alius locus insignis. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Alius.  None (saith Augustine) doth eat the flesh of Christ before he adore it. A Testimony which seemeth to you Notable: but which we judge to be indeed not able at all to prove the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament, even in the judgement of Saint Augustine, who hath everywhere distinguished between the Sacrament and Christ's Flesh, as between Bread and Christ's Body, as hath been often demonstrated. His meaning therefore is no more but this, that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament, the Symbol of Christ, must first be a true Christian, believing that Christ is not only man, but God also, and adore him accordingly with Divine honour, as well before and without the Sacrament, as at the receiving thereof. Even as 
h Athanas. contra M●ced. Di●l. 1. pag. 265. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Athanasius spoke of Baptism, saying that The Catechumenists did first adore the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before that they were to be baptised in their names. And is there any of your Priests so unchristian, as not to adore Christ, before he come to the Communion? A plain Case.  
Will you have any more? The places alleged out of Saint Augustine, by you, are like Bellerophon's Letters to confute you; for lest Saint Augustine's Reader might misconstrue the meaning of Christ's words, by perverting them to a Corporal and Oral eating of his Flesh, 
a Aug. in Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis manducaturi estis— spiritualiter intellectum vivi●icavit.  Saint Augustine addeth (bringing Christ speaking to the jews, concerning the eating of his flesh) You are not to eat this flesh, which you see: he saith not, You are not to see the flesh which you shall not eat, (which is your Romish juggling.) But thus, You are not to eat the flesh which you see, namely that, which then was visible when Christ was in the world. This one Testimony of Augustine may satisfy for the present, until another shall be delivered from him, absolutely 
* See hereafter, Chap. 4. Sect. 2.  confuting your Tridentine Faith of the Divine worship of the Host, to prove it Idolatrous.  
Theodoret seemeth unto you to come off roundly, saying 
b Theod. Dial. 2. Signa mystica post sanctificationem manent in priore substantiâ, figurâ, & ●or●…â, sicut p●ius: Intelliguntur autem ea, quae facta sunt, & creduntur: & [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] adorantur. Ob. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. §. Sed apertissimè— asserit praesentiam Domini in Euch. quia p●nis consecratus est verè id quod intelligitur, Creditur, & Adoratur.  That Symbols and Signs are believed and adored, whereby he most evidently teacheth the presence of Christ's flesh (as saith your Cardinal:) even so, as commonly he useth to do in alleging of other Testimonies, both unconscionably against his knowledge, and unluckily against his Cause. For with what Conscience can he urge the word Adoration here, as most evidently noting a Divine worship of the Sacrament, seeing that he hath before confessed the same word, Adore, to be used of the Fathers sometimes for worship communicable to Angels, and Saints, and to their Tombs? yea, and when as also Theodoret (which proveth your Cardinal's Objection luckless) doth expressly say, that The substance of bread remaineth, meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread (as hath been 
* See this discussed to the full, Book 3.  copiously proved) whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given, not only in the Faith of all other Catholic Fathers; but even in the belief of the Roman Church at this day? And although the Symbols, and Signs (as you fancy) were mere Accidents, yet dare not you yourselves say that they are to be properly adored with Divine Worship.  
Hitherto have we insisted upon the words objected out of the Fathers, by you, with more eagerness, than either with good judgement or Conscience. Your next Objections are taken from the Acts, whereunto we address our Answers.    

CHAP. III.  

That no objected Act out of the Fathers, for proof of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, is conscionably alleged; not the first, which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mystery.  
SECT. I.  
ACTS insisted upon by you, for proof of Adoration, are these; The Father's enjoining a Concealment of this Mystery from some others: their Elevation of the Host after Consecration: their cautelousness in administering it, without letting any part thereof fall to the ground: their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation; and their pretended Invocating on it. We acknowledge (that we may begin with the first) how strictly the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others, (which they observed themselves) that this Mystery should be kept secret from all persons, who were not initiated by Baptism, and incorporated thereby into the visible Church of Christ, were they Infidels or Catechumenists (that is) unbaptised Christians. Upon this our Confession, as the Base, harken what a discant your Doctors can chant, saying as followeth; 
a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Eucl. cap. 2. citat Augustin. Serm. 10. de verbis Apost. viz. Quòd corpus dixit escam, & sanguinem potum, Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles— Et hanc phrasin [nórunt fideles] habet in lo●is infinitis: at profectò non est fidelibus tantùm notum, quòd corpus Christi fide percip●atur. Idem objicit Cla●di●● de Sanctis ante lib. de Litur●iis Patrum. Rurs●… Bellar. 〈◊〉 sup. cap. 15. At cettè nulla reddi potest causa, cu● Eucharistiam ne videri quidem permitterent Infidelibus, vel etiam Catechumenis, si nihil est nisi signum.  The Fathers said of this mystery of the Eucharist that only [Fideles norunt] the faithful know it: and therefore we must be persuaded they understood a Corporal Presence of Christ herein; and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it. Master Breerly swelleth big, in amplifying this Objection; take a brief of the whole. The Father's professing to write more circumspectly of this Sacrament, so as not daring to explain it, as Theodoret, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostome; this were causeless, if the Fathers had thought Christ's words figurative; nor had it been more necessary in this than in Baptism, had the Fathers acknowledged no other presence in this, than in Baptism, etc. So he.  
Well then, by your own judgement, if it may be found that the Fathers observed alike Circumspection in the manner of uttering, and cautelousness in concealing the Sacrament of Baptism from Infidels, and Catechumenists; then must you confess that this your Argument maketh no more for proof of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, as you would have it, than in Baptism, where you confess it is not. And now behold the Fathers are as precise in conclealing the Mystery of Baptism, from all Persons unbaptised, even in as express terms as was spoken of in the Eucharist; Chrysostome saying, (against such Persons) 
b Chrysost. in Gal. 4. Non natura, sed Dei, promissio Sacramentum fecit: sic ●enascentia nostra natura quidem nulla est, c●terum verbum Dei, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The faithful know this. And again, entering into a discourse of Baptism, he prefaceth saying; 
c And again in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to ●ntreat of the words of S. Paul, [Quid facient two, qui baptizantur pro mortuis? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I would indeed speak this plainly, but I dare not, because of them that are not initiated, or Baptised. And Dionysius, the supposed Areopagite, 
d Dionies. Hierarch. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signs of Baptism: even as the Council 
e Conc. Arausican. 1. Catechumeni non sunt ad Baptismum admittendi. Can. 19  Arausicanum also decreed. Which Cautions are long since antiquated by disuse in Churches Christian, because all are now baptised that come to behold this Sacrament. If hereupon any Protestant shall infer a Corporal presence of Christ in Baptism, and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament, you yourselves (we know) would but hiss at him, in detestation of his Consequence, as judging it Idolatrous.  
But do you ask, why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speak of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechumenists? Saint Augustine himself (whom your Cardinal hath brought in for defence of Corporal presence) will resolve us, and witness against him, telling him, that the reason was not the sublimity of the matter, as though they could not apprehend it, but because 
f Aug. Tom. 9 Tract. 96. in joh. Quid si eis fidelium Sacramenta non producuntur, non ideò fit, quod ea ferre non possent, sed ut ab iis tantò ardenti●s concupiscantur, quantò honorabilius eis occultantur. [Speaking of the Catechumenists.]  The more honourably the Sacraments are concealed (speaking in general) the more ardently they would be coveted and desired. As for their not revealing them unto Infidels, the reason is evident; Infidelity is a mocker, and they meant to preserve Christ's Sacrament from contempt. Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing.   

That the objected Elevation, or lifting up of the Host, and preserving of it from falling, are no Arguments of Adoration.  
SECT. II.  
SEcondly, the Elevation of the Host over the head of the Priest is your ordinary Objection, for proof of a Divine Adoration; although you have 
* Suarez. See above, Book 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 〈◊〉. at (a).  confessed, that this was not of prime Antiquity. But supposing Elevation to have been so ancient, yet was it not to the end it should be adored, no more than was the Book of the Gospel, in the Roman Church, when it was (according to the Rite then) 
a Durant. de Ritib●… lib. 2. cap. 23. num. 7. 〈◊〉 ordine Romano Diaconus osculan● Evangelium, levat in manus codicem, & partem ejus in dextro humero ponens, vadi● ad Ambonem.  Lift up by the hands of the Deacon, and carried on hi● right shoulder. What else will you say of the Priest's Elevation? you would persuade (in the 
b Ida● d● Ritib. lib. 2. cap. 40. in Psal. 7●. In capite montium: hoc est (ait Rabbi Jonathan) Sacrificium in capitibu● Sacerdotum. Durand. Rational. lib. 4. cap. 42. num. 54. Elevatur, ut populu● congressu● consecrationem factam esse, & Christum super Altare venisse reverentèr prosternatur in terram, & illum ore adoret. Et Durant. quo suprà. Adorationis ergò Eucharistiam in altum attolli, Durandus & Ivo asserunt, Probabile est.  Margin) by some, that the Priest lifting the Host over his head, was prophesied of by the Psalmist; And, that the Rite of holding the Host up was chiefly that the people knowing it to be now consecrated, should understand that Christ is on the Altar, whom they are to Adore by falling down on the ground. Whereof albeit some of you speak more confidently, yet the most principal searcher into Antiquity da●e say no more, than only This is probable.  
We contrarily conceive, that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon, which 
* See above, Book 3.  hath been rejected by Bellarmine, as being Idle and Frivolous. 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation (as hath 
* See above, Book 6. Chap. 6. Sect. 5.  been confessed) was neither instituted by Christ, nor yet always in use in Christ's Church. 3. That the same Elevation, albeit used after Consecration, doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake, because it was as well in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration; as your objected 
c missals published by Claudius' Saints à Parisian Dr. Before Consecration, in the Missal of S. james, Attollens: In the Mass of Basil, Exa●…ans pane●….  Missal's of Saint james, and Basil do manifest. Lastly, that where Elevation was practised after Consecration, the objected Authors confute your Assertion, for in Chrysostome it is read, 
d After Consecration, in the Mass of Chrysostome, Modicum 〈◊〉 tollens Sacerdos, dicit Sancta sanctis.  That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish, and held it up but a little: this is not lifting it over the Head, or very high, as your reason for Adoration would require. And in your objected Saint 
e In Dionies. Areopag. relating the form of their Mass, objected by Duran●… de ●iti●. lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria, quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos, venerandis oper●a signis in conspectum agi●, divinaque mu●cr● reverentèr ostenden●, ad Sacram Communionem convertitur. [Wherein there is no one word of▪ Venerandis, or Reverentèr, but this.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Dionies. Areopag. cap. 3.  Denis there is no more, but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light, which after Consecration he termeth uncovered Bread▪ divided of the Priest into many parts. Bread (we say) broken after Consecration; which is the breakneck of your whole Defence.  
Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers, to take heed▪ 
f Ter●…ll. in lib. de Cor●●● milit. Calicis a●t panis aliquid in terram discuti, anxiè patimur. Ob. by Mr. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 2. Sect. 8. Subd. 4. pag. 216. And out of Origen. Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumb fall to the ground. Tract. 4. Sect. 6. And Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the consecrated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer, and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto as●…es. So great a Reverence was then prescribed. Ibid. Tract. 2. Sect. 8. Subd. 4.  Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground, and if any little part thereof should fall, it should be left to the Priest, and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Mass (say you) should be burnt to ashes, and the ashes laid up. So you. Pharaoh his Butler and ●aker, we are sure, would have been loath to miscarry in spilling, or letting fall any part of their carriage, when they were to present their service unto their King; much more carefully ought every Christian, in executing his sacred Function, to observe the Laws of Decorum. Mark we, by the way, Master Breerly durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part, not A part of Christ's Body, that were Impious, not a part of Accidents that were absurd: what meaneth this childish Fabling trow we, but that if they should speak out, they should betray their Cause, in calling that little part a part of Bread, as your objected Dionysius spoke? And when all is said, we hear no proof of Divine Adoration of the Host. But we leave you to take your Answer from your Cardinal, who hath told you that 
* See above, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second Pretence.  Casual spilling of the Cup is no sin.  
Only we must again insist in the former Observation, to wit, the frequent speeches of the Fathers, telling us of Crumbs, Fragments, little parts of this Sacrament; and of Burning them into ashes, after the Celebration ended. Now answer us, in good sadness; was it ever heard of, we say not of ancient Fathers, but of any professing Christianity, were they Catholics or Heretics, who would not have judged it most execrable for any to say, or think that A crumb, or little part of Christ's body falleth? or that by a dash of the Cup, the blood of our Lord is spilt? or that the Primitive Fathers, in the Remainder of the Sacrament, Burned their Saviour? Yet these must they both have thought, and said, if (as you speak of Eating, Swallowing, feeding Corporally of Christ's Body, the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidental Events.   

That the Objection taken from any Gesture, used in the days of Antiquity, doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist.  
SECT. III.  
GEsture is one of the points, which you object, as more observable than the former, but how? Because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with 
a Chrysost. in Liturg. Post●à fimiliter Sacerdos s●…it sanctu●… pan●…, in●…ato capit● ante sacram mens●… oran●.  Inclining hit head down before the holy Table. Cyril, by 
b Cyril. Hierosol. Mys●●g. 5. Accede ad calice●…●anguinis illius pro●… [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  Bowing after the manner of Adoring. You will be still like yourselves, insisting upon Heterogenies, and Arguments which conclude not ad idem. For first, the Examples objected speak not of Bowing down to the Sacrament, but of our Bowing down our heads to the ground, in signification of our Unworthiness; which may be done in Adoring Christ with a [Sursum corda] that is, Lifting up our hearts to Christ above. And this may become every Christian to use, and may be done without divine Adoration of the thing before us.  
Nay and that no Gesture, either standing, sitting, or kneeling, is necessary for such an Adoration, your greatest Advocate doth show out of Antiquity, and affirmeth this as a Point (as 
c Esp●ncae●s. Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu, cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper conven●rit, ac etiamnum convenit, stantes aut ●edentes, proni aut supini, erecti aut geniculati Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus, per se non refert— cum Adoratio non tam in externo cults, quam intimo mentis affectu cernitur. Lib. 2. de Adorat. cap. 16. initio.  he saith) agreed on by all; adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward. Gesture, but in the Intention of the mind. For indeed, there is no one kind of outward Gesture, which (as you have confessed) is not also communicable to man: so that although that were true, which is set down in the Rubric of 
* The Latin is, Inclinantes Altari: but ●…nce I find it in the Greek (before Consecration) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so thrice the l●ke. A●ter Consecration; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [Behind the Table bowing down his head.] And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chrysostom's Liturgy, that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the Altar, yet none can be so simple, to think that they did yield divine honour unto an Altar. Nay, your own great Master of Ceremonies 
d Durant. Peractâ thurificatione, Sacercerdos levitèr incurves●it ante Altar— dùm autem inclina● Sacerdos, humilitatem Christi significat.— Sacerdos reflexus ad Altar, cum paratur Consecratio▪ Lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 25.  Durantus hath observed the like Bowing down of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament, even Before consecration; and one of your jesuits reporteth your objected 
e Vasquez Ies. Graeca Ecclesia ●ntò Consecrationem reveren●er adorat, etiam ●i non sit ibi Christus. D● Adorat. lib. 2. cap. 11. [Falsely commenting that this was Divine honour, and just.]  Greek Church at this day to Adore the Bread and Wine unconsecrated, albeit they believe no Presence of Christ herein.  
This being known, how can you in any credibility conclude, as you have done, a Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration, from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament, before it was consecrated? In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable, because, whereas they show some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament, done before Consecration, yet after Consecration they have not produced any one.  
But what news now? We blush, in your behalf, to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends, of a 
f Mr. Breerly Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 9 Subd. 3. [out of Bellarm. and Bellarm. out of Antoninus]— When (not unlike to the reproof which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Ass) a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himself in reverence before the blessed Sacrament.  Brute Beast prostrating itself before the Host, and doing Reverence unto it. We would have concealed this, but that you seem to glory herein, as being for your Instruction, like to the reproof given miraculously to Balaam by his Ass. Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darkness, wherein it was first hatched, but not these clear days, wherein your mysteries of Delusions have been so often revealed, and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an 
* HORST●…rding ●…rding to his Masters own Relation.  Horse taught by Art to kneel to any person at his Master's command; and once in France, when, by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests, his Master was called into question for Sorcery, he for vindication of his credit with them, commanded his horse to kneel before a Crucifix, and thereby freed himself from suspicion of Diabolical familiarity, according to the Principles of their own superstition. And for any one to conclude this to have been God's miraculous work in that Horse, (as the other was in that Ass) would seem to be the Reason of an unreasonable man; because all Miracles always exceed all power both of Art, and Nature; else were they no Miracles at all. Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts, we pass on to Examples.   

That no Example of Invocation, objected out of Antiquity, can infer the Divine Honour of the Sacrament, as is pretended.  
SECT. IV.  
YOur Instances are Three; the principal in Gorgonia, the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen, in whose Oration, at her funeral, we find that 
a Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 11. de Gorgonia. S●ror Gorgonia adver●â copori● val●●udine laborabat— ●r●tque prodigiosum mor●i genus, quod n●c Medicoru●… arte, nec parentum lachrymis, nec publicis precibus sanari potuit: desperatis omnibus aliis auxiliis intempestâ nocte captat● ad Altare cum fide proc●…it, cumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invoc●ns, cum caput ●●um pari cum c●amore Altari admovisse●, & deigned ho● pharmaco (i. e. L●…ry●…, ut exp●… E●… Cretensis) perfudisset, & si quid uspiam [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Antityporum precio●● Corporis & Sangui●is manu recondiderat, id 〈…〉 admiscuisse● (o rem admirandaml) ●●atim se mor●o liberatam sentit.  She having been troubled with a prodigious disease, after that neither the Art of Physic, nor tears of her Parents, nor the public Prayers of the Church could procure her any health; went and cast herself down at the Altar, invocating Christ, who is honoured on the Altar, saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar, until she had received her health: when (Oh admirable event!) she was presently freed from her disease. This is the Story set down by Gregory Nazianzen. Hence your Cardinal concludeth, that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament, as being the very Body and Blood of Christ, and calleth this An hor and stinging Argument; and so indeed it may be named, yet only in respect of them, whose consciences are scorched, or stung with their own guiltiness of enforcing, and injuring the story, as will now appear.  
For first, why should we think that she invocated the Sacrament? Because (saith your 
b Bellarm. Procumbent aunt Altar coram venerabili Sacramento— Quid autem super altare colatur, dubium esse non potest, cum ●ihil ibi ponatur nisi panis & vinum, mutand● in corpus & sanginem Christi— Petrun Martyre●… valdè u●●it pupugitque hic locus. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14.  Cardinal) she prostrated herself at the Altar, before the Sacrament; which words [Before the Sacrament] are of his own coining, and no part of the Story. His next reason; Because she is said to have invocated him, who is honoured on the Altar. As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord, to Christ, may not be justly said to Invocate him, who is used to be Honoured by the Priest, celebrating the memory of Christ thereon. Nay, and were it granted, that the Sacramental Symbols had been then on on the Altar, yet would it not follow, that she invocated the Sacrament, as betokening a Corporal presence of Christ (as your Disputers have fancied) no more, than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting herself at the sacred Font, wherein she had been baptised, could be thought to have invocated the water therein; because she was said to have invocated him, who is honoured in the Administration of Baptism. And furthermore it is certain, that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those days were kept in their Pastophorium, a 
* Ste●…ve, Book 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgy of Pope ●…nt; Accip●ant D●aco●… reliquias, & portent in Pa●●ophoria (Doubtless, from the Al●ar to a pla●e remote.) Test● Pamel●… Tom. 1. Missal. Pa●rum ●atin. pag. 118.  place severed from the Altar, especially at this time of her being there, which was in the Night, as the Story speaketh.  
O! but she was cured of her disease at the Altar. And so were other miraculous Cures wrought also at the Font of 
* S●e above, Book 4. Chap. 2 Sect. 5.  Baptism But, for a Conclusion, we shall willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Umpire between us. He, in relating the Story, saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, (See the 
* Above at the letter (a).  Margin above) that If she had at that time of her invocating held the Antitypes (or Symbols) of the Body and Blood of Christ in her hands, they had been mingled with her tears. So he, calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes, or Signs of Christ's Body: thereby signifying, that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ, as hath been 
* Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6.  proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen, and other Greek Fathers. Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had been there corporally present, as that which was Invocated; then now (if ever) it had concerned this holy Father to have expressly delivered his supposition thus, viz. If the Body and Blood of Christ had been then held in her hands, her tears had been mingled with them, viz. Body and Blood; and not (as he said) with the Antitypes, or Signs of his Body and Blood. Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly, cold, and altogether dronish.  
Your second Instance is in Dionysius▪ the Areopagite, who writing of the Sacrament 
c Bellarm. Dionies. Ar●op. Hier. cap. 3. part. 3. O divinissimum & sacrosanctum Sacramentum, obducta ●ibi significantium signorum operimenta aperi, etc. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 3. Item ipsum invocat Sacramentum, & petit ab ipso, quae à solo Deo rectè peti possunt. And Durant. de R●tib. lib. 2. cap. 11. And indeed who not?  said, O most divine Sacrament, reveal unto us the mystery of thy signs, etc. which in the ears of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament. chose we confidently affirm, that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation; like men who take Moonshine for Daylight, as we shall manifest by Examples, Confessions, yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himself.  
Prosopopoeia then is a figure, when one calleth upon that which hath no sense, as if it had sense; as when in Scripture the Prophet said, Hear o Heavens, and hearken o Earth, Isa. 1. In like manner, among the Ancient Fathers, one called upon his own Church Anastasia, whence he was to depart, and saying thus, 
d Nazianz. Orat. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Oh Anastasia, which hast restored our Doctrine, when it was despised! Others of the Element of Baptism, thus: Oh water that hath washed our Saviour, and deserved to be a Sacrament! or thus, 
e Ambros. in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua, ●u aspersum sanguine (Christum) l●visti, Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti, etc.  Oh water which once purged the world! or thus, 
f Optat. lib. 6. cont. Parmen. O aqua, quae & purum ●eceras orbem, & terram lavisti.  Oh divine Lavacre, etc. Nay, you yourselves can sing, and chant it to the Cross, 
g O salve Crux, ●pes unica! auge piis just●●iam, etc. Est Prosopopoeia. Vasquez Jes. lib. 2. de Adorat. Disp. 9 cap. 4. pag. 445.  O Cross our only hope, etc. and in expounding the same, allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and figurative speech, lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous. And whereas in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist, Oh holy Feast! This saying (saith another 
h O sacrum convivium! quod omni Sacramento convenit. Tolet. Jes. Instruct. Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 15 p. 366.  jesuit) agreeth to every Sacrament. Thus have you heard both from Fathers, and from yourselves the like Tenor of Invocation; Oh Church! Oh Water! Oh Cross! Oh Feast! nothing differing from Dionysius his Oh Divine Sacrament! yet each one without any proper Invocation at all.  
And that you may further understand, that this Dionysius his OH! is as in voice, so in sense the same which we judge it to be, what better Interpreter can you require of this Greek Author Dionysius, than was his Greek Scholiast Pachumeres? who hath given his judgement of this very speech directly, saying that 
i Pachym. in locum Dionies. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ex Orat. in obitum Gorgon.  It was spoken as of a thing having life, and that fitly, as did Nazienzene (saith he) when he said of the Feast of Easter; O great and holy Feast! etc. And how should this be otherwise? seeing Dionysius, at the writing hereof, was not in any Church, or place where the Eucharist was celebrated, but privately contemplating in his mind upon this holy Mystery. The due consideration of these your former so frivolous, and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out, saying, Oh Sophistry, Sophistry! when wilt thou cease to delude the souls of men? In which manner of speech, notwithstanding, we do not Invocate, but rather detest, and abominate your Romish Sophistry. And lest any of you should stumble upon the Attribute, which Dionysius giveth to the Eucharist, in calling it a Divine Sacrament, as if it should imply a Corporal Presence therein, read but one Chapter of the same Author, and he will teach you to say as much of many other things, wherein you will not believe any Corporal Existence of Christ we are sure: for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration, 
* See above, Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 13.  Divine Altar; the Sacramental Signs, Divine Symbols; the Minister, Divine Priest; the Communicants, Divine People; yea and (which may muzzle every Opponent) the matter of this Sacrament, Divine Bread.  
In the third place is objected this saying of Basil; When the Bread is shown, what holy Father hath left in writing the words of Invocation? Thus that Father, whence your Father Bellarmine thus; 
k Basil. lib. de Spir. sancto, cap. 27. Verba Invocationis, cum ostenditur, quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reliquit?] Hunc habemus morem veteris Ecclesiae, ut post consecrationem oftenderetur populo Eucharistia, quod nunc fieri videmus, & conceptis verbis invocaretur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. §. Alterum. And Durant. de Ritib. lib. 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabulis post Consecrationem Eucharistiam in altum tollere, Dionies. & Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, etc.  Hence know we the Custom of the ancient Church, namely, that the Eucharist is shown to the people after Consecration: And that Then (as we see now done among us) it was Invocated upon, even plainly after Consecration, saith your Durantus also, and indeed almost who not? But do you first, if you please, admire the wit of your Cardinal in so framing his Consequence, and after abhor his will to decive you, when you have done: for he applieth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration, (when as yet, by your own Doctrine, Christ is not present) as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ therein, and the Divine Adoration thereof, as will most evidently appear. For first it is not unknown to you, that the Greek Church differeth from your Roman in the form of Consecration at this day, they consecrating in words of prayer, and Invocation, and you in the repetition of Christ's words [This is my Body] wherein there is 
* Proved above, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge.  no Invocation at all. And Basil was of the Greek Church. Secondly, your 
l Archlep. Caesariensseu Christoph. de Capite sontium, Tract. var. Sacerdos invocando Deum panem consecravit: Hanc alii, ut Tertulianus, Iren. Justin. Gratiarum actionem hujusmodi Invocationem seu benedictionem vocant. p. 34 Alicu●● Theodoretus, Basil. Cyril. Hierosol. Iren. Damascen. Theoph. Alex. vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Invocationem. Ibid. pag. 33. And be allegeth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point.  Archbishop of Caesarea, for proof that Invocation by prayers was a form of Consecration used primitively in the Greek Church, citeth the two most ancient Fathers, Tertullian and Irenaeus; and of the Greek he allegeth justine, Cyril, Damascen, Theophilus Alex. yea, and (by your leave) Basil himself too: and that Basil was an Orthodox Greek Father you will not deny.  
Thirdly therefore (to come home unto you) we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himself, appealing herein to your own consciences. For your Lindanus was, in the estimation of your Church, the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause; he, to prove that the form of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospel, but in words of Invocation by prayer (as 
* See Book 〈◊〉. Cham 2.  hath been confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers) saith, 
m Paulus non tradidit formam Consecrationis, quod Basilius ità illustrate, ut sano capiti nihil ad haec sit ullo modo requirendum amplius, cap. 42. de Spi●. sancto; Verba, dùm ostenditur pani● (inquit) & poculum benedictionis quis Sanctorum nobis reliquit? Lindan. Pa●●p. lib. 4. cap. 41.  That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil, saying, What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation, when the Bread is shown unto us? adding, That no man of sound Brains can require any more, for the clearing of the point concerning the form of Consecration. So then, Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God, for the Consecration of the Bread set before them, and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist, as already consecrated; which your Cardinal unconscionably (we will not say, unlearnedly) hath enforced.  
Look upon the Text again, for your better satisfaction; It speaketh expressly of an Invocation, when Bread is shown: but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon, until after Consecration. And Basil demanding [What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation?] is in true and genuine sense, as if he had expressly said, what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread, to make it a Sacrament? as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest, and your objected Greek Missals do ratify unto us. For, in the Liturgy ascribed to Saint 
n Liturg. jac. [Sancte Domine, etc.]  james the Apostle, the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus, Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest, etc. The Liturgy of 
o Liturg. Chrysost. [Adhuc offerimus— mitte Spiritum, etc.  Chrysostome invocateth by praying; We beseech thee, O Lord, to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us, etc. The Liturgy under the name of 
p Liturg. Basil. [R●spice Domine.]  Basil consecrateth by this Invocation, when the Priest lifteth up the Bread, Look down, O Lord jesus our God, from thy holy habitation, and vouchsafe, etc. All these therefore were (according to the Example of Christ) Invocations, that is, Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament; and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament. And as for any express or prescribed form or prayer to be used of All, well might Basil say, Who hath set it down in writing? that is, It was never delivered either in Scripture, or in the Books of any Author of former Antiquity; and this is that which is testified in your own 
q Decret. part. 1. C. 11. Ecclesiasticorum. Aug. ex Basilio; Quae scripta nobis, quibus verbis sit Consecratio, commendavit?  Books of Augustine, out of Basil, saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the form of Consecration was made.  
Now then, guess you what was in the brains of your Disputers, in objecting this Testimony of Basil, contrary to the evident Sense; and accordingly judge of the weakness of your Cause, which hath no better supports than such fond, false, and ridiculous Objections to rely upon. Such as is also that your 
r Origenes dixit, Domine, non sum dignus, etc. Ergò vel vult adorari & invocari panem, vel Christum ipsum hîc contineri. Bellaram. lib. 2. de Luch. cap. 8. §. Alterum.  Cardinal his objecting the words of Origen, concerning the receiving of this Sacrament, saying, Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roof of my mouth: which hath been confuted, as unworthy the 
* See above, Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  mention in this case.  
If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship, in the Mystery of the Eucharist, by celebrating the manner of his death, (as Hierom may be said to have adored at jerusalem, Christ in his Crach; or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptism) we could store you with multitudes: but of Adoring the Eucharist, with a proper Invocation of Christ himself therein, we have not as yet received from you any one.    

