Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	call_v	wine_n	17,324	5	8.1502	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80756	The royal prerogative vindicated in the converted recusant convinced by Scripture, reasons, fathers, and councils, that the oath of abjuration (compared with those of allegiance, and supremacy) containeth nothing, but what may be lawfully taken by every pious Christian, and loyal subject; and that the known doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England, in opposition to Popery on the one hand, and all sects, and schisms on the other, is the safest way to peace and loyalty here, and salvation hereafter. To which is annexed The King's supremacy in all causes, ecclesiastical, and civil, asserted in a sermon preached at the assises at Monmouth before Sir Robert Hide, one of his Majestie's judges, March 30. 1661. / By John Cragge, M.A.	Cragge, John, M.A.	1661 (1661)	Wing C6790; Wing C6786; Thomason E2261_1; Thomason E2261_2; ESTC R210148	173,676	266

a living Body Others a living Body Durand (a) Durand 4. Dist 10. q. 4. makes it a Body indeed bodyless without quantitie dimensions or parts Occham (b) Occham 4. Dist 10. q. 4. a body having quantitie without extention figure and order of parts Bellarmine (c) Bellarm. De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. 14. a Body having dimensions without external relation to place or ubi a Body without matter like Angels and Spirits which he resembles by the image of man's face reflecting in a Glass A Body saith (d) Suarez in 3. partem Thomae Disp 52. Suarez having the stature of a man palpable contradiction and yet contained in every crumb of Bread Thus the Romists incurr that of the Poet. (e) Horat. Satyra 1. Dum vitant vitia in contraria currunt For to avoid one Figure or Metonymie in our Saviour's Words they are forced to forge innumerable Figures sixteen at the least as Bishop Jewel hath observed to make it a phantastical Body or rather Chimera or Ens fictum impossibile a Body bodyless Gent. But the antient Fathers and our Scholemen agree That this Conversion though mysterious and inscrutable is by Transubstantiation Minist Nothing less for Tonstal one of your own confesses (f) Deo modo quo id sicret satius erat curiosum quenquam relinquere suae conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum Tonstal De Euchar. lib. 1. pag. 46. That for the manner how this is Christ 's Body it were beter to leave everie curious Fellow to his own conjecture as it was free before the Lateran Council Lombard Master of the Sentences saith (g) Si autem quaeritur Qualis sit illa conversio an Formalis an Substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio Lombard Sent. 4. Dist 11. That he is not able to define the manner of conversion in the Sacrament (h) Bandinus Sent. D. Sacr. pag. 367. Some affirm one way some another We say with Saint Augustine The Mysterie is safely believed but not with safety searched into Cyril of Alexandria saith (i) Cyril in Joan. lib. 4. cap. 13. We ought firmly to believe the Holy Mysterie but let us never in Matters thus sublime so much as imagine to utter the manner how the manner how this is done can neither be conceived by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophylact saith (k) Theophyl in Joan. vi when we hear these words of Christ unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. We ought firmly to believe the same and not to enquire after what manner According to that of Saint Chrysostome (l) Chrysost in 1 Cor. Homil. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is better to be soberly ignorant then naughtilie intelligent For this mysterie is of that nature that Athanasius testifies (m) Athanas Ad Serap 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims veil their faces when it comes to this and yet the Romists with the Beth-shemites dare look into the Ark though Salvianus accounts it (n) Sacrilegae temeritatis auoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris Salvian lib. De Provid a sacrilegious temeritie to covet to know that which we are not permitted Gent. But the Fathers although they mention not Transubstantiation or the manner of presence or conversion in the Sacrament yet they call it the very body and blood of Christ as Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in his book highly commended by (o) Whitakerus De Sacris Scripturis Doctour Whitaker saith (p) Cyril Hierosol Catech Mystag 4. Let us therefore with all certitude receive the Body and Blood of Christ Minist They call it the Body and Blood of Christ in conformity to out Saviour's Metonymical and mystical Expression but withall that no man mistake they unfold what they mean by Body and Blood for treating of the Sacramental signs the Antients (q) Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. Epist Hebr. Hom. 17. Gelas Cont. Eutych Theod. Dial. 2. Dionys Hierarch cap. 3. Gregor Nazianz. Apol. Macar Homil. 