Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	church_n	judgement_n	scripture_n	1,546	5	5.9918	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51424	The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1656 (1656)	Wing M2840B; ESTC R214243	836,538	664

potest naturaliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum Ita tenet Thomas Alij Authores quia sensus ejus non potest recipere has species ab objectis externis quia hic actus est materialis extensus suâ naturâ Quamvis potentia absoluta potest Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus apetitu sentiente quia non uti phantasmatibus nec actum secundum elicere quia hic actus est materialis nisi à materiali extenso principio non potest intellectus ejus secluso 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. Thom. quaest 76. Art 7. Disp 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Silivitius Senes Ies Moral quaest Tom. 1. Tract 4. 5. num 139. 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se non possunt actiones sensum convenire Christo naturaliter quia hae exercentur per species in substantia divisibili At Christi corpus est in Sacramento indivisibiliter c. Suarez and other Romish Doctors First that Christ as hee is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne dayly experience hath brought you unto whilest beleeving Christs Corporall Presence in the Hoast you shut him up in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifie and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sense nor abilitie without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That hee is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power hee cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So hee ⚜ Iosephus Angles Florent in 4. Sent. Qu. de existentia corporis Christia in Euch. Dissio 1. 2. A●t 9. 12. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento nec potest tangi nec per se nec per Accidens quatenùs est in Eucharistia non potest ullam sensationem accipere Ratio quia omnis receptio specierum quae est sensatio fit in organo quantitativo nec agere nec pati potest nec actionem transientem agere Communis opinio est Scoti Christus non potest aliquam operationem potentiae merae naturalis ut est nutriendi sentiendi habere Ratio omne agens positivum agit per contactum quod est modo quantitativo And Art 12. Oculus Christi non videt suum corpus ut est in hoc Sacramento proptereà quod est inextensum oculus est inextensus Scotus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 5. Nulla sensatio potest esse in Christo ut est in Eucharistia Petrus de Aquilia in doctrina Scoti spectatissimus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 1. Christi corpus in Eucharistia non potest uti aliquâ potentiâ activâ See Palenterius above Chap. 4. Sect. 9. Similter Aegidius Conicks de Sacramen Quaest 76. Art 6. num 91. Yet so that he is not alone For hee allegeth for this opinion your Aquinas and concludeth it as being without Contradiction Which your Doctor * See the Marginals immediately preceding Angles calleth a Common Opinion noting Scotus your subtilest of Schoolemen to be a Patron thereof Which they founded upon your other generall but yet vast and wilde Paradoxe of an Existence of Christs Body in this Sacrament without a Quantitative maner of Being by way of Extension of Parts It were well that you would take the Testimonies of your other two Jesuites for a supplement as namely of 1 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. qu 76. Art 7. Disp 191. c. 5. Opposita sententia vera est eo ipso quòd caret corpus Christi extensione in Sacramento neque agere neque pati posse prout est in hoc Sacramento corporeâ actione neque passione neque tangere aliquid neque ab alio tangi nec posse intelligere quantum per conversionem ad phant●smata nec sensus omnes operari posse operationes suas immanentes And therefore the Externall much lesse Disp 190. c. 3. Citat Thomam alios Scholasticos de non posse moveri per se Vasquez denying to Christs Body all Possibility of either doing or suffering as it is in this Sacrament And of 2 Gordon Sco●●● Ies Controv. 8. cap. 4. ● 19. Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 specie pa●●● est modo planè 〈…〉 mortem in cruce sepulchro neque enim videt audit aut loquitur aur alias corporis 〈◊〉 actiones exercet prout est in hoc Sacramento cum in eo sit modo indivisibili et spirituali Gordon affirming the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be Plainly after a deadly maner as hee was in the grave neither hearing nor seeing nor exercising any virtuall Act ⚜ That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition but against Both. 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 Certainely Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in Sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumfrence of 1400. yeares after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame 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 un-christian and false faith ⚜ No no your own 3 Fran. Collius lib. 5. De sanguine Christi Disp 5. cap. 1. Athanasius Serm. 2. in illa verba ad Philip 2. Propter quod Deus eum exaltavit Hic solus è mortu●s integer resurrexit Et libro de Incarnat verbi Cum omni integritate surrexit quae est Patrum omnium doctrina Et Leo Papa Tract explicans illud 2. Cor. 5. Cognovimus Christum secundum carnem Christi corpus post Resurrectionem factum est Impassibile nihil in eo enim infirmum remansit Doctor of Theology will tell you out of Athanasius of many surnamed the Great and out of Pope Leo whom you your selves instiled Great Both so intituled for their singular worthinesse who taught that Christ rose againe Perfest in his Bodie So Athanasius And that No infirmitie remained in him So Leo. And addeth of himselfe that All the Fathers were of the same Iudgement If so then were they directly Adversaries to your prodigious Beliefe except you will dare to say that Blindnesse Deafenesse and Senslesnesse are no