CHAP. IU.  

That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the judgement of Antiquity.  
First by their Silence.  
SECT. I.  
YOU are not to require of us, that we produce the express Sentences of ancient Fathers, condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament; seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times. It ought to satisfy you, that your own most zealous, indefatigable, subtle, and skilful Miners, digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity, which have been extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred years after Christ, yet have not been able to extract from them any proof of a Divine honour, as due to this Sacrament, either in express words, or practice; insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude only such Sentences, and Acts, which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptism, and other sacred things, whereunto (even according to your own Romish Profession) Divine honour cannot be attributed without gross Idolatry: and never there the less have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Clear Arguments, piercing, and unsoluble.  
We therefore make bold hereupon to knock at the Consistory door of the conscience of every man, endued with any small glimpse of Reason, and to entreat him, for Christ's sake, whose Cause it is, to judge between Rome and Us, after he hath heard the case, which standeth thus; Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be, in the Romish Profession, the principal practic part of Christian Religion.  
Next, the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithful Registers of Catholic Truth, in all necessary points of Christian Faith, and Divine Worship. They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations, Admonitions, Persuasions, & Precepts how they are to demean themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament; not omitting any Act, whereby to set forth the true Dignity, and Reverence belonging unto it; many of the same Holy Fathers sealing that their Christian Profession with their Blood. It is now referred to the judgement of every man, whether it can fall within his capacity to think it Credible, that those Fathers, if they had been of the now Romish Faith, would not have expressly delivered, concerning the due Worship of this Sacrament, this one word consisting but of two Syllables [viz. Divine] for direction to all Posterity, to adore the Sacrament with divine honour, even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day: and to have confirmed the same by some Practice, not of one or other private man or woman, but by their public form of Prayer, and Invocation in their solemn Masses; or else to confess, that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist.  
Yet two words more. You press the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other: and we indeed believe that the ancient Fathers (if they had held, according to the now Roman Church, a Corporal presence of Christ) would never have celebrated any Mass without an express Invocation of him, as in your now-Roman Mass we find it done, saying, O Lamb of God, etc. or some other like form. Yet know now that your own learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latin Church, from Pope Clemens down to Pope Gregory (containing the compass of six hundred years) we say, Latin Missals above forty in number; in all which, upon our once reading, we presume to say that there is not one such tenor of Invocation at all. This our first Reason, taken from so universal a silence of ancient Fathers, in a case of so necessary a moment, may be (we think) satisfactory in itself to any man of ordinary Reason. Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth.   

That the Ancient Fathers gainsaid the Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and Adoration thereof, by their Preface, in their presenting the Host, saying, Lift up your Hearts.  
SECT. II.  
IT was the general Preface of Antiquity, used in the Celebration of this Sacrament, for the Minister to say, [Lift up your Hearts,] and the People to Answer, [We lift them up unto the lord] This [Sursum Cord●] 
a Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 36. Nec aliâ causâ in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum, ut antè myster●orum celebrationem diceretur, [Sursum corda.]  Calvin hath objected against you; and your Cardinal confessing that This Preface 
b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Jacobi, Basilii, Chrysost. Et omnibus Latinis habetur id, quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus, Bellarm. lib. 〈◊〉. de Euch. cap. 14. §. Respondeo si.  was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity, as well Greek as Latin, and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day; Then answereth that 
c Respondeo [Sur●ùm corda] non significare e●evationem ad ●ocum corporalem, sed elevationem à rebus terrenis & curis hujus vitae, ad Deum & res aeternas. Non respondetur, Habemus ad firmamentum, sed [Habemus ad Dominum.] Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi, in templo, in sepulchro, Sursum corda habebant, quià illum quaerebant, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula.— Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur, cor deorsum— Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt & venerantur, cor sursùm habent, si de ipso Christo, non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent. Bellarm. Ibid.  He that seeketh Christ, in the Eucharist and worshippeth him, if he think of Christ, and not of the Cares of earthly things, he hath his heart above. So he. As though the word [Above] meant, as the Object, the person of Christ in the Eucharist, and not his place of Residence in the highest Heavens; contrary to the word in the Greek 
* Liturg. Grac. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]  Liturgies, which is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Above, wherein the Church alludeth to that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of the Apostle, Colos. 3. 1. Seek the things that are above, where Christ is at the right hand of God, as your own 
d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum [Sursùm] i. e. super se●p●um elevar●co●da ad Dominum, juxtà exhortationem Apostoli, Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite, non quae super terram. Durand. Rat●n. lib. 4. cap. 33.  Durandus, the Expositor of the Romish Mass, doth acknowledge. Saint Augustine saying, 
e Aug. in Psal. 148. [Laudate Dominum in excelsis.] Primò de c●lo dicit, posteà de t●rris, lauda●ur enim Deus, quifecit coelum & terram. Nos adhoc in imo sumus, sed cum cogitamus quomodò illic laudetúr Deus, ●oribi habeamus: & non sin● causa audimus [Sursùm corda.]  It is not without Cause, that it is said, Lift up your hairs; He showeth the Cause to be, that we, who are here at the Bottom, might (according to that of the Psalmist) Praise God in the highest.  
This, one would think, is plain enough, but that is much more, which we have already proved out of the Fathers, by their Antithesis, and Opposition●etweene ●etweene the Altar on Earth, and the other in Heaven; where we have heard 
* S●e abo●e, Bo●ke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8, etc.  Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below, from Them that seek Christ in Heaven, as he doth Choughs from Eagles. Ambrose, as they that behold the Image, from them that contemplate upon the Trash. 
* Ibid.  Nazianzen, as they that look upon the Signs, from them that see the Things. And the Council of 
* Book 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 1.  Nice, as they that stoop down, from them that look up aloft. And we may not forget the Observation which 
* Book 5.  Athanasius made of Christ in his discourse of Eating his flesh, and drinking his Blood: purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven, thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations, and to consider him as being in Heaven.  
Cyril of Jerusalem is a Father whom you have often solicited to speak for your Cause in other Cases, but all in vain; shall we hearken to him in this? He interpreting these words [Lift up your Hearts,] will not have it only to signify a sequestering of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spiritual and heavenly (which you say was the meaning of the Council of Nice, as if that Lifting up their hearts had been only an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest, or on the Altar beneath,) No, but he saith that it is 
f Cyril. Hier. C●tech. Mystag. 5. Ob hanc causam ●lamat Sacerdos [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quià opo●tet sursùm habere cor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & non ad terrena negotia deprimere; Paulò post, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To have our hearts in Heaven with God the lover of mankind: even as did also 
g Aug. in Psal. 85. Certè rectè admoner, ut Sursùm corda habeant: audiant igitur & faciant, levent ad coelum▪ quod malè est in terra: ibi enim non putrescit cor, si levetur ad Deum. Teste Pamel. Tom. 1. Missal. in Missa Aug. Hippo●ens. pag. 527.  S. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to Heaven. Whom as you have 
* See above, Book 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8.  heard leaving our Eucharistical Sacrifice on this Altar, so would he have us to seek ●or our Priest in Heaven; namely, as Origen more expressly said, Not on earth, but in Heaven: accordingly Oecumenius, placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christ's Invisible Temple is, even in Heaven.  
Will you suffer one, whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other, to determine this point? He will come home unto you; 
h Tempore veteris Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit, sed prostratis humi corporibus, animis in coelum erectis, gratias agebant Redemptori. Eras. lib. de amab. Eccles. Concord.  In the time of the Ancient Church of Rome (saith he) the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth show, bu● prostrating their Bodies on the ground, they lift up their minds to Heaven, giving thanks to their Redeemer. So he. Thus may we justly appeal, as in all other Causes of moment, so in this, from this degenerate Church of Rome to the sincere Church of Rome, in the primitive times; like as one is reported to have appealed from Cesar sleeping to Cesar waking. Our difference then can be no other than was that between Mary and Stephen, noted by Ambrose, 
i Ambros. in Luc. cap. 24. Maria, quae quaerebat Christum in terra, tangere non potuit: Stephanus tetigit, qui quaesivit in coelo.  Mary, because she sought to touch Christ on earth, could not; but Stephen touched him, who sought him in Heaven. A third Argument followeth.   

That the Ancient Fathers condemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration.  
SECT. III.  
ALL Divine Adoration of a mere Creature is Idolatry; hereunto accord these sayings of 
k August. Tom. 2. Epist. 44. ad Maxim. Christianis Catholicis nihil ut nume● adoratur, quod conditum est à Deo. Idem Tom. 8. ●n Psal 98. Timeo terram adorare, ne me d●mn●t qui fecit coelum & terram. Nazianz. Orat. 31. Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Antiquity: No Catholic Christian doth worship, as a Divine Power, that which is created of God. Orthus, I fear to worship Earth, lest he condemn me, who created both Heaven and Earth. Or thus, If I should worship a Creature, I could not be named a Christian. It were a tedious superfluity, in a matter so universally confessed by yourselves, and all Christians, to use Witnesses unnecessarily. We add the Assumption. But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a mere Creature, Bread. For that it is still Bread, you shall find to have been the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers, if you shall but have the patience to stay until we deliver unto you a 
* See Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  Synopsis of their Catholic judgement herein; after that we have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your own Principles, which is the next point.    

CHAP. V.  
An Examination of Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Mass, to prove it Idolatrous, by discussing your own Principles.  
The State of the Question.  
IDolatry, by the Distinction of your Jesuits, is either Material, or Formal. The Material you call that, when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God, in a wrong persuasion that it is God; otherwise you judge the worship to be a formal Idolatry. Now because many of your seduced Romanists are persuaded that your Romish worship, in your Mass, cannot be subject either to Material or Formal Idolatry, it concerneth us in Conscience, both for the honour of God, and safety of all that fear God, to prove both. We begin at that which you confess to be a Material Idolatry.  

That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest, is necessarily a Material Idolatry, by reason of many hundred confessed Defects: whereof Seven concern the Matter of the Sacrament.  
SECT. I.  
IT is a point unquestionable among you, that if the thing, in the hand of the Priest, be not duly Consecrated, than the matter Adored is but a mere Creature; and your Adoration must needs be, at the least, a material Idolatry. The Seven defects, set down in your Roman 
a Missal. Rom. pag. 31. Ubi debita materia deficit, non conficitur Sacramentum— Si non sit panis triticcus, vel fi alioqui corruptus. Et pag. 32. Si vinum sit factum acetum, vel penitùs putidum, vel de uvis acerbis & non maturis expressum, vel admixtum aquae, ut sit corruptum, non conficitur Sacramentum.  Missal, and by your 
b Dico, species consecratae perfect● misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto, & tum non manet ●ub eis sanguis Christi. Ità Thomas. Teste Suar. jes. in 3. Thom. Disp. 67. §. 4. §. Dico. Et Durand. Si plus apponatur aquae quam vini, erit irritum Sacramentum. Lib. 4. cap. 42.  jesuit, are these; First, If the Bread be not of Wheat; or secondly, Be corrupt; or thirdly, the Wine be turned Vinegar; or fourthly, of sour; or fifthly, unripe Grapes; or sixthly, be stinking, or imperfectly mixed with any liquor of any other kind, the Consecration is void: so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present; seventhly, yea, and if there be more Water than Wine. So you. All which Defects how easily they may happen, beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest, let Bakers and Vintner's judge.   

That there are Six other 
c Missal. Rom. in Can. Missae. Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio (nimirùm) per Additionem, detractionem, alicujus vocis mutationem, vel si una ponatur loco alterius, corruptionem vocis alicuj●s, detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam, transpositionem, i. e. ordini● dictionun variationem, ac deinde per interruptionem, ut pronuntiando unam partem formae, ac quiescendo per aliquod spatium, velloqu●●do aliquid impertinens. Minima variatio destruit integritatem substantial●m, si per●at sensus. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. c. 21. §. Secunda Prop— Sacramenta rata non sunt, si dum conferuntur unum tantùm verbum, quod ad substantiam pertiner, omittatur: imò si uniu● syllabae omissio sensum verborum mutaverit, a●t corruperit, collatum Sacramentum non valet: ut si Sacerdos dixerit, Hoc est Cor meum, pro [Corpus meum.] Azor. Ies. Instit. Moral. Tom. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. §. Animadvert.— [Hoc est, etc.] Si quis diminueret aliquid, aut immutaret de forma Consecrationis, vel aliquid addat, quod significationem mutaret, non conficeret Sacramentum. Missal. Rom. pag. 33. Haec sunt necessaria necessitate Sacramenti, quibus sublatis, tolli●ur Sacramentum, ut nimirùm non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis. Item Alan. de Sacram. ●n Gen. cap. 21.  confessed Defects, incident to either Element in the Eucharist, which may hinder the Consecration; and necessarily infer an Idolatrous Adoration, in respect of the form of Consecrating.  
SECT. II.  
AS thus; If the Priest fail in Pronunciation of these words [Hoc est corpus meum:] or in these, Hic est calix sanguinis mei: novi, & aeterni Testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis, & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Which your Roman Missal, and Doctors say may happen, in either of both, six manner of ways: first, by Addition; or secondly, by Omission; thirdly, by Mutation, and Change of any one Syllable, which may alter the sense of the speech; fourthly, by Interruption of voice, and by too long pausing in uttering of the words; fifthly, by Corruption of any word; sixthly, by some Interposition of words between, which are impertinent. Each one of these faults, (say you) concerning either Element, doth so disannul the Consecration, that The thing Adored is still but Bread and Wine, and therefore the worship thereof must be a material Idolatry. So you.  
And how easy it is for the Priest (that we may use your own Examples) to say, Hoc est Cor meum; or, Hoc est Cor-pus; or, Meum corpus est; or, Hic Erit Calix; or, as the Tale goeth of a Priest, who (having many Hosts before him to be Consecrated, lest he might err in his Grammar, in using the singular number for the plural) Consecrated in these words, 
d Agrippa. Sicut nattatur de Sacrificulo, siuè verum, sive fabula sit, qui cum plures haberet Hostias, 〈◊〉 Grammaticam omitteret, in haec verba consecravit, Haec sunt corpora mea. Devani●. Scient. cap. 3.  Haec sunt corpora mea; These are my Bodies: we say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses (beside this last from the want of wit) the manifold infirmities of man's speech, either upon Amazement, or Temulency, or Temerity and negligence, or imperfection of a Stammering tongue, can give you a shrewd guess.   

That there are Four other confessed kind of Defects, in respect of the Priest's Intention, whereby the Consecration being hindered, the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous.  
SECT. III.  
AS for Example, first, 
e Bellarm. Si Sacerdos ●ingit se consecrare, cum non consecrat, Christus abest.— Nisi intentio Ministri sit saltem virtualis, animo faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non est Consecratio. De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 27. Si quis non intendit con●icere, nisi delusoriè aliquid agere. Missal. Rom. pag. 33.— Velure ex oblivio●…, cum hostia aliqua lateat, cum non intendit consecrare nisi quas videt. Vel si habe●s coram se undecim hostias, & intendet consecrare decem, non determinan● quas decem intendit, non consecrat, quia requiritur I●tentio. Missal. ibid.  If the Priest in Consecrating (saith your Cardinal) have no intention to consecrate at all; or (to speak from your Romish Missal itself) secondly, If his virtual Intention in consecrating be not to do a● the Church doth; or thirdly, If he should consecrate but in mockery; or fourthly, He having more Hosts before him, than he is ware of; if he intent to Consecrate fewer than there is before him, and yet not knowing which of them all to omit. Of the Easiness of all these Defects, the possibility of retchlessness, of infidelity, of mockery, and of obliviousnesse in some Priests may sufficiently prognosticate; each of which inferreth a confessed Material Idolatry.   

That there are Six other Defects able to frustrate the Consecration, by reason of the person of the Priest himself, as being incompetent for want of due Baptism.  
SECT. IV.  
FOr first you have a 
a Decret. lib. 13. Tit. 43. C. 3. Veniens ad gradum Sacerdotii, camperit tanned quod non fit baptizat●s, ritè fecimus ipsum baptizari.  Case of one being a Priest, who had not been baptised; and next concerning Defects of Baptism, you resolve (as before of pronunciation of the form of the Eucharist) 
b Bellarm.— Velure una litera. De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 25. §. Secunda Prop.— Haec sunt nece●saria necessitate Sacramenti, ut nim●rùm non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis: ut in Baptismo si quis dicat, Baptizo te in nomine Matris, etc. Ala●. ●ard. de Sacram, in Gen. cap. 21. And Azorius, See above, Sect. 2. lit. (c).  that if in pronunciation of the words of Baptism [Baptizo te in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti] the Minister (whether man or woman) shall vary one word, which may corrupt the true sense of the words, although but in one Syllable, or Letter, be it either by adding, removing, changing, or by any of the six Defects (already spoken of) as in saying, Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae, etc. or the like, than the whole Consecration is of no effect. The possibility of women's erring, in their Ministry of Baptism, Cardinal Pole may seem to teach in that his Article, whereof it is inquired, 
c M. Fox his Acts and M●…m. pag. 1969.  Whether Parsons, Vicars, and Curates be diligent in teaching women to Baptise Children after the manner of the Church.  
Take with you another Case, supposed by yourselves, the 
d Cos●… Philiarch. de office Sh●erd. Tom. 1. lib. 1. C. 14. Potest dari casus, sicut audivi datum esse, quòd ●ilius alicujus nobilis sit à levatrice baptizarus aquâ rosaceâ, quiâ est silius nobilis, etc.  Author delivereth it at length, the brief is this: The woman baptizeth an Infant, because it as the Child of a noble man, in Rose-water, the Baptism is void; the Child is afterwards ordained a Bishop, and he is after that sent by the Pope into diverse parts of the world, and by him innumerable Priests are ordained; after the death of the Bishop, the case is made known, but who they were that had been ordained cannot possibly be known, whose Ordinations are all invalid, and their ministry and Consecrations of no effect. What remedy now in this Case? None (saith the Author) at all, except there be a Privilege in the Pope to constitute all them Priests, who had been so irregularly ordained, only by his word, Dicendo sint Sacerdotes, saying, Be they all Priests. So he, who notwithstanding had rather think the Case could not possibly happen, than to trust to this Remedy. However it might be in this one, the possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny, every one concluding a Material Idolatry.   

That there are manifold confessed possible Defects, disabling the person of the Priest to consecrate, in respect of his no-due Ordination; whereby is occasioned a Material Idolatry.  
SECT. V.  
YOU have furthermore 
* See the preceding Sect. in the Margin.  confessed, that, for want of due Ordination of the Priest, the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread, and Wine; as if he be an Incruder, and not ordained at all: or else of the form of Ordination, viz. [Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium: Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum peccata remiseris, remissa, etc.] As if it hath been corrupted, by missing so much as one Syllable, or letter, by Addition, Detraction, or any of the six Errors before rehearsed; as Accipe Spiritu Sancto, for Spiritum Sanctum; or, Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium, for Offerendi; or the like.   