17. call them Figures Representations Memorials Anti-Types but that which is a Figure Similitude Type and Representation of a thing is not properly the same Saint Augustine saith (r) August De Doctr. Christian lib. 3. cap. 16. It is a figurative speech commanding us to be partakers of the Lord's Passion and sweetly and profitably to keep in mind that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us (s) Dominus non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum quando dedit signum sui corporis August in Psalm 98. The Lord did not stick to say This is my Body when he gave a sign of his Body Origen speaking of the consecrated Element of Bread saith (t) Origen in cap. xv Matth. This I speak of the Typical and Figurative Body Saint Ambrose (u) Ambros De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 5. calls it figuram corporis sanguinis the figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Saint Chrysostome saith (x) Chrysost Opus imperfect in Matth. Homil. 11. In the sanctified Vessel there is not the true Body of Christ but a Mystery of his body is there contained Gratian's Gloss confirms this The Divine Bread saith (y) Gratian. De Consecrat Dist 2. he which representeth the flesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly Beda saith (z) Beda in Lucam 22. Christ substituted his Flesh and Blood in the figure of Bread and Wine Druthmarus (a) Druthmar supra Matth. cap. 26. The Blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby Bertram (b) Bertram lib. De corp sang Domini Bread and Wine is Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ And Tertullian who lived nearer the Apostolick Times saith (c) Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 1. cap. 14. that Bread representeth the Body of Christ calling it in two places The figure of Christ 's Body By all these it is most evident that the Ancients taught That the body of Christ was not essentially and substantially in the Sacrament but onely figuratively and Typically Gent. But the Orthodox Fathers teach that The Bread our Saviour gave his Disciples was changed not in shape but in nature and by the omnipotence of the word was made Flesh Amongst whom Cyprian saith (d) Cyprian Serm. De Chrismate Epist 102. ad Eudoxium Christ carried himself in his own hands and Saint Augustine affirms (e) Augustin De Civitate Dei lib. 13. cap. 20. Serm. De Coena Domini that The Body of our Lord enters into our mouth and that Our tongues are cruentated with the Blood of Christ is not this an essential and substantial Conversion Minist The Orthodox Fathers never taught that Bread and Wine were changed in Essence and Substance though hyperbolically sometimes they affirmed them to be changed in nature meaning in their signification representation and exhibition So Cyprian in your own

instance interpreteth himself for when he had said The nature of Bread and Wine were changed in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ he adds (f) Sacramenta habere nomina earum rerum quas significant Cypr. Serm. De Chrismate Sacraments have the names of those things they signifie which agrees with Chrysostom's Saying (g) Quod est Symbolum tribuit rei significatae maximè quoad fidem mentis cogitationem Chrysost The Signe hath the Attribute of the thing signed or signified especially by Faith and cogitation of the minde And whereas Saint Augustine averrs the Body of our Lord enters our Mouth he means by Faith for so he vindicates himself We cannot saith (h) Nos Christum in coelis sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed Christum fide contingere possumus In Epist in Joanem Aug. Tract 1. he touch with hand Christ sitting in heaven but we can lay hold on Christ by Faith and again (i) Ascendit in coelum corpus Christi quaerat aliquis quomodo in coelum manus mittam fidem mitte tenuisti Aug. Tract in Joh. The Body of Christ is ascended into heaven some may enquire How shall I lay hold on him being absent how shall I send up my hand into heaven that there I may apprehend him sitting fidem mitte tenuisti Stretch but out the hand of Faith and thou hast layd hold on Christ And descanting upon the Seventy third Psalm he saith Christ did carrie himself in his own hands quodammodo in a manner how quia gestabat in manibus suis corporis sui Sacramentum because he carried the Sacrament of his body in his hands Sacraments have the names of those things they signifie and are sublimed to an higher condition then before hence Scripture calls the Supper the Supper of the Lord and the Cup the Cup of the Lord and 1 Cor. x. 4. the Rock of which the Israelites did drink a Spiritual Rock I will conclude this with that of Theodoret which methinks is more then satisfactorie (k) Dominus quae videntur symbolae corporis sanguinis sui appellatione honoravit non equidem naturam ipsam transmutans sid gratiam naturae adjicions Theodoret. Dialog 1. cap. 8. The Lord hath honoured the Sacramental Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not changing Nature it self but adding Grace to Nature Gent. But our Church hath defined That After Consecration the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished and the Shapes Accidents and Quantitie thereof onely remain Minist Your Church it is true hath defined it but