That there are many hundred confessed Defects, which may nullisic the Consecration, to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous, in respect of Insufficiencies, which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest, whosoever he be, that now consecrateth; for causing a Material Idolatry.  
SECT. VI  
IF the 
a Si de●icit o●d● Sacerdotalis in conficiente, non consicitur Sacramentum, Missal, Rom. pag. 31.  Bishop that ordained this Priest, which now consecrateth, were not a true Priest himself, truly ordained, or duly baptised; or else the next Bishop before him, or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers, until you come to Saint Peter, for the space now of a thousand six hundred years, whereof your jesuit saith; 
b Multae sunt causae propter quas non potest accidere, ut Christus non sit prae●ens: ut ●i Sacerdos non sit baptizatus, vel non sit ritè ordinatus, quod pendet ex multis aliis Causis, quibus ●er● in infinitum progredi possumus; ut ex parte materiae saepè accidit defectus. Suarez Ies. in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. §. 2.  The Defect of Ordination is seen in many Cases, wherein, Progredi possumus fere in Infinition (that is) we may proceed almost infinitely. So he. Thinking belike that if we should in this number of years allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty years' Bishop upward to Saint Peter, the number of them all would amount to fourscore Bishops; among whom if any one were an Intruder, or Vnordained, than this Priest faileth in his Priesthood. Now of these kinds your 
c Plena sunt illa tempora Ordinationibus Paparum, Exordinationibus, Superordinationibus. Baron. An. 908. num. 3. & Ann. 897. num. 6, & 8. & Ann. 900. num. 6 Platina in vita joh. 10. sol. 146. & in vita Sergii 3. sol. 148.  Historians afford us Examples of your Popes, some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors, even to the cutting off of one 
d Platina in vi●a St●ph. 6. de F●rmoso; Abscissis duobus dextrae illius digitis, poti●●imum eyes, quibus Sacerdotes in Consecratione utuntur.  Pope's fingers, wherewith he had used to consecrate.  
Yet is not this all, for unto these are to be added the other Defects, to wit, want of Baptism, whether for want of due Intention, being three; or undue Pronunciation, being six; or the Errors either of Intention or Pronunciation in Ordination, all which make eighteen: and these being multiplied by fourscore (which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter) the total (we suppose) will amount unto a Thousand possible Defects, each one whereof, if it happen, doth quite frustrate and annul the Consecration of this Priest, whosoever he be, that now saith Mass; and leaveth to the people nothing but the substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored in stead of Christ jesus, the Son of God. And yet in this Sum are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter, or Form of Consecration, or of the Priest's Intention therein, or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest, now supposed to be ordained; every Defect being of force in itself to infer necessarily a Material Idolatry in your Romish Mass.  
Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious or malicious, you must accuse your own Romish Church, because we have alleged no Testimony, but out of your own public Romish Missal, Cardinal's, Jesuits, and other Authors privileged in your Church. We are now in the high point of Christian Religion, even the principal part of God's Royalty, Divine Adoration, not to be trifled withal. Therefore now, if ever, show yourselves conscionable Divines, by freeing your Romish Mass from a Formal Idolatry in these forenamed Respects, concerning your confessed Material Idolatry; and do it by some grounds of Truth, or else abandon your Profession as most damnably Idolatrous.    

CHAP. VI  

That the Romish Masse-worship is a Formal Idolatry, notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath been made to the Contrary.  
The State of the Question.  
SECT. I.  
Upon this occasion, ôh! how your Summists, Theologues, and Casuists do bestir themselves for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of formal Idolatry? The Brief of your Defence is this: 
a Bellarm. Vbi deest vera Consecratio, nullum est periculum in co, qui bonâ fide Sacramentum adorat, adoratio enim potissimum ex intentione pendet; quarè sicut is, qui panem non consecratum inju●iâ aff●ceret, putans consecratum esse, gravissimè peccâsset in Christum: sic etiam contra qui panem eundem adorat, quòd certo credat non esse panem, sed Christum, is propriè & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans Sacramentum non consecratum est actus Latriae, & Actus moraliter bonus, procedens ex motivo honesto.— Sicut quando quis dat Elee mosynam homini petenti nomine Christi, ex misericordia infusa operatur, si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem, quam vis speculatiuè decipi contingat. Suarez Jes. Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. pag. 829. col. 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam, adorat sub ea conditione, si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea, quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria, secundum divinam institutionem, & sic nunquam decipitur, neque e●rat. Bonavent. in 3. Di●●. 24. Art. 1. qu. 1. add ult. Tes●e Suarez qo sup. pag. 828. [And in them, who require it Actual, albeit Tacitam, Azor. Jes. reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae, Thom. Bonavent. Alber●. Richard. yea and Canonistas Theologos, excepting Cajetan. Hassel▪ Claud. Saints, qui simpliciter & sine conditione adorandum moment. Azor. Instit. Tom. 1. lib. 9 cap. 9 §. Decimo.] Dicendum est, quod per se loquendo, ac seclusis specialibus circumstanti●s per Accidens occurrentibus, absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum, ●…ll● in act●… appositâ conditione. Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist. 9 qu. 1. art. 2. q. 6. ad 2. ubi solùm dicit, non requiri conditionem explicitam, sed satis esse si habitu retineatu●: Habitu au●em illam retineri, nihil aliud esse videtur, nisi ment & animo habete intentionem adorandi verum Christum, ve●umque Sacramentum, & non adhi●…di adorationem, nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione. In eadem sententia est Richardus, ubi (inquit) licea fides credit Christum esse sub speci●bus, sub conditione si omnia suntfact●, quae ad consecrandum sunt nece●saria, ta●…en ad adorandum non oportere, ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitation. Idem Gabri●l, Marsil. & communiter Summistae, verbo, Adoratio. Ità Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. pag. 828. col. 2. Nihil ob●uit Jacob, cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concub●tu substituerit Leam, qu●à bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putare●. Ità non est Artolatra, qui non adorat Christum in pane non consecrato, quem b●n●●ide putat consecratum, etc. Salmer●… Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 181.  Although (say they, in the Margin) there be no true Consecration, by reason of diverse Defects, yet in him who upon a Moral certainty, with a sincere mind and good intention, doth adore Bread, it is but Material, and no Formal Idolatry, so that he have an habitual condition, as being so disposed in his mind, not to give a divine honour unto it, if he knew it to be but Bread. As for Example; He that giveth an Alms to a Rich man, being probably persuaded that he is not rich, the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention. And, As it was no sin in jacob to lie with Leah, because he thought her to be his wife; so in this case it is no formal Idolatry to worship Bread, being morally persuaded that it is Christ. Thus they.  
Your Pretences then are three; Moral Certainty, Good Intent, and (at least) Habitual Condition. But alas! all this is but sowing Fig-leaves together, which will never be able to cover your foul shame of gross Idolatry. To begin first with that which you call Moral Certainty.   

That the Pretence of Moral Certainty of worshipping of Bread, instead of Christ, cannot free the Romish Church from Formal Idolatry.  
SECT. II.  
OUR Confutation is grounded upon diverse impregnable Reasons, one whereof is taken from the jealousy of God in his worship; the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper; the third from the nature of an Oath; and the last from the Uncertainty of that which you call Moral Certainty.  
First then, although Moral and Conjectural persuasions might excuse men's Actions in diverse Cases, yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable, even because of the jealousy of the Almighty, who expresseth himself to be a jealous God, Exod. 20. signifying, as 
b Ego sum Deus t●us fortis Zelo●es, Exod 20 5.] Dicitur Deus Zelô●es, id est, zelum tenens: zelus autem est amor prvatus, nolens habere consortium in amato. Et ●ic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis, quia volunt quòd uxo●es suae solos illos ament, & solis illis copulentur. Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Judaei ●um solum coherent, & ●um ut Deum cognoscerent: & quandò alius coleretur 〈◊〉 Deus, dolebat, tanquàm ●i vir videat uxor●… suam amantem alium virum. Et ●icut cum mu●…er alteri quam viro suo copulatur, fornicari dicitur: ità qui alterum quam verum Deum colebat, fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Diis alienis. Abulens. in Exod. 20. pag. 273. col 2.  you know, that He will not endure any comfort in his worship; his Motto being this, I am, and there is no Other: even as in the Case of mortal Majesty, when as a subject, building upon a moral Certainty only, shall question the Title and Right of his Sovereign established in his Throne, he becometh guilty of High Treason.  
Secondly, all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith, which is an Infallible persuasion of the Godhead of that which we honour as God, as it is written: He that cometh to God, must believe that God is, Heb. 11. 6. and again, You must ask in faith, nothing doubting, jac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith, as the Apostle describeth it; Faith is the Hypostasis of things not seen, Heb. 11. That is, (to take your 
c Grae ci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam, quià fides efficit ut ea, quae credit, non m●nùs c●rta habeamus, quam si subsisterent. Ribera Ies. Co●… Heb▪ 11. pag. 514.  own Comment) Faith maketh those things, which are believed, no less certain than if they did subsist, whereby we are taught both the nature and necessity of Faith in Divine Worship. But Moral and Conjectural Certainty is not Hypostasis, which implieth an Infallibility of Truth, but an Hypothesis, and supposition of that which may be otherwise, and hath in it nothing but Uncertainty at all; of which more 
* Chap. 9 Sect. 4.  hereafter.  
Thirdly, God himself commandeth his people by his Prophet, saving, Thou shalt worship me, and (in 
* Sep●●agints.  Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) shalt swear by my Name. Swearing then is an Adoration, by Invocating of God; and his own peculiar Prerogative. Harken now. By this Law of God, none may swear by any thing, as God, which he dare not swear is God: But your Romish Professors, in your Mass, Invocate this Sacrament thus, 
d Sacerdos inclinatus Sacramento, junctis manibus, & ter pectus percutiens, dicit, Agnus Dei, qui ●ollis peccata mundi, mis●r●re nobis. Et rursus, Agnus Dei, etc. Missal. Rom. pag. 24. Rursus. Inclinato capite versus Sacramentum, dicit intelligibili voce, Da nobis pacem: E●rursus secret, Domine Jesus Christ, etc. Missal. Rome ibid.  O Lamb of God, which takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. And what Romish Professor is there who sweareth not by the Mass (meaning the Consecrated Host) as by Christ himself? Notwithstanding, no one of your Romish Priests (by reason of the manifold Defects incident thereunto, as you have heard) durst eversweare that this, which is now Consecrated by him on the Altar, is not substantially Bread, or that it is the Body of Christ. It must therefore follow, that your Adoration having no better Certainty, than (as you have confessed) to adore it with an [if it be Christ,] is a faithless profanation of the name of the Son of God, and of his worship. This point, concerning Faith in every Worshipper, will be confessed 
* Throughout the 7. Chapter.  afterwards.  
In the last place (that we may ruinate the very foundation of your Excuse) your Pretence of Moral Certainty cometh to be examined, which you have exemplified by one giving an Alms to a poor man, who peradventure hath no need; and of Jacob's lying ignorantly with her that was not his wife. These, say we, are Cases far different from this which we have in hand, because God's Almoner (you know) is not bound to inquire of a man, whom he seeth to appear to be miserable and poor, whether he be a Counterfeit or no; for Charity is not suspicious, saith the Apostle Saint Paul. jacob, indeed, was bound to know only his own wife, but if he had had any probable or Moral Cause of doubt, would that holy Patriarch (think you) have been so deluded, or overreached a second, and a third time, to defile his Body by an unchaste Bed? But the Causes of your Doubtings are set forth and numbered by Three, Six, Twenties, Hundreds, until you come to a Thousand, and (as your jesuit hath said) Almost infinite Defects. For indeed if there be (as appeareth) a Thousand hazards in every Mass of any one Priest, then in two Priests, as many more, and so forward; so that if one should hear in his time the Masses of Ten, and Twenty Priests, what multitudes of thousands of Defects would the reckoning make? But we need say no more, than hath already been confessed of Almost infinite, and (consequently) as many Doubts of an Idolatrous worship; wherein there cannot be so much Moral Certainty, as that, in any one generation of men from Christ's time, each one of that offspring hath been chastely borne, whereunto what Christian is there that dare be sworn?  

CHALLENGE.  
COnsider (we beseech you, for God's Cause, for we are now in the Cause of God) whether our God, who will be known to be transcendently jealous of his own Honour, would ever ordain such a worship of a Sacrament, whereby men must needs be still more obnoxious to that, which you call a Material Idolatry, by many hundred-fold, than possibly any can be to any material Parricide, or material Murder, or material Adultery, or any other heinous and material Transgression, that can be named under the Sun. Thus much of your first Pretence for this present, until we come to receive the 
* See Chap. 7. throughout.  Confessions of your own Doctors in this very point.    

That the Second Romish Pretence, which is of a Good Intent, cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formal Idolatry.  
SECT. III.  
LET us hear your Cardinal; 
a Bellarm. Sicut is, qui panem non consecratum injuriâ afficeret, etc. See above, Sect. 1. (a).  Honour (saith he) dependeth upon the Intention, so that as he, who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread, thinking it to be Conserated, should grievously offend Christ; chose he, who certainly believing the Bread to be Christ's Body, shall Adore the same, doth principally and formally Adore Christ, and not the Bread. So he, even with the same Sophistry, from only such a seeming Contrariety, wherewith you use to plead for Merits: (to wit) if evil works deserve damnation, then good works deserve eternal life. But will you be pleased to hear the same Cardinal speak in earnest, from the Principles of true Logic? 
b Mala intentio vitiat opus: sed perperam inde colligitur opera mala ex intentione bona justificari. Nam opus bonum nascitur ex integra causâ, malum autem ex quovis defectu oriri potest. Bellarm. de amiss. Grat. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Primum enim.  Although an evil Intention doth vitiate and corrupt an Act otherwise good, yet it followeth not that a good intent should justify an evil Act, because no Act is good, except all the Causes thereof be good; but any Act is evil upon any one Defect. So he; which his Conclusion is held as universally true in all Schools, whether Christian, or Heathen, as any point of Morality can be. Wherefore it followeth not, that because a man doth something to the Contempt of Christ, in abusing that which he thinketh to be Christ, that therefore the honour, which he doth to that, which he falsely believeth to be Christ, should be an Adoration of Christ: as all Heathenish Idolatry, in worshipping stocks and stones, in an opinion of adoring the true God, do witness to the world, as your own 
* Chap. 7, and 8.  Confessions will confirm.  

CHALLENGE.  
DO you not perceive what a patched Cloak of Sophistry your Cardinal cast upon your Good Intent, in your Adoration, to cover the filthiness thereof, if it might be? and how by another Position he rend the same in pieces, when he had done? Again, you stand thus far, furthermore, condemnable in yourselves in this point, whilst as you seek to free your Adoration from Idolatry, by Pretence of a Good Intent; and notwithstanding hold a Good Intention not to be sufficient thereunto, except it be qualified and form with an habitual Condition, which is your Third and last Pretence; as fond and false as either of the former.    

That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habitual Condition, in the Worshipper, excuseth him not from formal Idolatry; proved first by Scripture.  
SECT. IV.  
Habitual Condition you have interpreted to stand thus; 
* See above, Sect. 1. at the letter (a) ad ●…nem.  If he that chanceth to worship only Bread be in that Act so disposed in himself, that he would not worship the same Bread, as Christ, if he knew it were but Bread, and not Christ; and by this you teach, that the Act (which you call a material Idolatry) is made not only excusable but (your own 
* Ibid.  words) honest and commendable also. So you. What execrable Doctrine is this that we hear? which cannot be justifiable except you will justify the Murderers of the members of Christ; and of Christ himself? First, of the members of Christ, we read of one Saul, afterwards Paul, breathing out threatenings, and slanders against them, Act. 9 1. and persecuting the Church, 1 Cor. 15. and Galath. 1. and drawing both men and women to Death, Act. 22. 4. And all this, not maliciously, but (as you hear himself say) Ignorantly, 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience, Act. 23. 1. and in zeal, Phil. 3. 6. A fairer expression of a Good Intent, in a wicked practice, cannot be, than this was: and as much may be said for his Habitual Condition, namely, that if he had then (as afterwards) known Christ to have been the Lord of life, and those murdered Christians, to have been his mystical members, he would rather have exposed himself to Martyrdom, than to have martyred those Saints of God. This Consequence directly appeareth, first by his Answer, in his miraculous Conversion, saying, 
* Acts 9 5.  Who are thou, Lord? next by his detestation of his fact, 
* 1. Cor. 15. 9  I am unworthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church, etc. then by his Acknowledgement of God's especial mercy, 
* 2. Tim. 〈◊〉. 〈…〉.  But God had mercy on me. Afterwards by his labour for winning souls to the Faith: I have laboured more abundantly than they all. And lastly, in that he was one of those Actors, of whom Christ himself foretold, saying, 
* joh. 16. 2.  They shall draw you before judgement seats, and when they shall persecute you, they will think that they do God good service. Which also plainly argueth, that their and his persuasion of so doing proceeded from a Moral Certainty.  
From these Members let us ascend to our Head, Christ the Lord of Glory; what think you of the jews? of whom Saint Peter said, You have murdered the Prince of life, Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily, and Knowingly, as understanding him to have been the Red●…er of the world, and indeed the Prince of life? they did not, for the same Apostle testifieth in their behalf, saying, I know you did it ignorantly, as did also your Rulers, Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient, hear the voice of the person that was slain, Christ himself, who did so far acquit them, saying, They know not what they do, Luk. 23. 34. Ignorantly then in a Conjectural Certainty, but yet with Good Intent; of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words, I bear them witness that they have the Zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, Rom. 10. But what for habitual Condition? were they not bend in their own minds (if they had understood what Christ was) to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Son of God? questionless, for so saith the Apostle: If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, 1. Cor. 2. 8. We Conclude, seeing these jews, notwithstanding their Moral Certainty, (being seduced by their Priests) or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein; or yet their habitual Condition, not to have crucified Christ, if they had truly known him, were nevertheless by S. Peter condemned, yea and of themselves, as formal and verily Murderers of Christ; then (o you Romish worshippers of the Host) must it necessarily follow that in your Masses you are equally all formally Idolaters, notwithstanding any of the same three Pretences to the contrary.  
Wherefore, as Solomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman; 
* Prov. 30. 20.  She eateth, and wipeth her month, saying, I have done no wickedness; so may we say of Idolatrous Worshippers, and their Proctors: for what else are these your three Romish Pretences, but like such mouth-wipers? or as Anodyna, and stupifying Medicines, which take away the Sense of the diseased person, but do not cure the disease? So do you delude miserable people with false Pretences, lest they, discerning the grossness and ugliness of your Idolatry, might abhor that worship, and abandon your Romish worshippers.   

That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity.  
SECT. V.  
THe number of Ancient Fathers, whose works are yet extant (who lived within Six and Seven hundred years after Christ) are recorded to have been about 200. out of whose monuments of Christian learning your chiefest Disputers could never hitherto produce any one that justified your Romish worship, by so much as in distinguishing of Material and formal Idolatry; nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Moral Certainty, or Good Intent, or yet Habitual Condition; and therefore must we judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery. For we may not be so injurious to the memory of so many, so famously learned, and Catholic Doctors of the Church of Christ, that they could not; or of persons so holy, and zealous of God's honour, and of men's Salvation, that they would not satisfy men's Consciences, to free them out of thus many and miserable perplexities, wherewith your now Romish Profession of Adoration of the Host is so 
* Confessed above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6. by your jesuit Suarez.  Almost infinitely entangled.    

CHAP. VII.  

That the Romish Adoration, notwithstanding your former Pretences, is formally Idolatrous; proved by four Grounds of Romish Profession.  
The first is your Definition of Idolatry.  
SECT. I.  
DIvine honour (
a Honour est testimoninm excellentiae, quod continetur verbo vel facto, quae de excellentia alicujus convenientem existimationem illi gignit. Sic honor divinus est quicquid verboruns aut officiorum omninò accommodatum est ad gignendam existimationem hujusmodi, quae in divinam majestatem propriè conveniat. Hoc duplici modo, 1. ut opus sit n●turâ suâ ità praeclarum, ut quis illud naturali lumine rationis solum Deum tali hono●e dignum esse judicet, quale est Sacrificium. Alterum, ut tale sit intentione ejus, qui vult de persons, quam honorat, talem existimationem excitare, quae in divinam majestatem conveniat, licet honor iste alioqui indifferen sit. Greg. Valent. lib. 2. de Idol. cap. 3.  saith your jesuit Valentia) is whatsoever word or outward office that a man doth perform, whereby he doth intend to beget in others such an estimation of God, unto that which he honoureth, which is proper unto the Majesty of God. So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding (saith your jesuit 
b Est Idololatria divini cultus erg●falsum Deum exhibitio: colere enim pro Deo eum, qui non est Deus, aut ipsum laudando, aut e● aliquo modo prosternendo, Idololatrare est.— Idololatria (quae est falsa Adoratio) non est nisi erro● in intellectu, quo dignum honore judicamus Deum falsum, cui Idololatrase prosternit. Tolet. Ies. Instit. Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 24. §. Est igitur.  Tolet) in yielding divine worship to that which is not God, whether by praising, invocating, sacrificing, or prostrating ourselves to that which is not God. In a word, Idolatry comprehendeth all religious superstition (saith your jesuit 
c Idololatria comprehendit omnem superstitiosam religionem, quâ quaelibet res colitur pro Deo, Lorinus Ies. in Acts 17. 16.  Lorinus) in worshipping of any thing as God, which is not God. So they, most Theologically and truly.  

CHALLENGE.  
NOw apply you these points of your Distinction unto your Host, in the hand of the Priest, which by your own Confessions may possibly be, and by our proofs cannot possibly but be (after Consecration) Bread still, whereunto notwithstanding he prostrateth himself, sweareth by, and invocateth upon, as being in itself the person of Christ; the Priest himself saying, 
d Nos visibili Sacramento invisibilo corpus Christi praesens, adeoque Christumcipsum invocamus, & quasi divinum quoddam adoramus, & qua●…vivum quiddam ratiorrabile alloquimur, rogamus [O salutaris Hostia, etc.] Espenc. lib. 5. de Adoras. cap. 8. fol. 185. & ibid. lib. 2. cap. 9 fol. 25.  O holy Host, etc. O Lamb of God, etc. whereby also, according to your Definition of Idolatry, you yourselves do seek to profess, and thereby to beget in others an opinion of a Godhead in the Sacrament, as whereunto Divine honour doth properly belong. How then can you free yourselves from the Crime of formal Idolatry, by pretence of Ignorance, and error of true knowledge of the thing falsely adored, seeing that Idolatry (as you yourselves have also defined) is an Error and Ignorance in the judgement of the worshipper? This were as if one, defining a disease to be a Distemperature of Humours, should notwithstanding therefore deny a man to be sick, because his humours are distempered.    

II. That Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous, by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle, concerning Coadoration, or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread.  
SECT. II.  
COadoration is when any thing is worshipped jointly with God in a Divine Worship, which worship by the Law of God (which saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me) is perfectly Idolatry, by your own 
e Idololatria est, non solùm cum adoratur Idolum, relicto Deo, sed etiam cum adoratur Idolum simul cum Deo. Exod. 20. [Deos aureos, & Deos argenteos non facietis mecum.] Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 24. §. Praetereà.  Confessions; and, for fear of this kind of Idolatry, your Claudius Saints 
f Ne Idololatria co●…itteretur, air, (nempè Claudius Saints) cum Christo in Eucharistia debeatur summus divinusque cultus, non est eo Adorationis genere colendum sensibile continens, quo contentus jesus. Teste Vasquez jes. de Adorat. lib. 2. Disp. 8. cap. 11. pag. 389.  taught that The signs in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is. And that therefore 
g Panis substantiam, post Consecrationem, abesse probatur, quià si unà cum Domini substantia panis sub eisdem Accidentibus contineretur, periculum e●●et nen populus simpliciter adoraret panem. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 22. initio. Et Alanus lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 34. Non posse, ait, in Eucharistiae duplicem existere substantiam, quià Ecclesia esset in summo periculo Idolalatriae, etc. Ratio est, quià cum adoramus id quod delitescit sub speciebus panis, si esset ib● adoraremus. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 16. pag. 109. Contendit Claudius Saints ex unitate Adorationis absentiam substantiae panis colligere: Etenim si duplex maneret substantia in Sacramento, una panis, altera Christi, non posset citrà Idololatriam unica adoratio in urramque referri. Vasquez Ies. quo sup.  Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body, lest that the People, being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread, should fall into Idolatry. And the person communicating orally (as you say) the Body of Christ, now in his mouth, is not to be adored Regularly, but why? 
h Sacramenta haec in sument homine, quià quandiù in eo Sacramentaliter sun● incertum est, nec regulariter, ●●c ordinarie solent adorari.— Praeceptor meus D. Joh. Benedictus, magnum Dominicani ordinis ornamentum, docuit, majua esse Idololatriae periculum, si Christus adoraretur in homine, quià homo est subjectum rationis capa● (honour est autem praemium virtutis) signa verò sacra non propter se, sed propter res, quas figurant & exhibent, sunt veneranda, in iis tantum periculi non inest, quam ●i homines peculiari hoc honore propter sumptum sacramentaliter, & sic aliquandiù Christum in eyes habitantem prosequeremur. Sic eniur homines paulatim Deos esse putaremus. 〈…〉 de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 6. fol. 14.  Because (say you) man being capable of honour, it might fall out, by little and little, that he should be honoured as God. So your own jesuits and Others. Yet (not to do you wrong) in this Contemplation Christ, by reason of the Hypostatical Union of his Godhead (being no mere Creature) is wholly excepted: whom we are taught by the Fathers of a General 
i Conc. Ephes●…. Tom. 1. C. 12. §. Pari. Neque hominem cum verbo adorandum dicimus, sed unum eu●demque, nè illud cum verbo aliquam divisionis imaginationem meriti objiciat. Et Tom. 4. C. 26.— Adoratione verò non seor●… Deum, nec seorsim hominem, sed unum Christum.  Council to adore, not in both his distinct natures, but whole Christ.  

CHALLENGE.  
WE suppose that there is not any of your own Romish Sect, albeit most superstitious, who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signs, or the Appearance of flesh, or the Priest, whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth, without at least a Moral Persuasion, viz. that he may so do; nor without a Good intent, viz. that it is well done; nor without habitual Condition, viz. not to do so, if he knew they were but Signs, Appearance of flesh, or he merely a Priest. If therefore there be any Idolatry, in adoring any of these things with Christ, then certainly much rather (which is your Case) is it Idolatry to worship with Divine Honour, Bread, it being without Christ.    