without testimonie both of Scripture and Antiquitie as your own Authours confess Cajetan evidences that secluding the authoritie of the Romane Church there is (l) Non apparet ex Euangelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba proprié Cajetan 3. quaest 75. art 1. impress anno 1528. nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to understand the words properly or the Elements to be transubstantiated Scotus saith (m) Scotus 4. D. 11. quasi 3. lit 13. There is no Scripture that proveth the substance of Bread doth not remain Alphonsus a Castro saith (n) De Transubstantiationo panis in corpus Domini rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio Alphonsus à Castro Contra Haeres lib. 8. There is seldome any mention in ancient Writers of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Lord he might have said Never seeing purer ages know no Doctrine but that of Macarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread and Wine presents in the Church an Antitype of his Christ 's flesh and blood and those that partake of the apparent bread do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually And of Theodoret (o) Signa mystica post Consecrationem no● recedunt à sua natura The odor Dialog inconfusus The mystical signes after Consecration depart not from their nature And of Gelasius (p) Non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini Gelasius De duabus naturis Adv. Eutych It ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine Gent. But if the Ancients be against Transubstantiation and Scriptures countenance it not is there any Scriptures against it Minist Quod non dicit Scriptura id contradicit in matters of Faith that which the Scriptures countenance not they discountenance because as Augustine proclaims (q) Aperte in Scriptura inveniuntur omnia illa quae continent fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet atque charitatem August De Doctr Christian lib. 2. cap. 6. Therein are found all things plainly which contain Faith and Moralitie of life Hope and Charitie with this Weapon onely Tertullian fights against Hermogenes saying (r) Scriptum est doceat Hermogenis officium si non est scriptum ●●meat Vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahemibus destinatum Tertull. Contra Hermog pag. 373. Let the shop or Schole of Hermogenes make it appear that that which he pretends as a Plea against me is written If it be not written let him fear that Wo that is denounced against them that add or diminish This Wo the Romists incurr seeing by their own confession there is no Scripture extant for Transubstantiation nay there are apparent Scriptures against it First Matth. xxvi Mark xiv Luk. xxii 1 Cor. xi it is said Christ took Bread blessed Bread brake Bread gave Bread to his Disciples Paul saith let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup whosoever shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily c. But Christ brake not his own Body it was the Souldiers that Crucified him This Tertullian clears saying (s) Acceptum panem et distributum Discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Tertull. contra Adamant cap. 12. contra Marc. lib. 4. He made the Bread taken and distributed to his Disciples that his body by saying This is my Body that is a Figure of my Body Secondly The Body of Christ was delivered up for us Rom. viii 32. but the Bread that Sacramentally is called his Body was not delivered up for us Therefore the Bread is not properly Christ's Body Thirdly Christ saith not as the Transubstantiatours wrest it My body is contained under these forms of Bread and wine but this The very bread is my Body (t) Antitypum sancti corporis sanguinis tui Basil in Liturg. (u) Antitypa pretiosi sanguinis corporis Christi Greg. Nazianz. Oratione De Pasch symbolically that is as Saint Ambrose tells us (x) Ambros in 1 Cor. xi De Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 5. In edendo potando sanguinē carnem Domini quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In eating and drinking we signifie the flesh and blood of the Lord which were offered forus Fourthly Christ saith

not This shall be made my Body therefore the words of Christ do not convert Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ but onely declare the Bread in this use to be the Body of Christ that is Sacramentally as Saint Chrysostom evidences (y) Antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus divinâ autem illum sanctificante gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus est ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso permansit Chrysost ad Caes Monach. Before the Bread be sanctified we call it Bread but Divine Grace sanctifying it by the ministerie of the Priest it is freed from the appellation of Bread and is accounted worthy of the style of the Lord's Body Et si natura panis in ipso mansit although the nature of Bread remains in it Fifthly If the Bread should be transubstantiated it would destroy the nature of a Sacrament which is defined by Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. iv 11. a seal of the righteousness