III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous in your Mass, by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine, touching Canonization of Saints.  
SECT. III.  
COncerning your Pope's Canonising of Saints (see the 
a Ambros. Catharinus Compsae Arch●episc. Anno●. advers. nova dogmata Cajet. Card. Ti●. De Veneratione & Canonizatione Sanctorum. pag. 126. Ob. Ecclesiam in Canonizatione Sanctorum errare posse. Catarrh. Quòd errare non potest, docet Turr. dicens, hoc esset fidei fundamentum evertere. pag. 127. Adduxi Xisti Quarti sententiam in Decreto Canonizationis Bonaventurae, ubi confidens de Spir. Sancti supren â directione, confidenter illum Sanctum esse pronuntiat, & fideliter ab omnibus teneri praecipit— Quod arroganter fecisset, si haec res ad fidem non attineret. ●ag. 128. Bonaventuram protuli, qui docet horribilissimum esse, Ecclesiam in hujusmodi errare posse, & periculosum esse in re fidei, eò quòd si unus Sanctus vocatur in dubium, etiam coeteri vocari possunt, & ità periculosum esset invocare Sanctos. pag. 129. Adduxi iterùm testimonium Hieronymin in Epist. ad Phil. Hominem non sanctum Sanctorum jungere societati, esset Christum violare, cujus membra sumus. Ibid. Ob. Sat e●it in universali credere, Canonizationem Sanctorum veram esse: at Canonizationem hujus aut illius credere non tenemur, quià an Sanct●s sit, pendet ex facto, utrùm nimirum talis fuerit, & talia fecerit, in quo Ecclesia errare potest: quià non est error fidei, sed facti. pag. 132. Resp. Numquid Canonizatio Sanctorum sit in genere, & none in particulari de quolibet Sancto? pag. 135. Ob. Nihilominus pi● credendum est, ●am errar● non posse. Risp. At ego crederem pictatem fidei esse divinae revelationis & authoritatis, non hominum. pag. 142. Ob. Certâ autem humanâ certitudine suadet credere pietas fidei, ceita verè divinâ certitudine ●ubet credere necessitas fidei. pag. 142. Resp. Credere vivum esse membrum Christi, quod est putridum, fidem laedit: quare est error pernitiosus. pag. 144. Et Thomas; si per cultum exteriorem aliquod falsum significetur, est cultus perniciofus. pag. 147. Acultu divino abesse debet omne mendacium, quia in eo fidem nostram protestamur, & cum Deo agimus & Io●…mur, qui omne falsum, fictum, vanum abhominatur. Haec Ca●harinus ibid. pag. 149.  Marginals) you shall find that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to think, that your Church cannot err in this function, and that all Christians are bound to believe the same; but how? upon a Moral and Conjectural persuasion only? No, upon a Divine and infallible Certitude, and why? Because (say they) if one Saint may be doubted of, then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question, so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint, lest that we should worship a dead and a rotten, instead of a lively member of Christ: which were an Error pernicious, seeing that every lie, figment, and falsehood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God. So your Archbishop, with others. You will ask, what maketh all this to the Question in hand? give us leave to tell you.  

CHALLENGE.  
THE same Archbishop Catharinus 
b Catharin. ibid. qu● suprà. Ob. Doctrina haec su●detur exemplis hostiae non consecratae, quam Sacerdos exhibet adorandam, ubi nulla Idololatria, quià fides Ecclesiae non ad has aut illas species panis refertur, sed ad hoc, quod corpus Christi continetur sub speciebus panis, quando fuerit rite benedictum. Patas tu quòd minus potest errare Ecclesia in adoratione hos●iae non consecratae, quam in cultu Sancti? pag. 132, 133. Resp. Catharin. Petrus de Palude asserit, nullo modo esse dandam Hostiam fimplicem pro consecrata, quod esset Idololatria: quoniam cum ministratur, etiam adoranda proponitur. Et Hier. Ferrar. cui quidam objectabat, quod Hostia, per quam jurabat, non erat consecrata; Cui respondet, si ita fuisset, secisset populum Idololatrare, atque ideò tanto magis provocaret in se iram Dei.— Audi, in hostia consecrata adoratur Christus ut Deus, non simpliciter, sed ut existons sub his speciebus. Cumigitur ibi non ex●stat Christus, sed creatura pro Christo invenitur, cui exhibetur Latria, atqu●…deò Idololatria est. Idololatrae enim etiam hâc errant ratione, qui coelum (puta) aut aliquid aliud adorabunt, putantes se ibi adorare Deum, quem a●imam Mundi dicebant, juxta Varronis Theologiam. Non igitur excusantur ab Idololatria, quòd arbitrarentur se unum Deu● colere, sicut verè erat unus Deus: sed quod illum ibi adora●ant, ubi non erat ●o modo, quo esse existimabant. Ibid. pag. 134, 135.  deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint, from the Infallibility which ought to be had concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist, Thus; If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host, by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ, then should it be I dolatry (saith he) as well in the Heathen, who adored Heaven in stead of God. So he. Do you mark? as well Idolatry, as that of the Heathen; whom neither Moral Certainty, nor Good Intent, or habitual Condition could ever free from a formal Idolatry. Our Argument, from your own Confessions, will be this.  
Whosoever may be mistaken, in adoring Bread in stead of Christ's Body, may therein be held as Formal an Idolater as any Heathen. (This is your Bishop's Proposition.) The Assumption. But any man may manifoldly be deceived, in taking Bread for Christ's Body. (Which hath been your general Confession.) Our Conclusion must be; Therefore any of you may be a Formal Idolater.    

IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formal Idolatry, by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes.  
SECT. IV.  
SAlmeron, a jesuit of prime note in your Church, endeavoureth to 
c Fides divina est, quâ credimus jesum, cadem credimus hun● esse Paulum Quartum Pontificem, etc.— Non tantum human â fide, cui subesse possit falsum. Salmeron. Ies. in Epist. Pauli part. 3. Disp. 2. pag. 183, 184. Al●oqui eam adorare formidarem. pag. 185.  prove that all men are bound to believe the new Pope, whensoever he is consecrated, to be the true Pope, not only with a Moral or Humane Assurance, but with a Divine and infallible faith; as were the jews bound to believe Christ jesus, at his coming, to be the true Messias: that is (saith he) with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived. We have nothing to do with your jesuits Position in this place, concerning the Infallibility of Belief of the Consecration, and Election of your Popes, which we have else where proved to be a 
* See the Grand Romish Imposture, etc.  Gross Imposture. But we are to argue from his Supposition, as for Example.  

CHALLENGE.  
YOur jesuit 
d Si enim fides nostra p●nderet ex externa intentione Ministri, commodum nobis esset repete●e Baptismum in ea forma, quam instituit Alex. 3. Papa, [Si baptizatus es, ego non baptizo te, etc.] cumque non magis constet nobis de secundo hoc Baptismo, quam de priori, esset tertiò, quartò, & quintò Baptismus repetendus. Salmeron ibid. pag. 188. Et proinde liberum erit, an ista consecrata sit hostia, & debito adorationis cultu adoretur, & ad salutem percipiant, & an verè sint Ministri Christi. Ibid. pag. 187. Signanter dixi, sub fidem divinam. pa. 184. §. Vtergò.  grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had, touching the Consecration of your Popes, upon a Supposition; and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Belief, which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist, wherein (saith he) if there should be any Uncertainty, so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest, in like manner might every one doubt, whether he may adore the Sacrament, as being not truly consecrated; as also make doubt of the Priest himself, as being not rightly ordained. So he; who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible. All these forecited Confessions of your own Divines, as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry, next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature, together with the Creator. Thirdly, in your Belief of the canonisation of Saints; and lastly, in the Consecration of the Pope, which are but humane Institutions, do enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility, in every Adoration instituted by God.  
Now among all the Schisms of Anti-popes', sometimes of two, sometimes of three at once, and that for forty or fifty years' space together, if any one of those Popes, in his time, had heard any Papist saying to him: you may not be offended, although I hold your Adversary (as for example Vrbane) to be the true Pope, and yield to him all Fealty and Obedience, for I do this to a Good Intent, in a Moral Certainty, that he is truly elected Pope; and in an habitual Condition, not to acknowledge him, if I knew him not to be Pope, wherein if I err, it is but a Material Disloyalty; would not the Pope, notwithstanding all these Pretences, judge this man to be formally an Anti-Papist, and pierce him with his Thunderbolt of Anathema, as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals, Princes, and Emperors in like Case? yet what is this Glow-worms slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty?     

CHAP. VIII.  

Of the Romish manner of Adoration, in Comparison with the Heathen.  
That the Romish Adoration; by your former Pretences, justifieth the vilest kind of Idolatry among the Heathen.  
SECT. I.  
THere is a double kind of Worship, the one is Direct, and terminate, which pitcheth immediately upon the Creature, without Relation to the Creator, whereof your Cardinal Alan hath resolved, saying; 
a Dicimus ad plenam resolutionem, cum cultus terminatur ad ipsas creaturas, Idololatriam esse injustam. Alan. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23.  The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature, is a notorious Idolatry. The second kind is Relative Honour, having Relation to Christ; whereof your Cardinal Bellarmine hath determined, saying, 
b Latria est cultus Deo proprius, nec per se deferendus imagini, ratione Relationis, Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 24 §. Tertio.— Hic cultus, si exhibetur imagini propter se, est vera Idololatria. Ib. §. Dicet.— Si idem cultus exhibetur imagini propter aliud, ut aequè colatur creatura atque Deus, certè est Idololatria: nam Idololatria est non solùm cum adoratur Idolum, relicto Deo, sed ctiam cum adoratur simul cum Deo. Ibid. ●. Praetereà.— Imagini non convenit cultus internus verus Latriae, nec externus proprius, qualis est Sacrificium. Ibid. §. Quarta.— Qui colebant imaginem Christi divinis honoribus, inter Haereticos numerantur ab Epiphanio, Augustino, & Damasceno. Atque isti cum Christum colerent, sine dubio imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant: non igitur imagines licet divinis honoribus colere, i. e. cultu latriae, etiamsi quis dicat, id esse facere propter Deum, vel Christum, non propter Imagines. Ibid. §. Sexta ratio. Haec Bellarminus.  When [Latria] or divine worship is given to an Image, because of the Relation it hath to Christ, this is Idolatry, although it be given for Christ, or God, whether it be internal or else external, as Sacrifice. So he. This we say, first to put you in mind of 
c Sunt benè multi, qui imagines colunt, non ut signa— sed magis eis fidunt quam Christo. Polydor. Virgil. Invent. lib. 6. cap. 13.  Very many of your Romish People, who adore Images Idolatrously; which although you would cloak, yet the Complaints and outcries of your own Romish 
* Manifestius est, quam ut verbis explicari possit, cultum nimiùm invaluisse, ità ut ad summam Paganorum adorationem nil à nostris reliqui fit factum. Cassander Consult. Art 21. Dici non potest, quan●a superstitio, ne dicam Idololatria alatur apud rudem plebem. Agrippa de vanit. cap. 57 Superstitiones in populo, dùm Imaginibus exhibent Latriae cultum. Gerson. de probat. Spir. lit. x.  Authors will not suffer it to be concealed, One of them saying, that this your worship is more manifest than can be denied; even immediately and terminately given by your people to the thing itself, which they see and adore, and which all Christian learning teacheth to be Heathenish, in an high Degree. And also note infinite numbers of your Worshippers, who adore Idolatrously, in the same manner of Relation, that which is here condemned by your Cardinal.  
But to the point, your own Jesuits 
d Fuerunt ex Ethnicis, qui simulachra adorabant, quià ea animata esse credebant divinis spiritibus. Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Idol. cap. 2. pag. 690. Idololatria quintuplex apud Gentiles: 1. Adoratio ipsorum simulachrorum materi●lium, vel Daemoniorum illis affixorum. 2. Aliarum Creaturarum, ut Coeli, Teriae, etc. 3. Hominum mortuorum▪ 4. Mundi, tanquàm animati. 5. Substantiarum immaterialium, etiam pierce, ut Daemoniorum, sive malorum Angelorum. Lerin. Ies. Conc. in Act. 17. 20. Quatuor ob causas movebantur Ethnici crede●e Idôla esse Deos: 1. quià sic edocti à Pontificibus suis. 2. quià videnatur totus mundùs id credere. 3. quià operâ Diaboli Idola loquebantur, & movebantur. 4. quià humana forma praediti essent. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 13. §. Quartum.  report that some Heathen Idolaters did worship Idols, believing that They were inspired with a Divine Spirit; next that they had four kind of persuasions for this their Belief, to wit, the Instructions of their Paganish Priests, the Example of the whole world in their times, the power of Devils, speaking in the Images; and lastly, the humane shape, which was presented unto them: nevertheless so, that they sometimes honoured not the things themselves, but the Spirit which they thought them possessed withal. Will you permit us to compare this with that which you have called but your 
* See above.  Material Idolatry? To this end, we are to try whether there hath been any Pretence for justifying your Romish, which might not as truly excuse and warrant that Heathenish Worship; which notwithstanding no Christian will deny to have been most Formally, and properly Idolatrous.  
Your Moral, and Conjectural Certainty would be compared in the first place. This the Heathens might pretend by the Reasons, by you already confessed, to wit, the Prescriptions of their Priests, their Idols speaking, and the Example of almost the whole vast world adoring them. Secondly, you please yourselves with your Good Intent, that, in worshipping the Bread, you think to adore Christ; and the Pagans (which also the whole world of Idolaters professed of themselves, and you yourselves have confessed of them) in their most Formal Idolatry, were persuaded they worshipped a True God. Thirdly, you rely upon an Habitual Condition, namely, that although the thing which you adore, be Bread, yet your inward Resolution is not to give Divine Honour unto it, if you knew it were but Bread, and not Christ. But inquire you now into your own Bibles, and you shall find that the Heathen were not inferior unto you in this Modification also; for in the History of Bel and the Dragon it is read, that the King of Babel, and other Babylonians worshipped Bel with Divine Honour, thinking it to live, until such time as Daniel had discovered it to be but an Idol: and no sooner had the King perceived the Delusion, but presently commanded it should be demolished. The Case than is plain. He, and they, who abhorred, and utterly destroyed that Idol, as soon as they knew it not to be God, were therefore, before that, habitually in their hearts resolved not to honour it, if they could have been persuaded it had not been a God. In such just Equipage do these your Romish, and those Heathenish walk together, that from these your own Premises, you may take your Conclusion out of the mouth of your own Archbishop, whom you have heard affirm, that If in the worship of this Sacrament (saith he) we may be deceived, in mistaking Bread, instead of Christ▪ then in this worship as madly Idolatrous as was that 
(*) See above, Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at (a).  of the Heathen. So he. Which showeth your Cause and theirs, in these Respects, to be all one. We proceed a step further.   

That the Romish Worship of that, which may possibly be Bread, may seem to be in one respect worse than almost the worst of the Pagans.  
SECT. II.  
ALthough the very title of this Section may seem unto you fully odious, yet let Truth (in what apparel soever it shall appear) be gracious unto you. Costerus is a jesuit much privileged by your Church, who doubted not to affirm, that 
a Talis error est, quo in orbe terrarum nunqu●m vel visus, vel auditus fuit— tolerabilior enim est error eorum, qui pro Deo colunt statuam ●uream, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodò Gentiles snos Deos venerabantur, vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia, ut quondàm Aegyptii; quam eorum qui frustum panis. Coster. Jes. Enchirid. de Sacram. Eucharist. cap. 8. §. Decimo.  If Christ be not in this Sacrament, but Bread only, the Error (saith he) is more intolerable than was the Error of the Heathen, in worshipping either a golden Statue, or a Red Clout. So he. What reason he had to speak so broad Language, we refer to your Inquisitors, to question him for it. But what Cause we have for the confirming our Title of this Section, we shall not forbear to impart unto you. It is the profession of your Church to Adore Bread in the Eucharist with Divine Worship, notwithstanding whatsoever Uncertainty of the presence of Christ therein, by reason of (as your jesuit Suarez 
* See above, Chap. 6. Sect. 6.  speaks) almost infinite Defects, which may possibly happen to cause the same. chose the Heathen Idolaters, touching the things which they worshipped, 
* See in the former Section at (d).  Credebant (said your jesuit) They believed them certainly to have been Gods. For although some Heathen would sometime make some doubt of a [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] what, or who the God was, whom they did adore, as they that said, Sive tu Deus es, sive tu Dea es; Whether thou ●e God or Goddess; And the Athenians had an 
* Act. 17. 23.  Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To an unknown God, yet hardly shall you ever find any Example of the Heathen, doubting [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Whether it were a God, which they worshipped as God; those of Calecute, and such like Devilish Nations excepted, who are said knowingly to have Adored Devils, but (as some people sometime do homage to Tyrannous Usurpers, knowing them not to be their lawful Sovereign's) only N●●●ceant, for fear of hurt.  
So abominable is your Mass worship, being both contrary to express Scripture, which exacteth of every man 
* Heb. 11. 6.  That cometh to God that he must believe, what? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] If he be? no, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] That he is God; and also against the light of grace in all Christians, before the darkness of Popery began; yea and against the light of nature in the very Pagans. For although you do but seem to symbolise with them in that one part of Idolatry, thus described by the Prophet, 
* Esay 44. 15, etc.  He taketh wood, burneth it, maketh Bread, and of a part thereof maketh a God, and falling down before it, prayeth, Deliver me, for thou art my God: (Like as is the taking a lump of Doughty, baking it, and with part of it to feed our Bodies, of another part to make a God, worship it, and invocate upon it, according to your own vulgar Rhymes: Non est Panis, sed est Deus, Homo liberator meus: fit cibus expane, caro Deus exelemento: Qui me creavit sine me, creature mediante me) yet notwithstanding do you far exceed them, by adoring only in an Habitual Condition, If the thing be God, which you worship; Therefore shall they be your judges.    

CHAP. IX.  

Our Examination of the Reverence professed by Protestants, and the Security of their Profession therein; First, defining and distinguishing the Properties of Reverence.  
SECT. I.  
REverence is a due Respect had unto things or persons, according to the good qualities that is in them. This is either inward, or outward. The inward is that our Estimation of them, according to their Conditions and Properties: the outward is our open Expression of our said estimation, whether by words or Acts. First of the inward estimation, whether Natural, Politic, Religious, or Divine. Children (for Example sake) are taught by Scripture to honour their Parents, Wives their Husbands, Husbands their Wives, Subjects their Sovereigns, People their Pastors; And all, above all, to honour God. Our outward Manifestation of these, be it either in word, or deed, or Gesture, is to be discerned and distinguished by the Inward, as the honour to Parents to be called Natural; of Subjects to Governors, Politic; of People to their Pastors, Religious; of All to God, Divine, which is transcendently Religious, and Spiritual. And the Outward is common to each Degree; three only outward Acts excepted, Sacrificing, Vowing unto, and Swearing by: Homages appropriated to the Majesty of God; Sacrifice to betoken his Sovereignty; Vowing to testify his Providence; and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisdom in discerning, justice in condemning, and Omnipotency in revenging all Perjury, be it never so secret.   

That the Reverence used by Protestants, in receiving this Sacrament, is Christianly Religious.  
SECT. II.  
THeir Inward is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament, in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signs of the precious Body and Blood of Christ, a Memorial of his death, which is the price of Man's Redemption, and to the faithful a Token of their spiritual Union, with all the Members of Christ; and by the incôrporation of them, in their flesh, a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life.  
Secondly their outward Application, for testifying their inward estimation, consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in itself, as you will 
a Conc. Carthag. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam, qui dic Dominico flectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes: placuit sanctae & magnae Synodo cunctos— stantes Deum orare debere. Durant. de Ri●●●us, lib. 3. cap. 2. num. 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur. Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste, quià Resurrectionem Domini celebremus: & ut Hieron. Proem. in Epist. ad Ephes. Non flectimus genua, non curvamur in terra, sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus.  confess from Antiquity, whether it be in Standing, Bowing, Kneeling, or the like; even because the Gestures of Uncovering, Bowing, and Kneeling, are outward behaviours communicable to other persons beside God, according to their natural, moral, politic, and religious respects. Howbeit, any of these outward Gestures, which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence, may be enjoined by the Church (whereunto obedience is due) according to the just occasions inducing thereunto. And where there is no such necessary occasion, there the public observation of the Rites of Communicating, commanded by Christ in his first Institution, performed (namely) by supplications, and praises, is a plain profession of Reverence; and more especially that Invitation, used in all Church's Christian, of the Priest to the People, Lift up your hearts; and their answerable Conclamation, We lift them up unto the Lord.  
It will be objected by Some, who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin, that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Unlawful. Every such One is to be entreated to be better acquainted with Calvin, where, speaking of the Reverence of kneeling, he saith, 
b Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. §. 37. Jam verò longius prolapsi sunt (viz. Papistae) ritus enim excogitârunt pro●sùs extraneos, in hoc, ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant. At Christo (inquiunt) hanc Venerationem deferimus. Primùm si in coena hoc fieret, dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam quae non in signo refidet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur.  It is lawful, if it be directed not to the sign, but to Christ himself in Heaven; which is the resolute profession of our English Church, in the use of this Gesture. But to return unto you, who think it no Reverence, which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament, we ask, Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptism Reverently? you do, yet do you not adore the water with that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which you yield unto the Eucharist. All this notwithstanding, Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but profane to many of you: but the reason is, you would rather condemn him, than judge him, lest that his Doctrine, if it come to examination, might condemn you. For albeit he abhor your Divine Adoration of the Host, yet doth he also 
c Calv. defence. Sanct. Doctr. advers. Westphal. Sive utilitas nostra spectetur, sive dignitas & reverentia, quam Sacramento deferri par est. pag. 25. Rursus; Profani, quia sacrae communicationis pignus, quod reverenter suscipere decebat,— non mirum si corporis & sanguinis Christi rei censeantur. Ibid. p. 39  condemn every Profane man, who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitency, To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. Your next Question will be, after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities, wherein you, by your Romish Doctrine, are so miserably plunged, how Protestants can avoid, in many of them, the like Entanglements.   

That Protestants, in their Profession and Practice, stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities, in respect of Preparation of the Elements, and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration.  
SECT. III.  
Our Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets, the Supper of our ●ord; yet doth it believe, that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the souls of his guests of their desired spiritual Blessings, for the negligence of his steward, in being defective to provide the Material Elements, if so be that there be therein (according to Christ his Institution) the substance of Bread and Wine. As for Pronunciation, you know, Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue known unto all the people communicating, and in a loud voice, according to the universal Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times, as 
* See above, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6, 7.  hath been confessed. So that the People's ears may be their own witnesses, whether the words of Consecration, either by Prayer, or together with the form of Repetition of the words of Institution, be truly delivered: which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest have truly Consecrated, by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice.   

The Protestants Security, in respect of the third Romish Perplexity, of Adoring in a Moral Certainty.  
SECT. IV.  
Our Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith, and not with a conjectural Credulity, or Probability, as we are taught by the holy Scripture, the Canonical foundation of Christian faith; defining Faith to be an 
* Heb. 11. 1.  Evidence of things not seen; namely, a more infallible apprehension of the mind, than any perception of sight can be; a faith required of every one, which shall approach in supplication to God: 
* Heb. 11. 6.  He that cometh to God must believe that God is. Infallible faith than must usher Prayer, yea and preaching also any fundamental doctrine of belief, as it is written, 
* Psal. 116. 10. & 2. Cor. 4. 13.  I believed, therefore I spoke: yea, without divine Faith, it is impossible to use any religious Invocation: 
* Rom. 10. 14.  How shall they invocate on whom they have not believed? So incredible and faithless is your Romish Conjectural Faith of your worshipping, and Invocating Christ on the Earthly Altar, whereas (according to our Christian Creed of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven) we, because faithfully, do 
* See the Consent of Fathers above, Chap. 4. Sect. 2.  catholicly, and comfortably adore him, where he infallibly is upon his Throne of Majesty in Heaven.   

That the Protestants stand secure, in respect of the Fourth Romish Perplexity, by defect in the Priestly Intention.  
SECT. V.  
FOr the necessity of the Priests due Intention in consecrating your 
a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 27. §. Quantum ad primum. Nova haeresis orta est hoc tempore, cujus Author Luthe●us, non requiri interiorem intentionem Ministri ad perfectionem Sacramenti: non tàm inquit in Conferentis quam suscipientis fide sita est virtus Baptismi: & si Minister joco absolveret, si tamen credat se absolutum, verissime est absolutus. Et §. Johanaes' Calvinus.— Vt si Minister totam actionem intùs subsannans, coenan Christi ritu legitimo administret, non dubitem panem & vinum mihi esse verissima Christi corporis & sanguinis pignora. Sic etiam Protestantes alii— Catholicorum sententia est, quae est Conc. Trid. Requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia. Et paulò post. §. Ad hanc. Ad hanc Haereticorum sententiam accessit Ambros. Catharinus: quo excepto, in hac doctrine, mirificè conveniunt Catholici Doctores.  Cardinal allegeth the Authority, addeth the consent of your Doctors, (except Catharinu●) produceth the opinion of Luther, and Calvin, condemning this Romis● Doctrine; and condemneth their Censure as Heretical. But we permit it to your discreet judgements, whether to yield to this ostentative flourish of your Cardinal, or to the exact and accurate discourse of your 
b Salmeron Ies. Intentio duplex, publica, in observando formam publicam in pronuntiatione verborum, etc. Altera verò privata & particularis ipsius Ministri, qui aut nihil credit corum, quae facit, aut derisoriè facit, aut contrariam habet intentionem non conferendi Sacramenta— At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria. Rat. 1. Quià cum intentio intima sit latens in cord ejus insensibilis, sequeretur hominum animos to●queri scrupulis & dubitationibus, an verum suscipiant Sacramentum: quod sanè Scriptures & Patribus contrarium est, qui nos firmâ fide Sacramentum suscipere adhortantur. 2. Rat. Quià sic hominum falus ex hominum aliquorum arbitrio penderet: & sic homines plus nocere possent quam Christus juvare. 3. Quià plecterentur Innocentes propter hominum malitiam, quod remotum est à divina bonitate. 4. Quià sic liberum erit Omnibus dubitare an Baptizati fint, & an Eucharistiam adorent. 5. Quià hoc dogma proximum erit Donatistar●m haeresi, contra quos disputat August●…us, docens per malos ministros conferri salutaria Sacramenta. 6. Mirum est oli●… Ecclesiam, in controversia Novatianorum & Donatistarum, asserentium Baptismum ab Haereticis collatum nullum esse, d● debita illa intentione Ministri ni●il disputâsse. Ergo satis est publica Actio, nisi Minister contra protestetur, aut aliquo modo vitie● formam Sacramenti. Sufficit eatenus publicus Actus, ut Notarius publicum conficiens Instrumentum, nec potest intentione sua internâ, licet derisoriè agate, illud validum reddere. Pro hac sententia stant multi Patres. Aug. lib. 1. cont. literas Petilian. oppugnans illud Donatistarum. Conscientia dantis abluit conscientiam accipientis. Salmeron Ies. in Epist. Pauli Disp. 2. pag. 186.  jesuit Salmeron, to the contrary; grounded upon sound Reasons, (among others, this) that this Perplexity, and doubt, whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating, worketh to the tormenting of men's Consciences, injury to God's exceeding bounty and goodness, contrary to the judgement of Antiquity; and in special, against that of S. Augustine; Saepèmihi ignotaest Conscientia aliena, sed semper certus sum de divina misericordia. And lastly, because of the Affinity, which it hath with the heresy of the Donatists. So he.  
All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine (teaching a necessary Priestly Intention) of Novelty, Impiety, and relish of Heresy. We add to this that saying of the Apostle, 
* Phisip. 1. 18.  If the word be preached, whether of envy, and vain glory, or of good will, I rejoice, and will rejoice: which proveth that the evil Intention of the Messenger cannot impeach the Benefit of the message of Salvation, and embassage of God. Now there is the like Reason of the word visible (which is the Sacrament) as there is of the Audible. Take unto you a Similitude, in the marginal Testimony of your jesuit Salmeron, of a Notary public making a true Instrument, according to the form of Court, in the time when he was distracted in his wits; nevertheless the same Instrument is of use, and for the benefit of the party who hath it, not through the Intention of the Scribe, but by the will of the Ordainer, and willingness and consent of the Receiver.   

Our fifth Security from your Romish Perplexity, touching Ordination.  
SECT. VI  
TO pass over matters not controverted between us, whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiastical Ordination to this Function (a matter agreed upon on both sides) the only question is, if he that ministereth happen to be an Intruder, and no consecrated Minister, whether this his Defect do so nullify his Consecration of the Eucharist, that it becometh altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant. Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers, Godmothers, Priest, or Midwife that baptizeth, to know whether he have been rightly baptised; and this not satisfying, she will have you seek forth the Bishop, by whom he was ordained, and so to the Ordainer of that Bishop, and so to spur further, and further, until you come to S. Peter, to see whether each of these were rightly consecrated a Priest, and then to search into so many Church-bookes, to know the Baptism of each one, without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate, and your Adoration Idolatrous. Contrariwise we, in such an indeprehensible Case, wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect, are no way scrupulous, knowing that things do work Ad modum Recipientis: as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God, were it by judas; or if you will a transformed Devil, yet the seed being Gods, it may be fruitful, (whatsoever the Seed-man be) if the ground that receiveth it be capable. Therefore here might we take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English; and to show ours, so far as it consenteth with yours, to be the same; and wherein it differeth to be far more justifiable than yours can be: if it were lawful, upon so long travelling, to transgress by wand'ring into by-paths.   

Our Security from the Romish Perplexity of Habitual Condition.  
SECT. VII.  
Habitual or virtual Condition (as it is conceived by your Professors) standeth thus; I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest, as Christ, if it be Christ; being otherwise not willing so to do, if it be not Christ. What my Masters, Iffs, and Ands in divine worship? These can be no better in your Church, than leaks in a ship, threatening a certain perishing, if they be not stopped; which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do. For as touching your profane Lecturer 
e Suarez Ies. Simpliciter adorand us est Christus in Eucharistia, & aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum, & vanis scrupulis, & superstitionibus expositum: neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepida●e, ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi, sed potius periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur. Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. Sect. 2.  Suarez, labouring to persuade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply without all scrupulizing, saying, It is not fit to fear where no fear is; when as he himself (as you have heard) hath told us that there are possibly incident 
* See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at (a).  Almost Infinite Defects, and consequently as many Causes of Doubting, which may disannul the whole Act of Consecration: there needeth no other Confutation, than this, of his own shameless Contradiction, which (as you may see) is palpably gross. So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plain Idolatry. Certainly, if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria (which he everywhere teacheth to be proper to God) were performed to Bread and Wine, as the matter of Divine Adoration, he neither would, nor could have said, in defence thereof, as he did of the Celebation of the Eucharist in his own time, viz. 
d Aug. Cont. Faust. Ma●…b. lib. 20. cap. 21. Nos à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus.  We are far from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus.  
But as for us Protestants, we profess no Divine Worship of God, but with a Divine, that is, an Infallible Faith, that it is God, whom we worship; who will not be worshipped, but in spirit and truth. What furthermore we have to say against your Romish Mass, will be discovered in the Book following.     

THE EIGHTH BOOK,  
Of the additionals: by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Mass; and of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof.  
THese may be distinguished into Principals, which are Three, the Romish superstitiousness, sacrilegiousness, and idolatrousness of your Mass: and Accessaries, which are These; Obstinacies, manifold Overtures of Perjuries, Mixture of many ancient Heresies in the Defenders thereof.  

CHAP. I.  

Of the peremptory superstitiousness of the Romish Mass, in a Synopsis.  
SECT. I.  
MAny words shall not need for this first point. Superstition is described by the Apostle, in this one word, 
* Coloss. 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Man's will-worship; as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God. What the will of Christ is, concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood, we have learned by his last will and Testament, expressly charging his Church, and saying, [DO THIS:] pointing out thereby such proper Acts, which concerned either the Administering or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament. But now cometh in Mans' will-worship, ordained in the Church of Rome; as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ, by Ten notorious Transgressions, as if it had been in direct Terms countermanded thus, [Do not This] (as hath been 
* Book 1. throughout.  proved:) notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ, or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles, or Consent, and Custom of the Church Catholic; and that without respect had to the due Honour of God, in his worship; or Comfort, and Edification of his People.  
And then is Superstition most bewitching, when it is disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences (which have been many) devised by the new Church of Rome, in an opinion of her own wisdom, to the befooling and vilifying of the Ancient Cathólique Church of Christ: which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough, for making any Alteration; but (notwithstanding such imaginations) precisely observed the Precept, and Ordinance of Christ.  
But that, which exceedeth all height of Superstition, is, when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seals of forged Miracles, as if they had been authorized by the immediate hand of God; whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers 
* Book 4. Chap. 2. and 3.  Thirteen Examples, to wit, of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh, and Blood of Christ, in the Eucharist: which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous, as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falsehood; a Sin abhorred by holy job, saying to his Adversaries, 
* job 13. 4, & 7.  You are Forgers of Lies: will you speak deceitfully for God? And furthermore how Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is, you may behold in the Sections following.   

Of the sacrilegiousness of the Romish Mass, and Defence thereof, in the point of Sacrifice; comprised in this Synopsis.  
SECT. II.  
SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person, Place, or Thing. Now omitting to speak of your Dismembering the Eucharist, by administering it but in One kind (which your Pope 
a Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge.  Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege) or of the like points formerly discovered, we shall insist only in your Church's Doctrine of Sacrifice, wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossly Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Book.  
I. By Creating a new Sacrifice, as Proper, and thereby assuming to herself that 
b Book 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 5.  Excellency of Prerogative, which is proper to Christ alone the high Priest, and Bishop of our Souls (namely) the power of ordaining Sacraments; or (if need were) Sacrifices in his Church. Which Guiltiness we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seal of Christ.  
II. By making this Sacrifice, in her pretence, Christian; but but indeed 
c Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 1.  Earthly, and jewish.  
III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of 
d Ibid. Chap. 10.  Meritorious, and Satisfactory Propitiation.  
IV. By professing another properly Satisfactory and 
e Ibid. and after, etc.  Propitiatory Sacrifice, for Remission of sins, besides that which Christ offered upon the Cross. As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once, upon condition that such of those Debtors should be discharged, whosever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due, should also profess the favour of their Redeemer; It cannot but be extreme folly for any to think, that the money once paid should be tendered, and offered again, as often as One or Other of the Debtors should make such an acknowledgement, the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all. So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God, by the price of his blood, in the behalf of all penitent Sinners, who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption; it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God, and to the merit of Christ, that the same satisfactory Sacrifice, as it were a new payment, ought again, by way of Satisfaction, be personally performed and tendered unto God.  
V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his 
f Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 〈◊〉.  Priesthood now eminent, and permanent before God in Heaven; and thereupon stupifying the minds of Communicants, and (as it were) pinioning their thoughts, by teaching them so to gaze, and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest, that they cannot (as becometh Spiritual Eagles) soar alost, and contemplate upon the Body of Christ, where it's infallible Residence is, in that his heavenly Kingdom.  
VI By transforming (as much as they can) the Sacrament, ordained for Christians to eat with their own mouths, into a 
g Ibid.  Theatrical Sacrifice, wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest.  
VII. By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood, infinitely exceeding all valuation, in making it but 
h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4.  finite; whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God and Man in one person, every propitiatory work of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore of an infinite price, and power.  
VIII. By denying the Effect of his 
* Ibid. Chap. 11.  Propitiation for Sin to be plenary, in the Application thereof.  
IX. There hath been noted (by the way) the Portion appropriated to the Priest, out of your Sacrifice, and to be applied to some particular Soul for money: being an Invention, as hath been confessed, void of all 
i Ibid. Chap. 〈◊〉. Sect. 4.  Warrant, either by Scripture, or by Ancient Tradition. To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating men's Souls by Priestly Fraud; whereof, as also of the Rest, we have discoursed at 
k Book 6. 〈◊〉▪ ●ut.  large.   

A New Instance, for proof of Romish sacrilegiousness, in the Prayer set down in the Liturgy of their Mass.  
SECT. III.  
IN your Missal, after Consecration, it is prayed thus: 
a Missal. Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae, Domine, Immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vi●ae aeternae, & Calicem salutis perperuae— supra quae propitro vultu respicere digneris, sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel. And in the next place. Jube hae● perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altar tuum coeleste.  We offer unto thy Majesty, O Lord, this immaculate Host, this holy Bread of eternal life, this Cup of everlasting salvation, upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and favourable Countenance, as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel, and command these to be carried up into thy celestial Altar, etc. So the Canon of your Mass. Some Protestants, in their zeal to the glory of Christ, impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profaneness, whilst you believing That Host, and That Cup to be the very Body, and Blood of Christ, and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in itself, yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it, and to accept it, as he did the Sacrifice of Abel; yielding thereby no more estimation to Christ, than to a vile sheep, which was offered by Abel.  
At the hearing of this, your Cardinal (See the 
b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 24. Facilis est respensio: Non petimus pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem, sed pro nostra infirmitate: etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei, quae offertur, & ex parte Christi principalis offerentis semper Deo placebat, tamen ex parte Ministri & populiastantis, qui simul etiam offerunt, fieri potest ut non placeat— Paulò 〈◊〉. Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum, & Sacrificium Abelis, sed tantùm ratione fidei, & devotionis offerentium, ut nimirum tanta fide offerant, quantâ Abel— quod Sacrificium Abelis non habetet in se, quod Deo placere, cumque placare possit, quare dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacri●ficium melius— Ratio. Gen. 4. Respe 〈◊〉 Deus a●● Abel, & Sacrificium. Post. 〈◊〉. Porrò.— Deferri Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est, quam intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium, & cultum. So also Suarez Tem. 3. Disp. 83. Art. 4. Jube hae●, i. e. ●o●a nostra. Et Salmeron ●es. Tom. 9 Tract. 32. sub. finem.  Margin) 1. Prefaceth, 2. Answereth, 3. Illustrateth, 4. Reasoneth. First of his Preface. The Answer (saith he) is easy. As if that Objection, which seemeth to us a huge log in your way, were so little an obstacle, that any might skip over it. But have you never seen men, in trusting too much to their nimbleness, to overreach themselves in their leap, stumble, fall, and break their limbs?  
Sembably he in his Answer (which is the second point,) The meaning of our Church (saith he) is not to pray for Christ's reconciliátion, who was always well pleasing to God, but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest, and people, that the offering may be accepted from them. So he. But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is, sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer; for the matter prayed for is set down to be Holy Bread of life, and Cup of Salvation, which you interpret to be substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament; and the tenor of prayer expressly is, [Upon which Lord look propitiously] we say, upon which, not upon whom; which point is confirmed in that which followeth.  
Thirdly therefore he illustrateth. The Comparison (saith he) is not absolutely between the Sacrifice of Abel, and of Christ, but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest, and people, that they with like faith may offer, as Abel did. But this piece of Answer is that, which is called in Music Discantus contra punctum, for the prayer is directly: Look down propitiously upon these, as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel. The Comparison than is distinctly between the Gifts, and not between the Givers. Yea but not absolutely so meant (saith he:) be it so, yet if it be so meant but in part, that Christ, who is Propitiation itself, shall be prayed for to be propitiously, and favourably looked upon by God, the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree.  
Fourthly his Reason. It is known (saith he) that the Sacrifices of sheep and Oxen had nothing in themselves, whereby to pacify, or please God, the Scripture saying, that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain. And again, God had respect to Abel, and to his Gifts. So he. Which is the very Reason that persuadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious, because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheep, etc. you, notwithstanding, compare them with the offering up of Christ, saying, As thou didst the Gifts of Abel. For although it be true, that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver, and not the Giver for his Gift; yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question, than your Gift (in your Opinion) being Christ, and your Givers but simply men, (whom you have called Priest, & People) it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest, and People; and not the Priest and People for Christ, which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious. And not much less is that which followeth, praying God to command his Angel to carry (if the Gift be He) Christ into heaven; contrary to the Article of our Catholic Faith, which teacheth us to believe his perpetual Residence in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. He answereth: 
c Bellarm. sup.  It is not meant, that God would command his Angel to carry Christ's Body, but our prayers and desires, by their intercession unto God for us. So he. Which is as truly a false Gloss, as the former; for, in the Tenor of your Mass, the Subject of your prayer is [Holy Bread of life, and Cup of salvation.] The prayer is plainly thus▪ Upon which, O Lord, look propitiously: and immediately after, Command [These] to be carried by thy Angel. Mark, [These] viz. That Bread of life, and Cup of salvation, even that, which you call, The Body, and Blood of Christ, as corporally Present: which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still, and your Expositors (that we may so say) miserably Ridiculous.   

That the former Romish Prayer, as it was Ancient, doth in the (then) true meaning thereof condemn the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation.  
SECT. IV.  
FOR to think that it should be prayed, that God would be propitious to Christ, were an Execrable opinion, even in the judgement of our Adversaries themselves; who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition, as far differing from the Text, as doth This from That, or Christ from the Priest, as you have heard. But whither will he now? Your Cardinal telleth you, that the words of your Romish Canon are ancient, such as are found in the 
a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 24. Super quae propitio, etc. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem. Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. R●…s●s Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap, 6. in Liturg●…s Jacobi, Clementis, Basilii, Chrysostomis.  missals of S. james, of Clement Pope of Rome, of Basil, of Chrysostome, and of Ambrose. You will hold it requisite that we consult with these Liturgies, set out by yourselves, for the better understanding of the Tenor of your Romish Mass. The Principal Quaere will be, whether Antiquity in her Liturgies, by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation, and admittance into his celestial Altar, meant (as your Cardinal answered) propitiousness towards Priest, and People, in respect of their faith, and devotion; and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves.  
In the pretended Liturgy of S. 
b Liturgia jacobi antè Consecratienem. Diaconus. Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis— ut Dominus acceptis ●is in super-coeles●e spirituale Altate suum in odorem suavitatis mittat nobis divinam gratiam. Tum Sacerdos. Deus, ac Pater Domini Dei, & Servatoris— qui tibi oblata munera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis— sanctifica animas nostras. Post Sacerdos consecra●s verba Consecrationis adhibet: Sancte qui in sanctis requi●scis— suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificiis tuis.  james (before Consecration) the prayer to God is, To accept the Gifts into his celestial Altar; even the Gifts, which he called The fruits of the earth. And then after, for the Parties, as well Priest, as People, To sanctify their souls.  
In the Liturgy of 
c Liturgia Basilii antè Consecrationem. Pontifex— Suscipe nos, ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium— & vide super servitutem nostram●…●t suscepisti munera Abel, sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ. Et rursus Diac. Prooblatis, sanctificatis, & honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus, ut qui accepit ea in sancto & supercoelesti Altari suo in odorem suavitatis, emittat gratiam & spiritum nobis, etc. P●st, sequitur Cons●…ratis. Po●tifex: Respice Domine jesu. Et post Consecrationem; Gratias agimus.  Basil (before Consecration) it is prayed to God, that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestial Altar, would also (concerning the Parties) send his Gra●e, and Spirit upon them.  
And no less plainly Pope 
d Clement. Constitut. lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 16. called, Constitutio Jacobi, apud Binium. Tu, qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti— And after, Pro omnibus tibi gloria, etc. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere dig●eris super haec dona propo●ita in conspectu tuo— & complaceas tibi in eyes, in honorem Christi, & mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium, testem passionum ejus— ut ostendas hun● panem corpus ejus, etc. Po●… Consecrationem, cap. 19 Etiam rogemus Deum, per Christum suum, pro munere oblato Domino, ut Deus, qui bonus est, suscipiat illud pe● Medistorem Christ●… in coele●●e Altar suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ, etc.  Clemens teaching (before Consecration) to pray God, who received the Gifts of Abel graciously, to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Son Christ; expressly differenceth this Sacrifice done, in honour of Christ, from Christ himself, who is honoured thereby. And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him, and to take it into his Celestial Altar; where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ, but of the Gift for Christ's sake, and to the honour of Christ, in whom God is Propitious unto us: we say again, the Gift for Christ, and not Christ for the Gift, (what can be more plain against all Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament?) and to receive it into his Celestial Altar, but how? by intercession of Angels? No, but expressly thus: By Christ the Mediator.  
In the Liturgy of 
e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem. Adhuc o●ferimus tibi rationabile, & incruentum hoc obsequium, Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos, & super apposita muneta. Sequitur Consecratio. Fac Panem istum preciosum Corp●s, etc. Post Consecrationem. Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter dormientibus, etc. Post. Dominum deprecemur, ut qui s●scepit ea in sancto & coelesti Altari suo, mittat nobis propterea gratiam, & donum Spiritus Sancti.  Chrysostome (before Consecration) God is prayed unto, and supplicated thus: We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us, and upon the Gifts set before us.  
Even as 
f A●…s. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem. Offerimus tibi hunc Panem ●anctum, 〈◊〉 Calicem, & petimus ut hanc Oblationem suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum, sicu● ac●ipere dignatus es munera pucri tui Abel, etc.  Ambrose explaineth his Supplication (after Consecration) for God, To accept this Oblation, namely that, which he called Holy Bread, and Cup.  
If therefore these former Forms may interpret your Roman Liturgy, as it was Ancient, the prayer therein to God, desiring him to be Propitious, must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life, and Cup of Salvation, as distinguished from Priest, and People. Wherefore your Roman missals being so Ancient in this one point, in praying God (after Consecration) to be Propitious to that, which is called the Bread of life eternal, and Cup of everlasting salvation; lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense, to wit, that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist, and consequently to need a Propitiation to God, by virtue of men's prayers (thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ:) you ought to reduce this your Roman Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned; and to understand it Sacramentally only, (namely) our Objective Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof by us, which is our Act of Celebration.  
To the former vast heap of Sacrilegious Positions, and Practices, we may add your other many vile, and impious 
g Book 5. throughout.  Indignities offered to the all-glorious Son of God, in making his sacred Body, in your own opinions, obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes, Tearing with men's Teeth, Devouring, Vomiting it by the Communicants, and the Transmittance into your guts, together with the Eating, and Feeding thereupon by Dogs, Mice, Worms, and (which transcendeth, if it may be, all your other Absurdities) to be deprived of all natural power of Motion, Sense, and Understanding. O Abominable! Abominable!   

A Synopsis of the idolatrousness of the Romish Mass, and Defence thereof; by many Evidences from Antiquity.  
SECT. V.  
OUR first Argument is against the foundation thereof, which is your Interpretation of the Article [HOC] by denying it to have Relation to Bread; contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers, showing that the same pointeth out Bread, as you have 
a Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6.  heard; whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very womb.  
Insomuch that sometimes they expressly 
* Ibid.  interpret it thus; Christ's Body, and Blood, that is, (say they) The Bread, and Wine: Item, He gave the name of the Sign to the thing signified. Item, Bread the Sign of his Body: And lastly, Bread is called Christ's Body, because it signifieth his Body.  
Secondly (in the point of Transubstantiation itself) they calling the Eucharist (which you dare not) 
b Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. & 11. & Sect. 14. in Chryso●…. and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii, ibid. Sect. 5. & Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  Bread, and 
c Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 5.  Wine, after Consecration, and naming them 
* Ibid. Sect. 13.  Earthly materials, and Matter of Bread, and also (as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies) 
d Above in this Book Chap. 1. Sect. 4.  Fruits of the Earth; and yet more plainly, by way of Periphrasis, describing them to consist of 
e Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6.  Divers grains, and Divers grapes. After, by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our 
f Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 8, 9, etc.  Senses, in discerning all Sensible things; and in special the Eucharist itself; and at length affirming, that there remaineth therein the 
g Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11.  Substance of Bread, and Wine, which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration. All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings; every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity.  
Thirdly against your Faith, concerning the manner of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; because so far were the Fathers from believing that the Body of Christ could be in 
h Book 4. throughout.  diverse places (as you say in Millions) at one time, that by this property of Being in many places at once, they have discerned Angels to be Finite Spirits, and not God. They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood; and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God, and no Creature by the same Reason. Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent. Whereunto you may add the Father's speeches, contradicting your Dream of a Body whole in every part, in whatsoever space, or place: by judging it Impossible; and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven, to argue his Absence's from Earth; all which have 
i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect. 6. and Book 5. Chap. 3. throughout.  been discussed from point to point.  
Our Fourth General Argument is, that whereas your Corporal Presence must needs infer Corporal Eating thereof by the Communicants, notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers, against 
k Book 5. throughout.  Tearing, and Swallowing of Christ's Body, and Bodily Egestion: next concerning the Eaters, that only the Godly faithful are partakers thereof; insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same. Then, of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts, that they were 
l Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10.  Eaten (by the ordinance of the Church) by Schoolboys, and sometimes Burnt in the fire: beside they called them 
m Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  Bits, and Fragments of Bread broken, (after Consecration) and diminished: and lastly in respect of the End of Eating, 
n Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11.  They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent, and also 
o Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith, that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified. Which Observations, concerning our Fourth General Argument, do minister unto us five particular Reasons, which make our Defence to be Impregnable.  
Fifthly, forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ, as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory; we, upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity, have 
p Book 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. throughout, and elsewhere.  found the Ancient Fathers 1. Noting that, which they called Sacrifice herein, to be Bread, and Wine, saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ. 2. Such a Subject, which being taken in great Quantity doth 
q Book 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 1.  nourish and satiate man's Bodily Nature. 3. Such as needeth prayer to God, that it may be 
r In this Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  Acceptable to God, as was the Sacrifice of Abel's sheep. 4. Sonaming it an Vnblo●dy Sacrifice, as meaning thereby 
s Book 6. throughout, more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9, & 10.  void of Blood, which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death. 5. So qualifying their other Exuberances, and Excess of speech (wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered) by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, correcting it thus; 
t Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6.  A Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial thereof. 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body, as now Presentative only in Heaven; and the thing offered on Earth but a Sign. 7. In all your objected Testimonies, for proof of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist, which suffered on the Cross, they understood the same as the 
u Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.  Object of our Remembrance, and not as the Subject of Offering, which make up so many Arguments more. 8. By paralleling 
x In this Book, Ch●… 2. Sect. 2, & 3.  Baptism with the Eucharist, in like tenor of speech, from point to point. 9 By praying God to be 
y Above in this Book Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  Propitious to that which is offered.  
Sixthly, upon the same Doctrine of Corporal Presence you have erected and fastened the roof of all your Building, which is, Divine Adoration of the Host: yet notwithstanding have you not been able, by the testimonies of any ancient Father, to free yourselves from Formal Idolatry, by any of your 
z Book 7. throughout.  Pretences (devised for your excuse) either of Good Intent, Moral Certainty, or of Habitual Condition: especially seeing that the Fathers (by that their universal Invitation, [Lift up your Hearts] abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below, that they might be drawn to the meditation of the Body of Christ, as it is in Heaven.  
Lastly, in your own Romish Mass, praying (after Consecration) God to be propitious to the thing offered, as to Abel's Sacrifice, which was but a sacrificed Sheep.  
Compute all these Particulars, and you shall find about sixteen Arguments, to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters. We having thus revealed these Three Principal, and Fundamental Abominations, do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences, which are Mixtures of Heresy in many, Overture of Perjury in some, and Obstinacy in all. We begin at the last.    