of Faith and by Saint Augustine (z) Ista ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quod in eis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur quop videtur speciem habet corporalem uod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem August Serm. Ad Infant a visible signe of invisible grace now nothing can be imagined but the Bread to be this visible signe this seal that (a) Signum res prater speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid faeciens in cogitationem venire August lib. 2. De Doctr. Christ cap. 1. presents it self to the senses and something besides it self to the understanding In every Sacrament saith Irenaeus there is a thing terrestrial which is visible a thing celestial which is invisible the Terrestrial visible thing in the Eucharist is the Bread and Wine the Celestial and invisible is the body of Christ that was broke and his Blood that was shed upon the Cross but Transubstantiation takes away one part therefore the whole Sacrament which is Duorum unio a relative Vnion of two Sixthly If the Bread and Wine were Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ then there were nothing left that could nourish the body but there ought to be something in the Sacrament to feed our body seeing our Faith is confirmed by the proportion between the Bodilie and Spiritual Alimonie as the material Bread feeds the body so Christ by Faith feeds the Soul as Euthymius saith (b) Naturalis cibus potus est panis vini quae proponuntur supernaturalis verò efficax eorum operatio Euthym. in Matth. xxiii cap. 64. It is the Natural meat and drink of Bread and Wine which are proposed but the efficacious operation of them is supernatural The Accidents of Bread and Wine void of matter and form cannot nourish as being not capable to be (c) Nutritio est adjecti alimenti in corporis substantiam conversio perfecta assimilatio Fuchsius Institut Medicinae lib. 1. Sect. 7. chilified sanguified agglutinated or assimulated to our bodies for Whatsoever nourisheth saith the Philosopher must be simile genere like in kind with that which is nourished but dissimile specie specifically different but Accidents differ from Bodies which are substances toto genere and have nothing common with Flesh and Blood that from power can be reduced into act Seventhly If every crumb of Bread and drop of Wine were transubstantiated into the entire humane Nature of Christ as the Romists maintain then in receiving one Element we should receive the whole mystery and commit no Sacrilege in detaining the Cup from the Laitie but the Antients judged otherwise as Gelasius Divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio pervenire non potest The division of one and the same mysterie cannot be without great Sacrilege And Ignatius (d) Vnus panis omnibus confractus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unum poculum omnibus distributum Ignatius in Epistol Ad Philadelph One Bread was broke for all and one Cup was distributed to all And Saint Chrysostom It is not with us as in the old law where some parts of the sacrifice was given to the Priests others fell to e Non est apud nos ut in Lege veteri ubi aliae partes ex Victimis dabantur Sacerdotibus ali●e veró cedebant offerentibus sed nobis omnibus idem Christi corpus proponitur atque idem poculum Chrysost Homil. in 1. Cor. xxv them that offered but to us all the same body of Christ is given and the same cup here you see he distinguishes the Body from the Cup where according to thir Tenet the Cup is as well the Body as the Bread Gent. How then if not by Transubstantiation is the Bread Christ 's Body or what manner of praedication or enunciation is this This is my Body Minist Not identical where the same thing is praedicated of the same as This my Body is my Body not proper and regular for so one disparate as the Body of Christ cannot be praedicated of the Bread but it is an analogical Enunciation where Tropically or Figuratively the thing signified is affirmed of the sign (f) Ex similitudine Sacramenti signa ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt August Epist 23. ad Bonifacium From the similitude saith Saint Augustine the signes of the Sacraments take the very names of the things themselves for (g) Dominus non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum cùm signum daret corporis sui August contra Adamant cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Which manner of expression is familiar in Scripture Circumcision is the Covenant Gen. xvii the Lamb is the Passover of Jehovah Exod. xii the Sabbath is the Covenant of God Exod. xxxi the seven Kine are seven Years Genes xli 26. I am the Vine John xv 1. the Field is the World Matth. xiii 38. Herod is a Fox Luk. xiii 32. John is Elias Matth. xi 4. Christ was the Rock 1 Cor. x. 4. the Way the Door the Bread John vi 35. yet Christ was not transubstantiated into a Rock or Way or Door or Bread And (h) Duae potissimùm causae sunt cur Spiritus sanctus ipse Christus taelibus praedicationibus Phrasibus sit usus quarū prima est Analogia arctissima unio Sacramentalis inter signa et ros signatas altera est summa certitudo obsignationis spiritualium bonorum eorundem in usu legitimo exhibitionis Kec kerman Logic. lib. 2. pag. 395. there are two reasons why the Holy-Ghost and Christ himself hath used such enunciations and manners of expression whereof the first is the Analogie and most strict Sacramental Union betwixt the signes and things signed The other is the infallible certaintie of the obsignation and exhibition of spiritual good things in the right use of the Seals Gent. All this I acknowledg seems very