CHAP. II.  

Of the stupendious Obstinacy of the Romish Disputers, made palpable by their own Contradictions; and of the Defence thereof, as being Contradictory in itself.  
SECT. I.  
ALL your Disputers show themselves in nothing more zealous, than in maintenance of your Romish Mass, which they contend for by objecting Scriptures, Fathers, & Reasons: notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures, their Inferences out of the Fathers, their devised Reasons, and almost all their Confutations are confuted, rejected, & contradicted by their own fellows, as the Sections throughout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate. We cannot therefore otherwise judge, but that as Prejudice is the chief Director, so Obstinacy is the greatest Supporter of your Cause.  
How much more when the Defence itself is found to consist upon mere Contradictories, whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporal Presence, and of a proper Sacrifice. In the first, by obtruding on men's Consciences a Belief (upon due Consequence) of a Body of Christ Borne, and not Borne of the Virgin Mary; One, and not One; Finite, and not Finite; Divisible, and not Divisible; Perfect, and not Perfect; and also Glorious, and not Glorious, as hath been 
a Book 4. throughout.  proved in each point.  
2. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body, your Music stands upon the same kind of Discords, of 
b See Book 6. throughout.  Teaching a Body Broken, and not Broken; a matter visible, not visible; of Blood shed, and not shed; and of a suffering Destruction, and not suffering Destruction. Evident Arguments of Obstinacy one would think, and yet behold a plainer, if it may be.   

One Example, in stead of many, of a stupendious Obstinacy, in urging the judgement of Antiquity, for Defence of your Romish Mass, in the chiefest parts thereof; proved by instancing only in their like Sayings concerning Baptism.  
SECT. II.  
THree chief Jesuits, besides others, have been (as you may 
c Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13.  remember) extremely urgent, and important with Protestants to show, if they could, the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptism, as were used of them concerning the Eucharist, in the question of Sacrifice: as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves, concerning that one point. We are to deal more liberally with them, and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity, 1. For a Literal Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body:] 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body: 3. For a Corporal Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament: 4. For a Bodily Union with our Bodies: 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist: And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof, we answer them from the Fathers, in their like sayings concerning Baptism throughout every particular.   

A Synopsis of the Speeches of Fathers, objected in the Defence of the Masse-points, and paralleled (and consequently satisfied) by the like Equivalent speeches of the Father's touching Baptism.  
SECT. III.  
THe two Proper Sacraments, as the two Seals of the new Testament, Baptism and the Eucharist, use to go in equipage in the writings of Antiquity. The Parallel doth consist in these two; your Objections, in urging the Father's Phrases, and wresting them to your Romish Literal Sense, concerning the Eucharist: and our Solutions, by the equivalent Terms of the same Fathers given unto Baptism, and thereby instructing us of their Sacramental and Figurative Interpretation.  
OB. 1. The Fathers, say you, called the Eucharist an 
a Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. (in the first Challenge.)  Antitype, because an Antitype is not every Sign, but that which differeth almost nothing from the Truth. Ergò the word Antitype doth not prove a figurative Sense. And again they call Bread 
b Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  The Body of Christ.  
SOL. The Fathers accordingly call Baptism 
a Cyrillu● Hieros. my●ag. Catech. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Antitype of Christ's Passion. And again they observe that S. Paul calleth it a 
b Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  Burial. Ergo neither of both make for a Literal Sense.  
OB. 2. You contend by the Fathers to prove a Corporal Change of Bread into Christ's Body, because they say of it, after Consecration, 
a Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  It is not now Common Bread. 
b Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  Nor are we to consider it as Bare Bread, yea, 
c Ibid. Sect. 5.  no sensible thing is delivered herein: 
d Ibid. Sect. 2.  And it is changed by Divine Omnipotency into another nature. Ergo they meant a Corporal Presence of Christ.  
SOL. Your Consequence is lame, and out of joint in every part, because the Fathers, speaking of Baptism, have said as much, to wit, 
a Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  We are not to behold this as common Water; 
b Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  Nor is it simple Water: 
c Ibid. Sect. 8.  Nor to be discerned with our eyes, but with our minds: 
d Ibid. Sect. 5.  Wherein no Sensible thing is given; seeing the 
e Ibid. Sect. 2.  Water by benediction is made a Divine Laver; working miraculous effects: whereby the party baptised is made a 
f Ibid.  new Creature, and his Body made the 
g Ibid. Sect. 7.  Flesh of Christ crucified.  
OB. 3. You labour to prove a Corporal Presence out of the Fathers, where they say; 
a Book 4.  Christ is herein (without mention of Presence:) and where they add saying, 
b Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.  Think not it is the Priest, but Christ that reacheth it unto ●hee.  
SOL. As though such Phrases of the Fathers were still Literally meant, or that you are ignorant of their like sayings, in behalf of Baptism: viz. 
a Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  We have Christ Present at the Sacrament of Baptism; where 
b Book 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.  Not the Minister, but God holdeth the head of the party baptised.  
OB. 4. To evince a Corporal Participation of Christ, in communicating of the Eucharist, and consequently the Bodily Presence, are alleged the speeches of the Fathers, of our 
a Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Touching Christ's Body, and 
b Book 5. throughout.  Eating Christ's flesh, of 
c Ibid.  Natural union with his Body, and that the Eucharist is our 
d Ibid. Chap. 8. Sect 3.  Viaticum, and Pledge of our Resurrection; whereunto is added that 
e Ibid. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.  Contemptuous Communicants do more injury to Christ, than they that denied him: 
f Book 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1.  Eating and drinking their own judgement.  
SOL. And what of Baptism? concerning Touching; the Fathers teach that we 
a Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Take hold of the feet of Christ: concerning Eating, that the party Baptised may be said to 
b Hieronymus ad Edi●…. Nos in baptismo, sanguine & Corpore Christi vescimur.  Eat the Flesh of Christ, in respect of the thing itself: concerning Union with Christ, they add 
c Book 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3.  We are hereby One with him, not only by assent of will, but even naturally; and 
d Ibid.  Incorporate in him, 
e Ibid.  made thereby bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh: Even 
f Ibid.  The flesh of Christ crucified. Concerning the Effect, they hold that 
g Ibid.  Baptism is our Viaticum, and the Earnest of our Resurrection, and salvation: whereunto is added out of the Apostle, concerning the Contemners of their vow of Baptism, that 
h Ibid. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.  They crucify unto themselves the Son of God. 
i Book 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4.  And he that receiveth Baptism unworthily, is guilty of judgement.  
OB. 5. To beget an opinion of the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and consequently a Corpor all Presence of Christ herein, you insist upon such Phrases of the Fathers as call it a 
a Book 6. throughout.  Sacrifice, still exacting of Protestants to show, if ever any Father said as much of Baptism, to name it a Sacrifice; or the Celebration thereof 
b Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 13.  The Immolation of Christ.  
SOL. And you have been plentifully satisfied, in both, out of the Testimonies of Antiquity, often calling Baptism a 
a Ibid.  Sacrifice, and sometimes also the Passion of Christ.  
OB. 6. Your last and worst Contention is in Defence of a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, and consequently a Corporal Presence of Christ in the same, as from the judgement of Ancient Fathers, by manifold Arguments, wherein you may be pleased (for Brevity sake) to let your Ob. for the Eucharist, and our Sol. for Baptism wrestle, and grapple together. Your first Ob. is taken from their Reverend Silence, for they instruct Communtcants not to speak of the Eucharist before Catechumenists, or Insidels, saying, 
a Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4.  The faithful know it; pretending that the like Circumspection cannot be showed of Baptism. Sol. Even as upon the same Consideration they forbid speech of Baptism, expressly saying: 
b Ibid.  The faithful know it; and 
c Ibid.  Inhibiting All, except the Baptised, to see it. A second Note of Reverence is taken from the Effects. Ob. 
d Book 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  Miracles were wrought by the Eucharist, and at it. Sol. 
e Ibid. Sect. 5.  They show miracles wrought about Baptism also. A Third Ob. is grounded upon Reverence done by Angels, because they are said to be 
f Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  Present, and attendant at the Celebration of the Eucharist, Sol. Namely, as they are likewise said to be 
g Ibid.  Present at Baptism, and to honour it, with their Presence. A fourth Ob. (●o come to the Communicants themselves) ariseth from danger of Contempt, even 
h Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 7.  Such, as to eat and drink judgement to themselves. Sol. 
i Ibid.  So they, who receive Baptism unworthily, receive their own judgement. A Fifth Ob. is (for danger begetteth Dread) from fear, where with they are moved to approach to the Eucharist, which therefore the Fathers call a 
k Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1.  Dreadful Sacrament, and causing horror. Sol. To wit, as they call the words of Baptisime 
l Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8.  Terrible, and its Canons Dreadful, 
m Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  whereunto the Baptised are brought with fear. Ob. 6. But none (say the Fathers) 
n Ibid. Sect. 3.  Communicateth of the Eucharist, before he Adore. And, 
o Ibid.  They first adore Christ (say they, speaking of men of years) who are to be Baptised in his name. Ob. 7. But the Fathers tell us 
p Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.  They reverence the Eucharist. Sol. True: even as they say, 
q Ibid.  We reverence Baptism, wheresoever it is. Ob. 8. Lastly they use a form of Invocation upon the Eucharist, thus: 
r Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 4.  Ob Divine Sacrament, reveal unto us, etc. Sol. They do so, but in the same figurative manner of speech, called Prosopapoeia, wherein they as well use the same form concerning Baptism, as thus: 
s Ibid.  Ob Water! which hast washed our Saviour, when he was imbr●… blood, etc.  

CHALLENGE.  
SO many Testimonies of Fathers, so mainly insisted upon by your Doctors, for warrant of such Erroneous, Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Romish Doctrines, and each one not more vehemently objected, in the Question concerning the Eucharist, than easily retorted, and confuted, by instancing in Baptism; what greater Evidence can any desire to be made of a wi●full Obstinacy (that we say not madness) than this of your Disputers appeareth to be? how much more, if we should point at the other manifold Instances, which we have prosecuted at large throughout this whole Volume, wherein their unconscionableness hath been manifested in all passages to the Conscience of every indifferent Reader. Yet were this their Gild not so heinous, it such their Obstinacy were not infected with some contagion of Perjury.    

A Synopsis of manifold Overtures of Perjuries, in Defence of the Romish Mass.  
SECT. IV.  
EVery Perjury presupposeth an Oath; which you have in the 
a Bulla Pii Quarti super forma Juramenti— Profiteor omnia declarata in Concilio Tridentino, & hanc esse fidem veram Catholicam, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest.  Bull of Pope Pius IV. imposed upon every Ecclesiastic, subject to the Sea of Rome, for the ratifying of the Belief of the many new Romish Articles contained therein, as True, Catholic, and without which none can be saved. The due proof that the same Oath, almost in each new Article, maketh the Swearer obnoxious to Perjury, is a Subject which would require a full Treatise; for the which we are not altogether unprovided. But we are to confine ourselves to the Observations promised in our former Discourse, in four special points.  

I. Overture of Perjury is in Swearing unto that, which it called The Vulgar Latin Translation.  
THis is decreed in the Council of 
a Synod. Trid. Sess. 4. Decretum de Editione statuit, ut haec vulgata editio, quae tot saeculorum usu approbata in Ecclesia in publicis. lectionibus, disputationibus, & expositionibus pro Authentica habeatur, ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat— statuit & decrevit ut haec vetus editio quam emendatissimè imprimatur.  Trent to be Authentical, and not to be rejected upon any Pretence whatsoever. Whereunto (together with all other Decrees, and Declarations of the same Council) you are sworn by the form of Oath set down in the foresaid Bull of the Pope. The same Vulgar Translation, professed by you to be Authentical, and that (as you expound it) it is 
b Sacrobosc. Defence. Decreti Trid. part. 2. cap. 4. Quandò in hac Disputatione Authenticam dicimus versionem, nihil aliud volumus, quam eam esse omninò conformem suo fonti, sive fidelem esse, ac synceram, etc. Possevin. Bib●…th. part. 2. lib. 12. cap. 16. Sanè Authenticam prore certae fidei poni constat. Greg. Valent. Anal. lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 5. Esse Authenticam, nihil aliud est hoc in loco quam conformem esse Originali.  Consonant unto the Original, the Hebrew, and Greek Texts; hath notwithstanding been rejected by your 
c Book 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  Cardinal, and the Greek Translation urged for proof of a Proper Sacrifice. Even as it hath been frequently excepted against by other learned Doctors in your Church, after the Council of Trent, noting Errors therein not only by fault of Print, but also such as happened by the Negligence, or Ignorance of the Author thereof, as is 
d Azorius Moral. Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 3 §. Quartò. etc. Quaeritur an Vulgata in reliquis extra fidem & mores (in quibus pro cerro habendum, Eam omni vacare crrore,) errorem aliquem contineat. Inter Catholices dubi●… est; quib●… asserentibus c●m esse à Concilio approbatam, tanquam immunem abo●…i errore in fide & motibus, non tamen ab aliis, & proinde aliqua in ea esse vitia, item aliqua, quae significantius, proprius, verius, & melius verri po●…: aliqua esse in contrarium & alienum sensum conversa, idque prob●…o C●… 〈◊〉, qui post Concilium Tridentinum scripserant, viz. Vega, lib. 15. cap. 9 super Conc. Trid. Senensis lib. 8. ad finem. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 13. Andradius Payva Defens. Trid. lib. 4. Lindanus de optimo gen. interp. lib. 3. cap. 10. etc. High omnes fatentur aliquos esse errores non solum vitio Scriptorum, sed etiam incuriâ & neg●… ipsius Interpretis.  confessed; notwithstanding that Inhibition in that Decree, viz. Not to reject it upon any Pretence whatsoever. Who, to free themselves from Perjury, make this Comment upon it, that this restraint of Not rejecting it is only in matter of Faith, & good manners. Which is also your 
e Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 12. Ecclesia tantúm hanc versionem appellavit, non ita tamen ut asseruerit nullos Librariorum errores in ea reperiri, sed certos nos reddere voluit, in iis presertim quae ad fidem & mores pertinent, multa esse in hac versione Interpretum errata. Eodem modo Sacrebosc. Defence. fid. Trid. & Salmeron. Tom. 1. Prolegem. 3.  Cardinal his Evasion; but is no better than a lurking hole, and so seemeth it to be to your two Jesuits 
f Azorius qo sup. Mihi verò verior videtur eorum esse sententia, qui opinantur vulgatam Editionem non solùm in rebús fidei, & morum, sed in coeteris quoque omnibus omni errore career: quia licet aliquando aliqua significantius, proprius, ac latius reddi potuerit; non tamen verius, aut simpliciter certius.  Azorius, and 
g Greg. Valent. Analys. lib. 8. cap. 4. §. Etenim etc. Quod autem Ecclesia addit: Ne ullus illam quovis praetextu audeat rejicere, id profecto evidenti argumento est, in omnibus omninò locis, & quod attinet ad omnes scripturae sententias esse hanc ut Authenticam (i. e. Conformem Scripturae Originali) à Concilio approbatam. Secus enim praetextus aliquis superesset, quò, non obstante hac definitione Concilii, posser aliquandò ea Editio in Disputationibus rejici, nempè si diceretur in hoc certe aut in illo loco, non esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequntum— In omnibuns' igitur locis v●…t Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ, exceptis erroribus Typographorum— (Vt Judic. cap. 11. pro▪ Altera Matr●s loctum fuisse Adultera Matre, ut quidam objiciunt)— Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam— Post. §. Porrò. Nullo modo audiendi sunt it, qui; post Concilium Tridentinum, contendunt, Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis, quod ad ipsam sententiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Qui● 〈◊〉 ●raeti, & H●…ci Codices, siquidem diffideant à nostra, sunt per eam cornigendi.  Valentia, who think that Oath to be violated, if the Vulgar Latin be rejected at all, as less true than the Originals. And your Spanish Inquisitors finding urged, in one of your Romish Doctors, the Rule of Hierome; and Augustine, which is, that no Translation Latin, or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals, they fair and cleanly wipe it out, saying that 
h Index. Expurg●…ius Hi●… a● nomen Martinz.— Quamvis haec, quae Hieronymus, & Augustinus docuerunt, vera sunt, tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum, non licet Vulgatae Latinae. Testimonia quovi●… 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est. fol. 145.  Although that, which Hierome and Augustine taught, be true; yet now since the Council of Trent it is not lawful to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever. So they. And so far unsatisfied are your Doctors, in taking this Oath.  
We are furthermore not destitute of matter for a large Consutation (first) of your assuming S. Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latin Translation; to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome, or yet of any one Author, than the diverse clothes of a man's body from head to foot, can be called the work of one singular workman.  
Secondly, concerning the Authority thereof, you profess it to be Authentical (that is, as you have defined) Conformable to the Original Hebrew and Greek: although it may be as easily proved, not to be that Ancient Vulgar, which had continued (as the Decree speaketh) from diverse ages, than the Ship of Theseus, which after some ages had been so thoroughly battered and pierced, that at last the keel and bottom thereof did only remain, which could be called the Same. But passing by all further Dispute, we shall refer you to the judgement of the Patroness of the former Rule (so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors, as you have heard) by one Instance, which may be sufficient in itself for trial of the Case now in hand.  
The Text of Scripture is Ephes. 1. 14. in the Latin Translation (even in that, which is set forth by Pope 
i Clem. Octarus— In 〈◊〉 ●…— 〈◊〉 accuratissimè mendis purgatus.  Clement, as The most accurate Edition) thus: 
k Ephes. 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu fignati promissionis, quae est pignus haereditatis. Graecè, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in quem locum Hieronym. Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit: Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium, & obligamentum datur: Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur, & cum illa reddita fuerit, reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore. Aug. Serm. de visime Dei, ●om. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico, cui das pignus, cum reddideris quod accepisti, ille, cui reddis, habebit, tu pignus accipies, non enim habebit ambas res: sed quando pretium paras dare pro care, quam tenes bonae fidei contractu; de ipso pretio das aliquid, & exit Arrha, non pignus, quod sit complendum, non quod sit auferendum. Sed si Deus charitatem dare, tanquam pignus per spiritum suum, cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit. quâ promissâ pignus dedit, auferendum est à nobis Pignus? Absit! Sed quod dedit, hoc implebit: ideo meliùs Arrha, quam Pignus— hoc enim implebitur, cum Arrha data est.  You are sealed with the spirit of promise, which is the Pledge of your inheritance. But in the Greek it is: You are sealed with the spirit of promise, which is the Earnest of your inheritance. The Question is, whether of these is to be preferred; and Hierome, and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein, both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge, and one of them giving an Absit●l against this Sense of it. The Reason of both is, because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it again, when the Thing for which it was pledged, is received. But he that giveth an Earnest, will have it continue with him, to whom it was given. And so God assuring his Chosen, by his Spirit, doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest, and not as a Pledge. So they. Thereby advancing Gods gracious love, towards man, and man's faith in God's love. Here will be no corner of Pretence, that this being an Error of Print, and not of Doctrine, may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath; no, for Error of Print ariseth from some affinity of words, (as where these words; This is a sound reason, being delivered to the print, was returned from the Press thus; This is a fond reason.) But between Pignus, and Arrhabo, there is no more Symphony than between an Horse, and a Saddle. Nor will it avail you to say that the Original Greek was corrupted, for it is the same Greek word, which Hierome himself, (who as you know used the perfectest Greek Text) doth here avow to be True.   

II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture.  
THe Tenor of the Oath, in this respect, is: 
a Bulla eadem. Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum fensum, quem Tenuit, & Tenet Mater Ecclesia— extra quam nemo salvus, etc.  I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense, which the Mother Church hath held, and doth hold. By [Mother Church] understanding the Church of Rome, as without which there is no salvation; which is expressed in the same Oath, as another Article therein, and which elsewhere we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTURE, in a full Tractate, from the Doctrine of the Apostles, of General Counsels, of several Catholic Churches, and from such Primitive Fathers, whose memories are at this day registered in the Romish Calendar of Saints. How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury? But to come to the Article, concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sense of the Church of Rome, which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now, which she had not Held in more Ancient Times. We, for Trial hereof; shall for this present seek after no other Instances, than such as in this Treatise have been discussed, and for brevity-sake single, out of many, but only Three; A first is in that Scripture joh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you cannot have life.  
The word [Except] was extended unto Infants in the days of Pope Innocent the First, continuing (as hath been 
b Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11.  confessed) six hundred years together, when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist. Contrarily the now Roman Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants, as you have heard.  
Secondly, Luc. 22. Take, Eat, etc. Your Church of Rome, in the days of Pope Nicolas, in a Council at Rome, Held, that by the word, Eat, was meant an 
c Book 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 2.  Eating, by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth, in a Literal sense. Which your now Roman Church (if we may believe your Jesuits) doth not Hold, as hath appeared.  
Thirdly the Tenor of the Institution of Christ, concerning the Cup, was Held in the days of Pope 
d Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 13.  Gelasius to be peremptory, for the administration thereof, to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administered in both kinds to all Communicants, and judging the dismembering of them a Grand Sacrilege, as you have heard: whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawful, but also religious to withhold the Cup from all, but only consecrating Priests. Upon these (omitting other Scriptures, which you yourselves may observe at your best leisure) we conclude. You therefore in taking that Oath, swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture, both which the Church of Rome once Held, and now Holdeth; the Proverb must needs be verified upon you, viz. You hold a Wolf by the ear: which howsoever you Hold, you are sure to be Oath-bit, either in Holding TENVIT, by TENET, or in Holding TENET, by TENVIT.   