2. De Eucharist cap. 5. confesses but it will not infer Transubstantiation or a corporal presence when the the thing signified is in the natural substance thereof contained under the outward and visible signs this is the Transubstantiation which we denie And the Presence acknowledged by us though expressed by figurative Speeches is as real (e) Figuratio locutionis veritatem rei non perimit Rupert in Joann lib. 6. pag. 131. as theirs For first a Mystical Head is really present to the Mystical Body which is taught in Scripture by Tropical Expressions Psalm xlv Canticles Ephes v. John xv Secondly our Saviour's words about the other part of the Sacrament to wit This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luke xxii 20. is confessed by the Romists (f) Non negamus in verbo Calix Tropum esse Bel. larm De Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 11. themselves to be figurative why may not this as well Gent. But our Catholick Writers have taught that Transubstantiation may be gathered from those words of Consecration and that they are not figurative Minist Here you affirm two things First That your Catholick Writers taught that Transubstantiation may be gathered from the words of Consecration Secondly That they are not figurative For the former your Doctour Fisher once Bishop of Rochester ingenuously confesses that (g) Hactenus Matthaeus qui solus Testamenti Novi meminit neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sangiuins Christi praesentiam Fisher Contra Captivit Babylon There is not somuch as one word there whereby the real bodily presence of the flesh and blood of Christ can be proved in the Mass no nor in any Scripture else these are his words Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari So you see it is acknowledged that your Popish Transubstantiation is Scriptureless For the latter That the words of Christ This is my Body are not taken figuratively but (h) Substantia panis nunquam est corpus Christi quamvis convertatur in ipsum Richard 4. Dist 11. in sine Art qu. 9. 6. properly consider these Arguments First If the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their specifical Nature without alteration even after Consecration as before then the Words must needs be figurative for one individual substance cannot be predicated of another property but I shall prove anon by Scriptures and Fathers That the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their specifical Nature without alteration even after Consecration as before Secondly The Body and Blood of Christ would be delivered and received without the Soul and Deitie of Christ For in propriety of Speech the Body is distinguished from the Blood and Soul If the Body be onely received as the letter purports then Christ is dead his Soul and Blood separated from his Body If by Body Blood and Soul be also meant it is a Synecdochical and so a figurative Expression the part put for the whole This Dilemma is not easilie answered Thirdly That which Christ delivered to be participated by his Disciples he did Sacramentally eat and drink himself Luke xxii 15. as (i) Hieron Ad Hedib Qu. 2. Saint Hierom (k) Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. Saint Chrysostom (l) Euthym. in Matth. xxvi cap. 64. Euthymius with (m) Aquin. 3. Quaest 81. Art 1. Vasques in 3. Disp 2. Conclusio est affirmans in qua omnes Catholici quos ego legerim plane conveniunt Sic. Vasquez many Schole-men affirm but if the words be literally interpreted then he did eat his own Flesh and drink his own Blood which the Cannibals abhor Fourthly If the Words be understood literally then Christ gave his passible and mortal Body to his Disciples but a passible and mortal Body could not be received of several Communicants and so be in several places at once could not wholly be contained in a piece of Bread be divided into parts without sensible effusion of Blood But Bellarmine avers (n) Corpus exhibitum Apostolis sumptum ab ipso Christo Domino vereerat passibile Bellarm. De Eucharist lib. 2. cap. 14. That The Body Christ gave his Disciples and they received was a passible Body Fifthly If our Saviour's Words be literally expounded then (o) Verum corpus Christi manet adhuc sub speciebus à Brutorum ore acceptis Turre-Cremata Dogs and Swine may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of man but all that eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of man have everlasting life John vi 49 50. Sixthly If our Saviour's Words were literal and plain they themselves could not be so distracted and divided about the sence thereof but they are notoriously divided as Vasques confesses p Ingens q Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. inter Catholicos de horum verborum sensu est controversia There is a great Controversie amongst the Catholicks of the sence of these words And Suarez saith (q) Catholici in tanta opinionum varietate sunt constituti ut singulatim eas recensere nimis molesiū esset Suarez in 3. part Thomae Catholicks are in such variety of opinions that to reckon them severally were too troublesom Gent. What varietie of Opinions I had thought that there had been summa pax a compleat Harmonie Minist No for in every word their different Conceipts outstrip the number of Letters First For the subject of the Proposition Turre-Cremata saith (r) Turre-Cremata De Consecrat Dist 2. That The Pronoun This signifieth nothing so the sense would be Nothing is my Body Alexander of Hales saith (s) Alexander Hales 4. q. 10. m. 4. Artic. 2. Sect. 3. Hoc id est Panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum This that is the Bread to be transubstantiated into my Body is my Body Bonaventure saith (t) Pronomen demonstrat Panis substantiam sub Accidentibus quae oculis conspici potest Bonavent 4. Dist 8. Art 1. It signifies the Accidents and Forms of Bread Others say (u) Suarez in 3. partem Thomae Disp. 58. It signifies the Body of Christ Others say It signifieth confusedly that which is couched under the Forms And all of these have their Daedalian Windings Labyrinths and Limitations Secondly For the Copula or Verb Substantive Est Is Aquinas (x) Aquinas 3. q. 75. Art 8. Art qu. 78. expounds it by Continetur Under these forms my Body is contained Bellarmine (y) Bellarm. De Euchar lib 1. cap. 11. interprets it by Erit This shall be my Body Marsilius (z) Marsil 4. qu. 6. Art 1. by Transmutatur It is changed and converted into my Body Thirdly For the Predicate corpus meum My Body some make it materia prima the first matter of Christ's Body and that is common with the Bread and needs no Transubstantiation Others Corpus materiatum the materiate Body with the reasonable Soul Others an organized Body without reference to

probable But we have been taught that in this stupendous Mysterie we must deny both sense and reason Minist Where any Mysterie is evidently expressed in Sacred Writ sense and reason must submit to Divine Revelation as in the Incarnation of the Word The Word was made flesh John i. 14. the Trinitie of Persons in the Vnitie of Essence These Mysteries are clearly revealed in Scripture and though (i) Oportet igitur nos cùm audiverimus Nisi ederetis carnem filii non habebitis vitam in sumptionibus divinorum Mysteriorum indubitatam retmere fidem non quaerere quo pacto Theophylact in Joann vi above reason yet not contrary to reason But Transubstantiation as you have heard it proved and by the Romists confessed is (k) Non apparet ex Euangelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba proprié Cajeran 3. Quaest 75. discountenanced nay diametrically opposite to Scripture besides there are sequeles and concomitances that attend it that involve (l) Mirum videtur quare in uno Articulo qui non est principalis Articulus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quam fides pateat contemptui omuium sequentium rationem Scot. 4. Dist 11. q. 3. lit 13. contradiction and inextricable absurdities as in particular these First That the Bread should be changed into the Body or humane Nature of Christ which was (m) Virtute Transubstantiationis non accipit corpus Domini Esse post Non esse quoniam priùs erat Aureol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 1. before Secondly That the accidents or forms of Bread should be without a subject Thirdly How whole Christ should be in every crumb of Bread and drop of Wine Fourthly That at once Christ should be in Heaven and in a thousand Hosts upon Earth Gent. The Meditation of these hath oftentimes staggered me therefore I request you to lay them open more distinctly and that in order as you named them First That the Bread cannot be changed into the humane Nature of Christ which was praeexistent or before Minist The impossibilitie of this change is apparent Because in all substantial conversions natural or miraculous there is a new thing which was not before produced out of that which is converted as appeareth in the conversion of Water into Wine Wine that was not before is made of Water and Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt Salt that was not before is made of Her Body converted into it But in Popish imaginary Transubstantiation the Body of Christ is not produced anew for it is praeexistent and receiveth no substantial change by the confession of Romists themselves for Faventinus one of your own proposes the Question (n) Quaero quis sit terminus formalis hujus actionis Transubstantiationis conversionis Non est corpus Christi Faventin in 4. Disp 35. cap. 6. What is the terminus formalis the formal bound of this Action Transubstantiation or conversion and answers Non est corpus Christi It is not the body of Christ for that saith he is the terminus materialis the material bound