III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers, is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers, in their Expositions of Scriptures.  
Hear your Oath. 
a Bulla ●ad. Nec Scripturam ullam, nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor.  Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture, but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers. Here the word [Fathers] cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Council, where the major part of voices conclude the less; for Council never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures, but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions. And although the word [unanimous] doth literally signify the universal Consent (which would infer an Impossibility, because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture, and very few All) yet that you may know we press not too violently upon you, we shall be content to take this word Morally, with this Diminution, For the most part; and hereupon make bold to aver, that your juror by this Oath is sworn to a flat Falsity, because you cannot deny but that the Fathers, in their Expositions, descent among themselves, sometimes a Greater part from the less; insomuch that you yourselves are at difference among yourselves, which part to side with: 
b Valent. Ies. Anal. l●b. 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alrerum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum.  With the greater (saith Valentia,) nay but sometime with the 
c Canus lo●. theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas, reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus, firma Argumenta sufficere, & praestare non valet.  Lesser, (saith Canus.) Can you dream of an Unanimity in Disparity? Sometime there is a Non-Constat, what is the judgement of the Fathers in some points, which you call matter of Faith. What then? 
d Valent. quo supra. Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset, co quòd de corum consensu non satis constaret, sua tunc constet Autoritas Pontifici, ut consult is aliis ad definiendum reguli●, de quibus est dict●m, Ecclesiae proponat, quid sit sentiendum.  Then (saith your jesuit) the Authority of the Pope is to take place, who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense. Behold here the very ground of that, which we call Popery, which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen (for aught you know) to Ancient Fathers. And is it possible to find an Unanimity of Consent in an Individual Unity, or rather a Nullity? for what else is an ignorance, what the Sense of the Fathers is, whether so, or so?  
Next, that it may appear that this Article, touching the unanimous Consent of Fathers, is a mere Ostentation and gullery, and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entered into the Road, to be his own: as if you should say, All the Fathers do patronise your Romish Cause. We shall give you one or two Examples, among your Jesuits, as patterns of the Disposition of others in neglecting, slighting, and rejecting the more General Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures. One Instance may be given in your Cardinal, who, in his Commentaries upon the Psalms, dedicated to the then Pope, professeth himself to have composed them, 
e Bellarm. Epist. Dedic. Paulo Quints, antè Comment. in Psal. Psalmorum ego tractationem magis propriâ meditatione, quam multa librorum lectione composui.  Rather by his own meditation, than by reading of many books; whereas he that will seek for unanimous Consent of Fathers, must have a perusal of them all. In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your jesuit Maldonate, in his rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers, as for Example: 
f Maldon. Ies. in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse, ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos. Item in Matth. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt] Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse, quem omnes praeter Hilarium, quos legisse memini, Authores putant. Item in Matth. 11. 11. Variae sunt Patrum opiniones, sed (ut liberè fatear) in nul a carum aquiesco. Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae & lex] Omnes fere ve●eres ita exponunt, sed non est apta satis interpretatio. Item Matth. 19 11. Non omnes capiunt, i. e. non omnes capimus: Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt, quibus equidem non assentior. Item in job. 6. 62 Sic quidem expono, & licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo, hanc tamen magis probo, quam illam Augustini, caeterarumque alioqui probabilissima●● quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat.  So indeed said the Fathers, but I believe the Contrary. Item, This seemeth not to me to be the Sense of this place, which All, whom I have read, except Hilary, do think. Item, Their opinions are diverse, I rest upon none of them All. Item, All Ancients almost do so expound this Text, but this is no fit Interpretation. Item, Thus I expound this Scripture, and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition, yet I do approve it rather than that of Augustine, or of others, although otherwise most probable, even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the Calvinists. So he, and that usually. (O dura ilia!) With what Stomach could this man swallow that O o'th'?  
Salmeron the jesuit may stand for the third upon that Text Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned, which teacheth the universal Gild of Original Sin of mankind. What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text, your Canus will certify you; 
g Canus loc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidêre, uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse. And then he reckoneth, adding: Et si nullus contravenet it; infirmum tamen cx omnium autoritate Argumentum.  All they (saith he) who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter, have confessed, as it were with one mouth, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, no one contrarying this opinion. So he of the judgement of Antiquity, which notwithstanding he durst contradict: but we return to your jesuit, who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith, propoundeth 
h Salmeron Ies. in Rom. 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt.] Mariam conceptam in originali peccato, e●si● non si● haeresis daninata, nempè tam●… ad fidem spectat. Item Disp. 51. A qua multitudine Patrum, locum ab autoritate infirmum, &— Pauperis est numerare pecus— Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquiesces sententiae, ut à vero demas: & multitudinem multitudini opponimus. At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp. Totam Devotionem e●ga illam non consiste●e in Patribus, ut in Bernardo, etc. At Antiqui. Resp. Quilibet senex laudator temporis acti: sed & illud asserimus quo juniores, eo perspicaciores Doctores esse. After he wrangleth, and wresteth some save of Fathers to his part, In celeberrimâ Parisiensium Academiâ nullus in theologia titulo Doctoris dignus habetur, qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum.  Objections made out of the Fathers, for proof that the Virgin Mary hath the same Original defect in her own natural Generation, and shapeth Answers full of regret, and reluctancy. For, first, To this Objection; The Fathers did consent: He answereth thus; The Argument from Authority is infirm. 2. To this; The Fathers were Ancient: Thus; The younger Divines are more quick of understanding. 3. To this; The Fathers were many: he answereth; He is but a poor man that can number his cattle. And again confronting the Ancient Fathers, and preferring novel Divines, he saith; We oppose multitude to multitude. 4. But The Fathers were Devout: he answereth; Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers. And when one of the Devoutest of them (Bernard by name) is objected, who had said of the point now in Question; 
i Bernard. Epist. 174. Hanc prolis praerogativam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorare Virginem, sed honori detrah●re. Et Paulò ante— Nunquid patribus doctiores, aut devotiores sumus?  To ascribe the prerogative of the Son to the Blessed Virgin is not an honouring, but a dishonouring her: wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity, saying, Are we either more learned, or more Devout than the Fathers? Your jesuit answering to him by name, casteth him off with the Rest.  
Here we see an Oath exacting a Consent to the unanimous Expositions of Fathers, & hear notwithstanding as plain a Dissent of your Jesuits opposition unto unanimous Consent of Fathers which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures: and yet behold you (forsooth) the native children, and heirs of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. Your Fathers of the Council of Trent have set it down for a Canon, whereunto you are also sworn, that the words of Christ his Institution, concerning the giving of his Body, and Blood, 
* Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1.  Have a plain, and proper signification without Tropes; which notwithstanding, the same words of Christ have been evinced to be Figurative, not only by the unanimous Consent of 
k Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6, & 7.  Antiquity, but also by the express 
l Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. See also Book 3. Chap. 3. in the words, [The fruit of the Vine.] Sect. 5.  Confessions of your own Jesuits, in the words [Eat, Break, Cup, etc.] and wherein yourselves have acknowledged diverse Tropes. Besides, the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers. Ponder you these Observations with yourselves, and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury itself.   

IV. Overture of Perjury, in the Defenders of the Romish Mass, is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine.  
IN the last Clause of the Oath, prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius IU. you are sworn that every Article therein is the 
a See above in this Sect. 4. initio, at the letter (a).  True Catholic Faith, without which none can be saved; among which is the Article already mentioned, swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Council of Trent; by which Council your now Roman 
b Synod. Trident. Sess. 1●.  Missal, or Mass-book is approved. Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet. First, [True:] and hereby are you sworn that in the days of Pope Innocentius the third, the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary; which your own Authors have 
c Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11.  confessed, and proved to be false. Secondly, that the presence of them, who, at the administration of the Eucharist, do not communicate, is 
* Ibid. Sect. 5. & Sect. 10.  Commendable, and held a Doctrine Catholic (that is) anciently Universal: which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers; and, even in the Church of Rome itself, abandoned by two 
d Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  Popes.  
Lastly, in the point of Necessity to Salvation; To swear that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to 
e Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5.  Communicate alone, is damned; that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Mass, being alone, cannot duly say, The Lord be with you, he is damned; or that the 
f See Book 4.  Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice, & be blown away with the wind, he is damned; and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets, set down in your missals, which we willingly omit. The Sum of all these is, that the same your Oath, made to damn others, doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable. If peradventure any of you shall oppose, saying that none of you within this Kingdom (which never admitted of the Council of Trent, nor of the Bull of Pope Pius IV.) are yet bound to that Oath, let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actual Perjury, yet can it not free him from the Habitual, which is, that he is disposed in himself to take it, whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdom, that doth embrace and profess the same.    

Our Last Advertisement followeth.  
Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Mass.  
SECT. V.  
THe more odious the Title of this Section may seem to be, the more studious aught you to show yourselves in examining the proofs thereof; that so you may either confute, or confess them, and accordingly reassume, or renounce your Romish Defence.  
Heresy hath a double aspect: One is when it is direct, having the express terms of Heresy; the Other is oblique, and by consequence, when the Defence doth infer, or imply necessarily the same Heretical Sense, even as it may be said of Treason. For to say that Caesar is not King, is a Treasonable speech Directly, in a plain Sense; and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar, is as Treasonable in the Consequence. Thus much being premised, we are now to recognize such Errrours, wherein your Disputers may seem to have accordance with old Heretics, which point we shall pursue according to the order of the Books.  
BOOK I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole form of Christ his Institution, and the Custom of the Catholic Church, descended from the Apostles; which Presumption Pope 
a Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  julius condemned in diverse, who sopped the Bread in the Chalice, and squeezed Grapes in the Cup, and so received them: even as did the 
* Ibid.  Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese, censured for Heretics by your Aquinas. In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs, as you are found Guilty in defending 
b Book 1. throughout.  Ten Innovations, for one.  
2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Heretical Manichees, for thinking it lawful not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist, judging it to be 
c Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7.  Greatly Sacrilegious: notwithstanding your 
d Ibid.  Church authorizeth the same Custom of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants.  
3. As 
e Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10.  you pretend Reverence, for withdrawing the Cup; so did the 
f Ibid. Sect. 10.  Aquarii forbear wine, and used only Water, under a pretence of Sobriety.  
4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing, when as yet there is no right, nor Authority for him that doth it: We therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customs, and Constitutions; and are answered that 
g Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4.  your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts. jump with them, who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions, replied that 
h Ibid.  They were herein above the Apostles, whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretics of his Time.  
BOOK II. It is not nothing, which hath been observed therein (to wit) your Reasoning, why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ [This is my Body] 
i Book 2. Chap. 3. throughout.  literally; and why you urge his other saying [Except yo●… eat my flesh] 
k Ibid.  for proof of Bodily Eating; so that your Priest may literally say in your Mass, that The Body of Christ passeth into your bellies and entrailss, because (forsooth) the words of Christ are 
l Book 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  Doctrinal. And have you not heard of one Nicodemus, who hearing Christ teach that every man must be 
* john 3.  Borne again, who shall be partaker of God's Kingdom; and that he expounding them in a Literal Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mother's womb, when as nothing wanted to turn that his Error into an Heresy, but only Obstinacy? But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers, you have received a full 
m See above in this Book, Chap. 2. Sect. 3.  Synopsis.  
BOOK III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation. I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary. But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body, generally held, according to the proper nature of Transubstantion, to be by 
n Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  Production of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread, it necessarrly inferreth a Body (called, and believed to be Christ's) which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin, as S. Augustine hath plainly 
o Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉.  taught; diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin. Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the heresy of Apollinaris, who taught a 
p Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary.  
Secondly, you exclude all judgement of 
q Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 9  Senses, in discerning Bread to be tr●… Bread, as did the 
r Manichaei dicebant Christum 〈◊〉 esse verum hominem, sed phantasma quoddam. Pr●…l. Elench. Haret.  Manichees in discerning Christ's Body, which they thereupon held not to have been a True, but a Fantastical Body. Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense, in judging of Wine in the Eucharist (after Consecration) in confutation of the same Error in the Marcioni●es.  
Thirdly, for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence, you profess that (after Consecration) Bread is no more the same, but changed into the Body of Christ: which Doctrine in very express words was bolted out by an E●tychian Heretic, and instantly condemned by 
s Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 12.  Theodoret, and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelas●….  
BOOK IU. Catholic Fathers were in nothing more zealous, 
Ibid. Sect. 13.  than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity, and Humanity, against the pernicious heresies of the Manichees; Marcionites, E●tychians, and E●nomians; all of them diversely oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body, sometime in direct terms, and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences; whether it were by gainsaying the finiteness, or Solidity, or else the complete Perfection thereof: wherein ●ow far ye may challenge affinity or kindred with them, be you pleased to examine by this which followeth.  
1. The Heretics, who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily finiteness, said that it was in diverse places at once, (as is 
u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. & Chap. 5. Sect. 3. & Chap. 6. Sect. 1.  confessed) even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ, both in Heaven, and in Earth, yea, and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time; and consequently in all places whatsoever. Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholic Fathers for Heretical, it may best be seen by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place, not only Definitively, but also Circumspectively: both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in diverse places at once. And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place, as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being, lest that the denial of its Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body. To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place, sometime in a 
x Chap. 4. throughout.  Circumspective finiteness, thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits; and sometime by a Definitive Termination, which they set down first by Exemplifications, thus: 
y Ibid. Sect. 6.  If Christ his Body be on Earth, than it is absent from Heaven; and thus, Being in the Sun, it could not be in the Moon: Secondly, by diverse Comparisons, for comparing the Creature with the Creator God, they 
a Ibid.  conclude, that The Creature is not God, because it is determinated in one place; and comparing the humane, and divine Nature of Christ together, they 
b Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉.  conclude, that they are herein different, because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place: and la●tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost, they 
c Chap. 6. Sect. 〈◊〉.  conclude a difference by the the same Argument, because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once; and all these in confutation of diverse Heretics. A thing so well known to your elder Romish School, that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in diverse places at once (in the judgement of Antiquity) to be 
d Ibid.  Heretical.  
2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronised by Ancient Fathers, in confutation of Heretics, by teaching 
e Chap. 7. Sect. 6.  Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable, against their Impalpabilitie: and to have a Thickness, against their feigned subtle Body, as the Air: and furthermore controlling these opinions following (which are also your Crotchets) of a Bodies 
f Chap. 7. Sect. 6.  Being whole in the whole space, and in every part thereof; and of Christ's Body 
g Chap. 4. Sect. 9  taking the Right hand, or left, of itself.  
3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ, wheresoever, in the highest Degree of Absoluteness. This (one would think) every Christian heart should assent unto, at the first hearing; wherefore if that they were judged Heretics by Ancient Fathers, who 
h Prateol. Elench. ●●res. Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus. 〈◊〉 Statuit mor●…m resurrectionem esse, viz. rat●onalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem.  taught an Indivisible Union of men's souls with their Bodies naturally, still subject to corruption after the resurrection; who can imagine that the holy Catholic Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your general Tenet, (viz. to believe a Body of Christ, now since his Glorification, which is destitute of all power of natural motion, sense, appetite, or understanding) otherwise than of a senseless, and Antichristian Deliration, and Delusion? Yea and that which is your only Reason you allege, to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases, (to wit) 
i Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.  The Omnipotency of God, the same was the Pretence of Heretics of old, in the like Assertions, which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to term the Pretence of Omnipotency, 
k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  The Sanctuary of Heretics: albeit the same Heretics, (as well as you) intended (as a Father speaketh) to magnify God thereby; namely, in believing the Body of Christ, after his Ascension, to be wholly Spiritual. To which Heretics the same Father readily answered, (as we may to you) saying, 
l Chap. 4. Sect. 6. at (b & c).  When you will so magnify Christ, you do but accuse him of falsehood: not that we do any whit detract from the Omnipotency of Christ, (far be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us!) but that (as you have been instructed by Ancient Fathers) the not attributing an Impossibility to God, in such Cases of Contradiction, is not a diminishing, but an ample advancing of the 
m Ibid.  Omnipotency of God.  
BOOK V. Your Oral Eating, guttural Swallowing, and Inward Digestion (as you have 
n Book 5. throughout.  taught) of the Body of Christ into your Entrails hath been proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaitical, and termed by them a Sense both 
o Chap. 5. Sect. 2.  Pernicious, and Flagitious. Besides you have a Confutation of the Heretical Manichees, for their 
p Book 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 3.  Opinion of Fastening Christ to men's guts, and losing him again by their belchings: Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's 
q Book 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 4.  Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants, and 
r Book 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 1.  Vomiting it up again, when you have done.  
BOOK VI This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice, and in proving it to be sacrilegiousness itself, as you have seen in a former 
s See above in this Book, Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  Synopsis.  
BOOK VII. This containeth a Discovery of your Masse-Idolatry, not only as being equal with the Doctrine of some Heretics, but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very 
t Book 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2.  Pagans; besides the General Doctrine of the power of your Priest's 
u Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  Intention, in consecrating, hath been yoked, by your own jesuit, with the Heresies of the 
x Chap. 9 Sect. 5.  Donatists.  
When you have beheld your own faces in these diverse Synopses, as it were in so many glasses, we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Mass may draw you to a just Detestation of it, and bring you to that true worship of God, which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth, and to the saving of every one of your souls, through his Grace in Christ jesus. AMEN.     
ALL GLORY BE ONLY TO GOD.   

I. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS Discussed throughout the eight Books of the whole former Treatise.  

A  
ACcidents merely feed not, Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Nor inebriate, etc. Ibid. Not without Subject, according to the ancient Fathers, Ibid. (See more in the words Bread, Council, Cyrill.)  
Adoration of the Eucharist Romish, Book 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Not from Christ's Institution, Chap. 2. Nor from Antiquity, Ibid. Sect. 1. Not by the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sect. 3. Romish Adoration Idolatrous, by their own Principles, Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eucharist forbid to be carried to the sick, for Adoration, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Romish manner of Adoration of the Host, Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Coadoration may be Idolatrous. Sect. 2. (See the words, Gesture, Idolatry, Invocation, Reverence.)  
Altar, unproperly used of the Fathers. Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13, & 15.  
Angels not possibly in two places at once. Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  
Apparitions of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament, fictitious. Book 4. Chap. 2, etc. (See more in the word Miracles.)  
Application of Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice not yet resolved of, Book 6. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. Otherwise the Fathers. Ibid. Sect. 2. Romish Application not sufficient for all in Purgatory, Sect. 3. Application of Protestants (Propitiously) how justifiable. Ib. Ch. 2. Sect. 1, & 2.   

B.  
Baptism, called a Sacrifice of the Fathers, Book 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Want of it in the Romish Priest inferreth Idolatry, Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Paralleled with the Eucharist in most points. Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 2, 3.  
Beast prostrate before the Host, Objected (Ridiculously) for Adoration. Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3.  
Blood of Christ not properly shed. Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.  
Body of Christ not properly broken, Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. That in the Eucharist not borne of the Virgin Mary, Book 4. Chap. 4, & 5. By Corporal Presence, not one, Ibid. Sect. 2. Infinite, Ibid. Chap. 6. Not organical, Chap. 7. not perfect, Chap. 8. nor glorious: and subject to vile indignities, Chap. 9 (See more in Union.)  
Bread not duly broken in the Romish Mass, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Remaining after Consecration, Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 4, & 5. Proved by many Arguments, Ibid. unto Sect. 9 Engendering Worms, Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. (See Accidents.)  
Broken; Body of Christ unproperly, Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and Book 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. The word [Broken] in S. Luke signifies the Present Tense, Book 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.   

C  
CAnonization of Saints, a Case doubtful and dangerous, Book 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 3.  
Capernaitical conceit of eating Christ's flesh Bodily, Book 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Such was the Romish, and is, Sect. 3. As also in swallowing, and bodily mixture, Ibid. Chap. 7, & 8. (See Union.)  
Christ's Priesthood. (See Priesthood.)  
Church of Rome hath erred in her opinion of administering the Eucharist to Infants, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Her Doctrine made necessary to Salvation, Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.  
Concomitance of Blood under the form of Bread, how, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6.  
Consecration used of Christ by prayer, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Now transgressed in the Romish Church, Ibid. Sect. 4. Form thereof not set down either in Scripture, or in ancient Tradition, Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Many Defects incident to make void the Act, and to infer Idolatry, Book 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 2.  
Contradictions Romish VI against these words of Christ, [My Body.] Book 4. Ch. 4.  
Cup is to be administered to all the Communicants, Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. By Christ's precept, and example, Sect. 2, & 3. By Apostolical practice, and Fathers, etc. Ibid.  
Custom of 300. years preferred (by the Romish) before a more ancient of a thousand, Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 5.   

D.  
DEvouring Christ's flesh; such is the Romish Swallowing of Christ, Book 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 1, & 2. and Chap. 9  
Distinction of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body, as Subjectively or Objectively, Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Of propitiousness, B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1.  
Divine Sacrament, so called of the Fathers without any inference of a Corporal Presence, B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 13.  
Dominus Vobiscum,] in the Romish Mass condemneth their private Mass, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 5.   

E.  
EAting and drinking spiritually are all one, but not Sacramentally, B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8.  
Elevation not ancient, B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. Proveth not Adoration, B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 2.  
Eucharist anciently called the Lord's Supper, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 Forbid to be carried to the sick, for Adoration, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. In both kinds, proved by Christ's precept, B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. (See Cup.)  
Exposition of Scripture by the Romish Church sworn unto, but not without Perjury (in a Synopsis) B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 5.   

G.  
Gazer's excluded from the Sacrament anciently, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9  
Gesture of bowing objected for Adoration of the Host, vainly, Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  
God's Presence in many places objected fond, for proof of the possibility of a Body in diverse places at once, Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 2.  
Holy Ghost proved to be infinite, and God, by its being in diverse places at once; by the judgement of Antiquity, Book 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2.  
Guilty of the Lords Body,] Words objected for proof of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, vainly, Book 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1, & 5.   

H.  
Habitual Condition no sufficient Pretence to free the Romish from Idolatry, Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 3, & 4. A matter of great perplexity in the Romish worship, Ibid. Chap. 9 Sect. 7.  
Hands; not taking the Sacrament therewith, an Innovation, against the Institution of Christ, B. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 8.  
Heresy, the Defence of the Romish Mass fraught with many, B. 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 5.  
Hoc facite,] Absurdly objected for proof of a Sacrifice, Book 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. [Hoc] in the words [Hoc est corpus meum] doth not point out properly either Christ's Body, or Individuum vagum, Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2, etc.   

I.  
IDolatry material in the Romish Mass possible, almost infinitely, Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1, etc. Yea and Formal, notwithstanding any Pretence to the Contrary, Ib. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. No warrant for such Pretences from Antiquity, Ibid. Sect. 5. A Synopsis of this, Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Idolatry an error in the understanding, Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. The Romish as Idolatrous as the Heathen, Ibid. Chap. 8. Sect. 1. And, in one respect worse, B. 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2.  
Impossibility acknowledged in things contradictory, even with the Advancement of God's impotency, Book 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. (See Contradiction, Omnipotency.)  
Infants made partakers of the Eucharist erroneously, B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11.  
Institution of Christ transgressed by the Romish Church, by ten Prevarications, B. 1. Ch. 2.  
Intent good cannot free one from Formal Idolatry, B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 3.  
Intention of the Priest, if not right, occasioneth Idolatry, B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 4. A matter of extreme perplexity, Ibid. Ch. 9 Sect. 5.  
Invocation upon the Sacrament can never be proved out of the Fathers, B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. & Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Romish manner of Invocating the Host, Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect. 1.   

L.  
LIft up your hearts,] used anciciently, maketh against Adoration of the Eucharist, Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 2.  
Liturgies (or Missals) ancient praying [God to accept this as Abel's Sacrifice.] B. 8. Ch. 8. Sect. 4.   

M.  
Mass, the word, B. 1. Ch. 1. The Romish hath ten Innovations contrary to Christ his Institution, B. 1. Ch. 2. The superstitiousness thereof, Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. sacrilegiousness thereof, Ibid. Sect. 2. idolatrousness, Book 7. throughout, & B. 8. Ch. 1. Sect. 5.  
Melchizedech his Priesthood and Sacrifice objected and discussed, Book 6. Chap. 3.  
Miraculous Apparitions thirteen of true flesh and blood in the Eucharist, falsely pretended for proof of a Corporal Presence, Book 4. Chap. 2. Sect▪ 1, etc. Miraculous birth of Christ thorough the womb of the Blessed Virgin ob. and his entrance thorough the doors, and passing thorough the Tomb, and a Camels passing thorough a needle's eye, Book 4. Chap. 7. Sect. 7.  
Moral Certainty no sufficient Pretence, to excuse from formal Idolatry, B. 7. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. A matter of great perplexity in Romish worship, Book 7. Ch. 9 Sect. 4.  
D. Morton vindicated from two Romish Adversaries, in the point of the Manichees opinion, imputed to the Romish Church, B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7.   

O.  
OBstinacies of the Defenders of the Romish Mass discovered in a Synopsis, B. 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 1, etc.  
Omnipotency spoken of the Fathers, and objected for a Corporal presence of Christ's body, and for Transubstantiation, vainly, B. 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. God's Omnipotency nothing impeached, by the acknowledgement of Impossibilities, by Contradiction, B. 4. Chap. 3. Sect. 2, etc. Omnipotency pretended by Heretics, Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. See Impossibility, and see Contradiction.  
Ordination, awanting in the Romish Priest, causeth Idolatry in their Mass, Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 6.   

P.  
PAsseov●s no Type of a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Book 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 10.  
Pastophorium, what it signifieth. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. & B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4.  
Perjuries of the Romish Disputants in Defence of their Mass, (in a Synopsis.) Book 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 4.  
Perplexities wherewith the Romish are entangled in their Adoration; and from which Protestants are free. B. 7. Ch. 9  
Place. One Body in many places impossible, proved by Contradictions in itself. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2, etc. By Confession, Scripture, and Fathers. Ibid. Sect. 3, etc. By Reasons. Sect. 9 Objections to the contrary answered. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1, etc. Ob. Sol. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. The Fathers prove the Holy Ghost God, by its being in div●…s places at once. B. 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. (See Angels.)  
Pledge of Resurrection is the Eucharist called of the Fathers; vainly objected for proof of a Corporal Presence. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. & B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 5. See also B. 〈◊〉. Ch. 3. Sect. 11.  
Pope's Consecration a matter doubtful and dangerous. B. 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 4. Popes made wiser than the Apostles. Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Christ's Divine Precept held to be by the Pope dispensable. Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 13.  
Presence of Christ's Body; wherein the Difference [de modo] 〈◊〉 necessary. Book 4. Ch. 1, etc. Romish manner Capernaitical. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. Impossible. Chap. 3. Sect. 1.  
Priesthood Romish not after the order of Melchizedech. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Word, Priest, uproperly used of the Fathers. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Christ's Priesthood now performed in heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Confirmed by antiquity. Sect. 8.  
Private Mass. (See Mass.)  
Procession with the Sacrament an Innovation. Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10.  
Pronunciation of the words of Consecration, a matter of Perplexity in the Romish worship. Book 7. Chap. 9 Sect. 3.  
Propitiatory Sacrifice distinguished. B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Objectively. Chap. 9 Sect. 2. The Romish Propitiatory void of Propitiatory qualities. Book 6. Chap. 10. Sect. 1, etc.  
Protestants profess an Union with Christ more than figurative. B. 5. Ch. 2. They profess a Sacrifice both Encharisticall and Latreuticall. B. 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1, etc. And offer Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice objectively. Ib. Sect. 4. Slandered as celebrating Bare Bread. Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. In the celebration of the Eucharist they use due Reverence, and are free from all Perplexities, wherewith the Romish are entangled in their worship. Book 7. Ch. 9 Sect. 3. (See Union.)   