intimating it was before and concludes Hoc totum est accidentale there is no substantial change but onely an accidental alteration Neither is the Body of Christ substantially united unto the accidents of Bread and Wine for it giveth no subsistence to them and it sustaineth them not but is united accidentally onely by being made (o) Terminus novae actionis accipit Esse per ipsam actionem sed per Transubstantiationem quae est actio nova non accipit corpus Christi Esse substantiale sed praesentialitarem ad specics ergo corpus Christi non est terminus Transubstantiationis secundium Esse substantiale sed solùm secundùm praesentialitatem Petigian Summa Theol. in 4. Dist 11. q. 3. Art 3. present where the substance of the Elements formerly were now if Water should be poured upon the Ground or otherwise consumed and Wine brought from Heaven as Hail and Snow are and be placed where the Water formerly was here is no substantial conversion so likewise when the substance of Bread and Wine cease according to their Doctrine and Christ's Body and Blood are brought into the place where these were no substantial thing is produced but one substance succeedeth in the room of another by that which they stile (p) Ubiatio est quando aliquid de Vbt non transit ad aliud Vbt Aureol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 3. Vbiation Therefore I conceive we may safely conclude thus That Body which was compleatly praeexistent before was glorified and impassible took q Praecise unum succedit alteri non est verum dicere quod illud cui succeditur accedat convertatur ad illud quod succedit Aureol supra its substance of the seed of the Virgin cannot be made anew of the Consecrated Bread But Christ's body is compleatly praeexistent before is glorified and impassible took its substance of the seed of the Virgin Therefore Christ's Body is not made anew of the Consecrated Bread Again Nothing that is (r) Illud non transit in aliud quod desinit antè quàm veniat ad illud Auteol 4. Dist 11. q. 1. Art 1. annihilated and ceaseth to be any thing is changed into that which was before Bread according to the Romish Tenet is annihilated and ceases to be any thing Therefore it cannot be changed into the Body of Christ which was before Gent I apprehend this as very reasonable and consequent from our own Grounds proceed to the second that The Accidents and Forms of Bread cannot subsist without a Subject Minist That Accidents may subsist and have their natural operation without a Subject of support or inhaerencie implies a contradiction that the Bread shall cease to be and yet tast colour weight and form to remain as before to be sweetness and nothing sweet whitness and nothing white for it is of the Definition and Being of Accidents to be in another or to be in their subject so Porphyrie saith (s) Accidentis Esse est Inesse Porphyr Isagog cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus you see it is Dissonant to Reason and Doctour Biel a Romish Champion confesses (t) Quomodo ibi fit corpus Christi an per conversionem an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus accidentibus non invenitur expresse in Canone Biblii Gabr. Biel De Canon Lect. 4. How the Bread becomes the Body of Christ whether by conversion or without conversion the accidents still remaining is not contained in the Canon of the Bible And if both reason and Scripture disclaim it as an erroneous Prodigie let us see what countenance it hath from Antiquitie This Doctour Tonstall upon search hath found (u) Cuthbert Tonstall De Eucharistia lib. 1. pag. 45. That it was determined in the Council of Lateran which was holden in Rome in the Year of our Lord a thousand two hundred and fifteen

's Body and blood are one thing before the blessing of the Priest but after the blessing they are changed and made other things Theodoret answers no For the mystical signs after the blessing of the Priest depart not from their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and form the same Bread and Wine remains as before are understood and believed as before but he addeth They are also adored his meaning is They are reverenced or honoured for Theodoret was a Father of the Greek Church who adore not the Sacrament till this day yet would speak reverently of it as St. Augustine doth of Baptism saying (d) Baptisma ubique est veneramur August Epist 164. We honour or adore Baptism wheresoever it be I hope the Romists will not gather hence that Baptism must be worshipped It was the Counsel of Anastasius that (e) Dominica verba at tentè audiant fideliter adorent Athanas De Cons Dist 1. Apostolica Men should deligently hear and faithfully adore the Words of God yet Papists themselves give no divine Worship to sacred Oracles we may reverence and admire the Eucharist with (f) Venisti ad Altare vidisti Sacramenta posita supra Altare ipsum quidem miratus es creaturam tamen creatura solennis nota Ambros De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 3. St. Ambrose yet give no divine Worship to it as the Wise men did the Stars Cognoverunt hanc stellam esse quae hominem Deumque signabat sed adoraverunt parvulum They knew saith St. Ambrose g Ambros in Lucam lib. 2. cap. 2. this was the Star that signified him unto them that was both God and Man but they adored the little one and not the Star Gent. But why may we not worship the Consecrated Hoast seeing it signifies represents and exhibits Christ who is to be worshipped Minist Because there is no worship due to it either by Divine Institution or otherwise that is free from Idolatry For as Theophilus being sometimes demanded Wherefore he would not adore the Emperour as the manner was then with divine honour made answer thus (h) Quia non est ad hoc institutus Imperator ut adoretur sed ut legitimo honore honoretur Theophilus contr Autolycum lib. 1. Because the Emperour is not appointed to that end he should be worshipped but that we should give him that honour that to him appertaineth so the Sacrament was not appointed to be worshipped but reverently to be received by Faith And as St. Augustine saith of the anointed Pillar so we may say of the consecrated Bread (i) Non sic posuit Jacob lapidem acutum ut veniret adoraret alioqui Idololatria est non significatio Christi August in Johan Tract 7. Jacob did not erect the anointed stone to the intent to come and to adore it otherwise it were Idolatry and not a signification of Christ Sulpitius (k) Sulpitius in Vita Martini relates of St. Martin that when the Devil appeared unto him and demanded Worship telling him he was Christ the holy man refused saying I cannot tell whether thou be Christ or no unless I see Christ in the same shape and form he was crucified in upon the Cross I will not adore him in any wise So we knowing not any warrant that Christ is essentially and substantially in the Sacrament dare not worship it for in all the Scriptures and holy Fathers we have neither commandment to force us nor (l) Quis tam stultus ut id quod vescitur credat esse Deum Cicero De natura Deorum example to lead us thereto Gent. If adoration of the Hoast be disowned both by Scriptures and antient Fathers how was it introduced into the Church or when began it Minist (m) Extravag De caiebrat Missar It is a thing lately devised by Pope Honorius about the year of our Lord 1226. afterwards increased by the new solemn Feast of Corpus Christi day about the year of our Lord 1264 and that by Pope Vrbanus and last of all confirmed for ever by multitudes of Pardons in the Council of Vienna by Pope Clement the Fifth (n) Cleme ● lib. 3. Tit. 16. ●●pite Si Dominum Anno 1310. The Church of Asia and Graecia never received it until this day The matter is weighty and cannot be attempted without imminent danger to the soul for saith St. Hierome (o) Dum Sacramenta vielantur ipse cusus Sacramem a s●nt vi●l●●ur Hieron in Malac● cap. 1. While Sacraments are abused God himself whose Sacraments they are is dishonoured To give the honour of God to a creature that is no God is manifest Idolatry and all Idolaters saith St. John Apocalyp xxi 8. shall have their portion in the Lake that burneth with fire and brimstone Gent. But admit adoration of the Hoast in particular was introduced within these few Centuries yet worship of Crucifixes and Images in general is acknowledged by Protestants as (p) Andrews in Respons ad caput 18. Perronii Doctour Andrews (q) Casaubon in Exercitat Baronii ad Annum 24. Casaubon and (r) Montacutius in Respons ad Higham Appello Caesarem Montague to be very antient Minist Imagerie is twofold either Veneration largely taken which signifies an external regard and reverence of Pictures such as is given to Churches sacred Vessels and Ornaments of sacred places and this (s) Hoc nemo nostrum dicit Non esse colendas nec ullo modo suo modo coli probamus velut Imagines sed non religioso cultu Junius advers Bellarm. De Imag. cap. 11. Junius with the former quoted Authours confesses to be both antient and in their judgment innocent Or Adoration properly taken which signifieth an internal submission of soul to the acknowledging of some excellency an outward expression of the body by kneeling kissing censing holding up the hands Worshipping of Images in this manner by religious adoration either primary or secondary absolute or respective is not acknowledged to be antient or Calick Doctrine practised by Primitive Fathers But on the contrary it is a superstitious Dotage and remainder of Paganism as Cornelius Agrippa a Papist confesses saying (t) Qui quidem corruptus mos Gentilium falsa religio cùm ipsi ad Christi fidem converti caeperunt nostram quoque Religionem infecit in nostram Ecclesiam simulachrae Imagines multaque pomparum steriles ceremoniat introduxit quorum c. Cornelius Agrippa De vanitate Scientiarum The corrupt custom of the Gentiles and false Religion when they began to be converted to the faith of Christ infected also our Religion and introduced into our Church Pictures and Images and many barren pompous Ceremonies quorum nihil omnino fuit apud primos illos Christianos whereof there was not any thing among those primitive Christians Gent. Cornelius Agrippa in this as in other Points acts the part rather of a Satyrist then of a true Casuist what reason