Q.  
QVantity and Quality differ extremely in respect of their being in place or space. Book 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 6.   

R.  
REservation of the Eucharist to other ends than eating is an Innovation. Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10.  
Reverence of this Sacrament falsely pretended, for an Alteration of Christ's Institution. Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Reverence professed by Protestants. B. 7. Ch. 9 What are the properties of due Reverence. Ibid. (See Adoration, and Idolatry.)   

S.  
SAcrifice not properly so called in the now Testament. Book 6. Chap. 1. and so throughout the Book 6. Not proved by Christ's Institution, or any Scripture, whether Typical, or Prophetical. Chap. 3, etc. Commemorative only, not proper. Ch. 5, etc. The Romish Mass is destitute of all Sacrificing Acts, Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Sacrifice how professed by Protestants. Ch. 7. Sect. 1.  
sacrilegiousness of the Romish Mass (in a Synopsis) Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  
Scriptures, their Exposition impudently appropriated to the Romish Church. Book 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 8.  
Shed] in Christ's Institution taken unproperly, without effusion of Blood. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Of the Present Tense. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 4.  
Similitude of making a Circle, is but a juggling Invention, for proof of Transubstantiation, or the literal sense of Christ's words. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Another of a Stage-play, for proof of a proper Sacrifice, ●idioulously objected. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall. 2. & B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. & Ch. 5. Sect. 12.  
Slander of jews & Pagans against Christians (as eating a Child) foolishly objected for proof of a Corporal eating of Christ's flesh. B. 5. Chap. 9 Sect. 1. Against Protestants, as denying God's omnipotency. B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 1, & 4. And as if they held but bare bread in the Sacrament. Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  
Soul fond objected, for proof of a possibility of a Body's existence in many places at once. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. A great difference between Body and Soul. B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7.  
Stage-play. (See Similitude.)  
superstitiousness of the Romish Mass (in a Synopsis.) Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1.   

T.  
TOngue unknowen unlawful in God's Service. Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6.  
Translation, called the Vulgar Latin, rejected by the Romish Disputers, notwithstanding their Oath to the contrary. Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. & Book 〈◊〉 Chap. 1. Sect. 2. And yet objected. B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1.  
Transubstantiation not proved by Christ's words [This is my Body] Book 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Novelty of the word and Article. Ibid. Bread remaineth. Sect. 4, etc. As well four Transubstantiations evinced out of the same Testimonies of Fathers, whereby the Romish Disputers seek to prove one. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3.  
Types and Antitypes how applied to the Eucharist, by the Fathers. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6.   

V.  
VIaticum, spoken of by the Fathers, objected idly. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3.  
Unbloody Sacrifice, so termed of the Fathers, to signify void of blood, as in the Sacrifice of Melchizedech. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9 which they also call a Bloody Sacrifice. Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 11.  
Union of Christ's body with the bodies of the Communicants, by this Sacrament is spiritual. B. 5. Ch. 1, & 2. The wicked are not united, and yet guilty of Christ's blood. Chap. 3. Corporal Union how understood by the Fathers. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 5, etc. (See Capernaites.)  
Voice objected seelily for proof of a possibility of a Body to be indivers places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1.  
Vulgar Translation. (See Translation.)    

II. Index of the General Consent of ancient Fathers, in points controverted throughout the eight former Books.  

BOOK I.  
ANtiquity, in general, against the Romish form of Consecration. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Against their Not Breaking of Bread, in the distributing thereof. Sect. 4. Against Private Mass. Sect. 5. Against uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice. Sect. 6. Against an Unknown tongue, in the public service of God. Sect. 7. Against the presence of Persons not Communicating. Chap. 2. Sect. 9 Against Reservation of the Eucharist for Procession, or other like ends. Sect. 10. Against Communicating but in one kind. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. The Objections out of the Fathers, in this point, answered. Ibid. The Fathers many Reasons for the common use of the Cup. Sect. 9   

BOOK II.  
Antiquity agreeing in the Exposition of the words of Christ, [This is my Body] by referring [Hoc, This] to Bread. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. And in yielding unto them a Figurative Sense. Chap. 2. Sect. 6, etc.   

BOOK III.  
ANtiquity never mentioning the word Transubstantiation. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Expounding these words [Fruit of the Vine] to mean Wine after Consecration. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. Acknowledging the verity of Sense. Sect. 9 And Bread remaining after Consecration. Sect. 11. Never speaks of Accidents without Substance. Sect. 11. & Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Nor of any Miraculous Conversion of the Sacrament putrified into Bread again. Ibid. Romish Art in deluding the Testimonies of Antiquity. Ibid. Antiquity objected and answered. Chap. 4. throughout.   

BOOK IU.  
ANtiquity against the Possibility of the Being of a Body in more places than one, at once. Chap. 6. Sect. 6, etc. or yet Angels. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. For the manner of the birth of Christ, in opening the womb. Chap. 7. Sect. 7.   

BOOK V.  
ANtiquity agreeing, that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body and blood. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. In expounding the words [The flesh profiteth nothing] spiritually. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. The Father's Hyperboles necessarily to be observed. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Objected for men's being nourished with Christ's flesh, unconscionably. Chap. 8. Sect. 1. As also for Mixture with men's Bodies. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. whereby they must as well prov● four Transubstantiations, as one. 〈◊〉. Agreeing, that None●… Christ, in wh●m Christ doth ●ot remain. Ibid. How they are to be understood concerning Corporal Union. Ch. 8. Sect. 4, etc. (See Liturgies.)   

BOOK VI.  
ANtiquity unconscionably objected for proof of a Proper Sacrifice, from the Sacrifice of Melchizede●h. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. And in the Exposition of Malachy. Ch. 4. Sect. 2, etc. Agreeth for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Explain themselves to signify a Sacrifice unproperly. Chap. 4. Sect. 5, & 6. Unconscionable Objections from their Epithets of Terrible. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. and Unbloody. Sect. 9 which They call also Bloody. Sect. 11. And also Baptism a Sacrifice. Sect. 13. And other Spiritual Acts. Sect. 14. Unconscionable Objections from their words, Altar, and Priest. Sect. 15. Spiritual Acts called Sacrifices unproperly. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Yea and also Propitious. Chap. 8. Sect. 1.   

BOOK VII.  
ANtiquity unconscionably objected for a Divine Adoration of the Sacrament, from any of their words. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. as also from any of their Acts, either of their Concealment of this Mystery. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. or Elevation. Sect. 2. or Gesture. Sect. 3. or Invocation. Sect. 4. Which was never taught by them. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Nay, Antiquity was against Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, by their Common Admonition, [Lift up your hearts, etc.] Chap. 4. Sect. 2.   

BOOK VIII.  
ANtiquity against the Romish sacrilegiousness, (in a Synopsis.) Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Against their idolatrousness, teaching Bread to remain. Sect. 5. Their Testimonies unconscionably objected for Corporal Presence, Proper Sacrifice, and Divine Adoration, (as appeareth in a Synopsis.) Instance in Baptism, by paralleling their like speeches of it with the Eucharist. Chap. 2. Sect. 2, & 3. Antiquity insolently rejected, and falsely boasted of by our Adversaries. Ch. 2. Sect. 4.    

III. Index of the particular judgements of Fathers severally; as also of Counsels and Popes, both in our Oppositions, and in the Romish Objections; besides those (here omitted) which have been otherwise answered in the General, throughout the former TREATISE.  

AMbrose Opp. against unknowen Prayer. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. And that the words of Christ are figurative. Book 2. Sect. 9 and That Christ gave bread. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And for a figurative Sense in the words, [This is my Body.] B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9 And for Bread remaining. B. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. his terming it a Miraculous work (unconscionably.) Ch. 4. Sect. 2. And for saying, Bread is made man's flesh. Sect. 7. And, that Bread is changed into another thing. Ibid. Opp. He teacheth Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And an Unproper Sacrifice. Ib. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. and correcteth his Excessive speech of Sacrifice. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. For naming it an [Unbloody Sacrifice] (Unconscionably.) B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 9 And for [Adoration of Christ's footstool.] B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And Christ's appearing to Saul from Heaven. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God, by its Being in diverse places at once. Book 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2.  
Athanasius Opp. for a necessity of Circumscription of a Body in one place only Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. And for Impossibility of Angels being in many places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. And for the spiritual Exposition of those words, [The flesh profiteth nothing.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. And that Angels cannot be in diverse places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3.  
Augustine fond Ob. for an unknown tongue. Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall. 6. And for proof that Christ in the Sacrament was a Figure of himself on the Cross. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall. 2. Opp. That Bread was called Christ's body. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And that he alloweth the judgement of Sense in this Sacrament. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 And for a Figurative Sense in the words [This is my Body] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9 Ob. for Transubstantiation, because a powerful work. Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. Opp. For necessary Circumscription of a Body in one place. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Ob. That Christ [Efferebatur manibus ejus.] Ibid. Sect. 8. Opp. For the Being of Christ's soul but in one place. Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And that the godly only partake Christ's Body. Book 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. & Ch. 3. Sect. 3, 4. Ob. that the Flesh of Christ, in the Eucharist, is a sign of itself on the Cross, (fraudulently.) B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall. 2. Opp. for expounding that Scripture [The flesh profiteth nothing.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. that the Capernaites understood not Christ. (unconscionably.) B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And that [We receive with our mouths Christ's Body.] Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And also his [Fideles nôrunt] B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. And [None eateth, before he adore.] Book 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And for Priests (properly.) Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Opp. Eucharist an unproper Sacrifice. Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and he is an utter Adversary to the whole Romish Cause. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 8. Chall. 4, & 5. And that Christ appeared to Saul from heaven. Ibid. Sect. 5. And he proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, by its being in diverse places at once. Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And is against a Bodies being without Commensuration to place and space. Ibid. Sect. 6. And that no Body can be whole in any one part of place. Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And that Angels cannot be in diverse places at once. Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  
Basil Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God, by its being in many places at once. Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Ob. [What were the words of Invocation?] And for Adoration of the Eucharist (most grossly.) B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Opp. That he called, the Eucharist Bread after Consecration. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6.  
Bertram Opp. for the existence of Bread after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14.  
Chrysostome Opp. against Gazers on the Sacrament. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 Ob. for private Mass. Ibid. Sect. 5. Chall. 3: Opp. teaching Bread to remain after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Ob. for Transubstantiation in his words, [Change by divine power.] Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. And his Exception, saying, [Although it seem absurd to Sense.] B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. and his Hyperbolical Phrases. Ibid. and his words, [It is made Christ's body indeed.] Ibid. Sect. 7. and these, [We are changed into the flesh of Christ.] Ibid. And that the wicked are [guilty of Christ's Body] for corporal presence. B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. His (〈◊〉 miracle!) saying [Christ in heaven is handled here on earth.] And of a double Elias. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for Christ's passing thorough the doors. Ibid. Opp. his expounding the words [Flesh profiteth not] figuratively. Book 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. The words, [Tearing with teeth.] Ibid. Sect. 3. and these, [Christ is held in the hands of the Priest.] Ibid. And, [Christ hath made us his body.] B. 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Opp. Christ's Priestly Residence in heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And, [Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial thereof.] Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. [Sacrifice Pure, and Terrible.] Ibid. Sect. 8. And [Lambe lying on the Altar, Terrible, and Angels present.] B. 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and [Fideles nôrunt.] Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Elevation. Ibid. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and Bowing before the Table. Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. Angels cannot be in diverse places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. jet, Ob. for Christ's presence in diverse places at once, (Unconscionably.) B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 7.  
Clemens Alexandrinus opp. calling Bread Christ's body. B. 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and calling Bread and Wine [Antitypes] after Consecration. Ibid. Naming it a [Sacrifice of Christ's body.]  
Clemens Bishop of Rome. See Pope.  
Council of Collen opp. that contemptuous Refusers to communicate are guilty of the body of Christ. B. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Of Constance ob. for Communion in one kind. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Of Ephesus opp. for a palpable Body of Christ. B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Of Lateran 4. ob. for Transubstantiation. B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Of Aunts, opp. against private Mass. Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Of Nice [Lambe of God on the Table] ob. unconscionably for a corporal presence, and proper Sacrifice. B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. And for calling the Eucharist a [Pledge of the Resurrection.] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. opp. the same Council against both corporal presence, and proper Sacrifice. Book 4. Ch. 10. and against sole Accidents. Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Toledo and Trullo opp. for receiving the Sacrament with hands. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And of Toledo against Innovating in the Eucharist. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. ult. And against Transubstantiation and Corporal Eating. Book 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 3. and against sole Accidents. Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 2. And of Trullo, to prove that which is called [Body] to be Bread. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Of Trent opp. for reporting the Error of the Romish Church about ministering the Eucharist to Infants. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11.  
Cyprian calling it a [work of omnipotency] ob. Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. and Bread changed in nature. Ibid. Figurative Sense of Christ's words, [This is etc.] Opp. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 and calling Bread Christ's body. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Against Reservation of the Sacrament. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Ob. Wicked men guilty of Christ's body. B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and [We are anointed with his blood inwardly.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. calling it a [True and Pure Sacrifice.] Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8.  
Cyril Alexand. Opp. Godly only partakers of Christ his Body. B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. ob. that we have a natural conjunction hereby with Christ. B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 8. and Ob. his Similitude, [As Wax melted.] Ibid. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. And [Christ dwelleth in us.] Ibid. Opp. Body as well circumscribed in one place, as God uncircumscribed. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6.  
Cyril Hierosol. ob. [Think not thou takest bread.] (unconscionably.) B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. and [under the form of bread] for proof of only Accidents, (fraudulently) and Species for Typus. Ibid. and Chrisma for Charisma. Ibid. and Sacrifice of Christ's Body. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. and [Bowing] for Adoration. B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Opp. against Christ's body going into the draught. B. 4. Ch. 9 Sect. 3.  
Damascen opp. that Angels cannot possibly be but in one place. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Circumscription of a Body necessary. Ib. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and against penetration of Bodies. Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And for teaching the word, Antitype, to have been used only before Consecration (falsely.) Yet ob. B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. And for naming (Elevation) is ob. for Adoration, (unconscionably.) Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. and for his [O Divine Sacrament] unconscionably. Ib. Sect. 4.  
Dionysius Areopag. opp. Calling the Sacrament [Antitype] after Consecration. Book 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6.  
Didymus Alexand. opp. Proving the Holy Ghost God, by its being in diverse places at once. Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2.  
Epiphanius his, [Hoc est meum, & Hoc] objected. B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 7.  
Eusebius ob. his saying, [It is Christ's body] unconscionably. B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Opp. his correcting of his speech, saying, [Or rather a Memorial of a Sacrifice.] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. naming the Sacrament a [bloody Sacrifice,] unconscionably. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9  
Fulgentius opp. For necessary circumscription of a Body. Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6.  
Gaudentius opp. calling that which is present [A pledge of Christ's body absent.] Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and calling Bread Christ's body. Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. His saying ob. [Body, which Christ reacheth.] Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3.  
Gelasius. See Pope.  
Gregory Nazian. opp. against the possibility of the being of one Body in diverse places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. and also of the Angels. Ibid. Sect. 3. and that Christ's Priestly Function is in heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Ob. his naming the Eucharist a [Bloody Sacrifice] unconscionably. Chap. 5. Sect. 9 Opp. against Proper Sacrifice, he saith that [This is not so acceptable as that in heaven.] Ibid. Sect. 9, & 15. and calleth the Symbols after Consecration [Antitypes.] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Ob. h●s sister Gorgonia, for Adoration, unconscionably. Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4.  
Gregory Nyssen ob. his saying [It is changed into whatsoever, etc.] unconscionably. Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. as also these other words [Christ's body when it is within ours, etc.] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Again, [One body divided to thousands, and undivided.] B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7.  
Gregory the Great. See Pope.  
Hesychius ob. for Praying, [Perceiving the truth of blood.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. (unconscionably.)  
Hierome opp. that the words of Christ, [This is my body] are figurative. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 and calling the Sacrament present a [Pledge of his Body absent.] B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body. Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.  
Hilary ob. for saying, [We are nourished in our bodies by Christ's body.] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. (unconscionably.) As also ob. [That Christ is naturally within us.] Ibid. Sect. 3.  
Irenaeus opp. For the remaining of Bread after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. For denying the Sacrament to be common bread. Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. (unconscionably.) And that our bodies are nourished with his body. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and for his saying, that our [Bodies are not now corruptible.] Ibid. Sect. 6. Opp. his saying that it was Bread, which was called Christ's body. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6.  
Isidore Hispal. opp. For a figurative Sense of Christ's words [This is my Body] B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 Opp. against Conversion by Transubstantiation. Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and for the Sense of the word Mass. B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. and for calling the thing sacrificed, after the order of Melchizedech, Bread and Wine. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and calling it [Bread changed into a Sacrament] after Consecration. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 and against Prayer in an unknowen tongue. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7.  
Isidore Pelus. opp. that Christ spoke from heaven to Saul. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. and for Christ's opening the womb of the Blessed Virgin at his birth. Ibid. Ch. 7. Sect. 7.  
julius. See Pope.  
justine Martyr ob. his Apology against the slander of Christians, as eating an Infant. B. 5. Ch. 9 Sect. 1, & 3. (unconscionably.) And for calling it no common bread. B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. (unconscionably.) Opp. Calling the Symbols Antitypes after Consecration. B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and against the altering of Christ's body in his entrance thorough the door. B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7.  
Leo. See Pope.  
Nicholas. See Pope.  
Oecumenius Opp. For Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8.  
Optatus Ob. his calling the [Altar the seat of Christ.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that the Eucharist is the [Pledge of our Salvation.] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6.  
Origen ob. For bread remaining after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Opp. Against prayer in an unknowen tongue. Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall. 6. and against Christ's body going into the draught. Book 4. Chap. 9 Sect. 3. and that only the Godly are Partakers of the body of Christ. B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and for expounding job. 6. [The flesh profiteth nothing.] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. his saying [Not worthy, that Christ should come under the roof of our mouths.] Ibid. Sect. 3. and for Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and that it was bread which was called Christ's body. Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6.  
Pope Calixtus opp. against Gazer's only at the celebration of the Sacrament. Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9 and for calling Communion but in one kind Sacrilegious. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. For the existence of Bread after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 13. Clemens ob. for unbloody Sacrifice. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. Greg. 1. opp. against Gazers on the Eucharist. Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9 Ob. for Transubstantiation out of a Legend. Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for his saying, [Blood sprinkled upon the posts.] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. (unconscionably.) Opp. Angels cannot be in diverse places at once. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Gregory 7. Pope ob. for Transubstantiation. B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. julius' opp. against Innovation in the Eucharist. B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Leo Ob. his saying [Let us taste with our flesh.] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. against them who err, in pretence of Omnipotency. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Nicholas ob. his [Tearing sensibly Christ's flesh with te●th.] B. 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Pius 2. against an unknowen tongue in God's service. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall. 5.  
Primasius opp. his correction, [Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial.] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6.  
Tertullian opp. for his expounding Christ's words [This is my body] figuratively. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9 and for verifying the Truth of Sense in this Sacrament. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 and for expounding the words of joh. 6. [Flesh profiteth nothing.] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and that Angels are not in many places at once. Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. and man's being in many places at once impossible. B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that it was Bread which he called his Body. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6.  
Theodoret opp. For his expounding Christ's words [This is my body] figuratively. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6, & 8. and of bread remaining after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9, & 12. and that one thing cannot have the right hand and left of itself. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 9 and for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and for correcting himself, [a Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial.] Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. and for circumscription of a body in one place necessarily. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. ob. his Symbols adored. B. 7. Ch. 2. (unconscionably.) Opp. That it was bread which he called his body. Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6.  
Theophylact ob. for Transubstantiation. B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. & Ch. 4. Sect. 7. (unconscionably.) Opp. for correcting himself, saying, [Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial.] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6.  
Vigilins' Opp. For circumscription of Christ's body in one place. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6.    

IV. Index of the principal places of Scriptures opposed by us, and objected against us throughout this Controversy.  

PSal. 72. 16. [There shall be an handful of corn.] Ob. to prove the Romish Sacrifice. Book 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 4.  
Malach. 5. 1. [In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered to my name.] Ob. For a proper Sacrifice (but vainly.) B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1, & 3.  
Matth. 19 14. [Easier for a Camel to pass thorough the eye of a needle, etc.] Ob. For the manner of Christ's presence. B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7.  
Matth. 26. 29. [Fruit of the vine.] Opp. against Transubstantiation. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5.  
Matth. 26. 26, etc. [And he blessed it.] Opp. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. [Brake it.] Ibid. Sect. 4. [Said unto them.] Ibid. Sect. 5, 6. [Take.] Ibid. Sect. 7. [Eat ye.] B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 9 [In remembrance.] Ibid. Sect. 11. [Drink ye all of this.] Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. [In like manner he took the cup.] Ibid. [As often as you shall do this.] Ibid. [THIS IS MY BODY.] The word [This] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 1, etc. The verb [Est] Ibid. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Figurative, and not making for Transubstantiation. Book 3. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. [My body] Fare differing from that which is in the hands of the Priest. B. 4. thorough. out. [Do this.] Ob. for Sacrifice. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. [Is shed, Is broken, Is given.] Ob. for Sacrifice. Ibid. Sect. 2. (Both unreasonably.) [In remembrance of me.] B. 6. throughout. [Shed for remission of sins.] Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory. B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 2.  
Matth. 28. 6. [He is not here, for he is risen.] Opp. against Being in two places at once. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 4.  
Luc. 24. 16. [Their eyes were holden.] Ob. B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 9  
Ibid. [— Known at Emmaus by breaking of bread.] Ob. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 3.  
joh. 6. 54. [Who so eateth my flesh.] Opp. Book 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1.  
Ibid. vers. 63. [It is the Spirit that quickeneth.] Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. & Chap. 3. Sect. 6.  
joh. 19 33. [They broke not his legs.] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. & Ch. 3. Sect. 10.  
Acts 2. 42. [They continued in fellowship & breaking of bread.] Ob. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 4.  
Acts 9 Concerning Christ's Appearance to Saul. Ob. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5.  
Acts 13. 2. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 1.  
1. Cor. 5. 7. [Our Passeover is sacrificed.] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8.  
1. Cor. 10. 3. [The same spiritual meat.] Opp. Book 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1.  
Ibid. vers. 16. [The Bread which we break.] Opp. against Transubstantiation. Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6.  
Ibid. vers. 18. [They which eat— are partakers of the Altar.] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. for proof of a proper Sacrifice.  
1. Cor. 11. vers. 28. [So let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this cup.] Opp. against Communion but in one kind. Book 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. And Opp. for proof of Bread, after Consecration. B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 4.  
Ibid. vers. 27. [Guilty of the Lord's body.] Ob. Book 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1, & 4.  
1. Cor. 14. 16. [How shall he say Amen?] Opp. against unknowen Prayer.] Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6.  
Heb. 5. Concerning Melchizedech. Ob. for Sacrifice. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2, & 4.  
Heb. 9 22. [Without shedding of Blood.] Opp. Book 6. Ch. 10. Sect. 3.  
Heb. 13. 10. [We have an Altar.] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8.    

Faults committed in some Copies of the first five Books.  
PAg. 3. lin. 35. Read, according to the. pag. 25. lin. last but one, read, oppose. pag. 36. lin. 5. read, Public Procession. pag. 53. ●ine last but four, read, of longest. pag. 61. lin. last but two, read, kept fasting. pag. 171. lin. 15. for Chatters, read, Characters. pag. 178. lin. 24. crucified, read, circumscribed, twice in that line. pag. 211. lin. 9 read, in the Propositions. pag. 232. lin. 36 for Commandment, read, Commentary. pag. 235. lin. 33. read, Tropological phrases.  
Besides these, there is an Omission pag. 108. in the lin. 9 of §. 4 where, over against these words of the Context, * Acts of this Council were not published until more than 200 (read 300) years after; for proof thereof the Observation, which the same Author, under the name of M. Widdrington, hath made, may be thus inserted in the Margin. * Conc. Lateranense non nisi post trecentos annos in lucem publicam prodiisse, neque in Tomis Conciliorum à Jac. Merlin—— conscriptum esse. And again; At si Conc. istud plen● absolutum fuisset— aliquis intrà trecentorum Annorum spatium publicandum curâsset: neque Joh. Cochlaei open indiguissemus, qui post totos tercentum annos Conc. istud non ex Bibliotheca Vaticana, etc.   

Faults in the three last Books.  
PAg. 6. lin. 24. for Translation, read, Interpretation. pag. 9 lin. 25. add, and read, 6. yea and (although. pag. 36 lin. 23. read, two Scales. pag 74. lin. 4 read, Venial sins. Ibid. lin. 7. read, namely, not Christ. pag. 80. lin. last but six, read, shall eat, etc.  
Other Errata, especially in the marginals, by mis-acc●●ting of some Greek words, through the Correctors unskilfulness in the Character, the inganious and ingenuous Reader may as easily amend 〈◊〉 espy.  
FINIS.