The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily 13 Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit tantùm linguâ vulgari Missam celebrari debere Anathema sit Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue let him be Anathema that is Accursed The English Article hath two points 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknowne to the People that pray is Repugnant to the Word of God 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity First of the Repugnance to the word of God The Romish Expositor Paraphrasing upon these words Repugnant to the word of God supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that prayeth and then for answere thereunto repeateth onely their old Crambe to wit that by Prayers there spoken off are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth but other their 14 Paraph Crediderim Sanctum Paulum vel de privatis conventibus vel de privatis colloquiis post omnia officia habitis ibi agree Private Convents and Colloquies And whereas the Apostle requireth of the Idiote that is Private or Lay-man as wee call him that hee understand his Prayer so as to be able to give consent thereunto in publike saying Amen he 15 Paraph. Idiota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere expoundeth this as understood of Him who by office answereth Amen for the rest of the People whom wee name the Parish-Clerke Both which have beene * See the Challenges above thorowout Confuted by your owne Schoolemen and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe in our former Sections as you have seene A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article Repugnant to the word of God is his owne but thus 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scripturis id est non Doctrinae Scripturae sed Scriptioni seu Traditioni Scripturae quae fuit Corinthijs in Lingua communi The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures that is saith hee not to the Doctrine of Scripture but to the Scription or tradition of Scripture which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue Here you have a dainty Distinction betweene the word Scripture and Scription the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture and the word Scription to betoken Tradition of Scripture So hee by an elegant Figure which wee forbeare to name but wish there were some sense in it For was it ever heard off that there was a Scripture without Scription that is to say a Writ without writing or when as all Divines ever distinguished of Traditions into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Written which are the Scriptures themselves and Vnwritten which are without the same written word of God Was it possible for them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture which was not Scripture or word of God If so then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense His third Crotchet 17 Idem Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli non Christi cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur omnia tamen ab Apostolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi ut ab omnibus concessum est When the Article saith Repugnant to the word of God It is to be understood as meaning Repugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul not of Christ Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ as all do confesse So hee That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Constitutions namely such as are fitted to the Churches according to the Conveniences of the times distinguished from Divine Constitutions which are enjoyned the Church as necessary for all times it is true But that both which this Paraphrase affirmeth either S t. Paul in requiring a Knowno Prayer delivered not therein the Doctrine of Christ necessary for all times or that our English Composers of this their Article in affirming the Institution of Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ in his Authenticall Scripture are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make For the Apostle to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ and at all times useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning universally fitting all ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne prayers If a Trumpet saith hee or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell or to the daunce applying those Similitudes as well to praying as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue is the Divine Institution of Christ and not onely an Apostolique Constitution Therefore except you will separate that which Christ by his Apostle hath joyned together you must confesse the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer Besides his Conclusion How shall hee that understandeth not say Amen being as true of all Prayers in all subsequent ages of the World as it could be to the Church of Corinth it prooveth the truth of the Divine Ordinance of Christ therein Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul now to returne to our Article Whereas you and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God they meane to the Scripture as it is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God and of Christ and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God must signifie not Repugnant to Scripture or to the Institution of Christ but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition must needs argue in your Professor some ecclipse of judgement by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article as followeth 18 Idem Vi hujus verbi probabiliter inferri potest debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina quià per se loquendo est lingua communis communites intellecta solùm autem asseritur in Articulo Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo intellectâ quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se communi non per Accidens loquendo The Article affirmeth saith hee that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people therefore wee properly inferre that Prayers in our Church may be in

the same your Oath made to damne 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 Kingdome which never admitted of the Councel of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sense and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised wee are now to recognize such Errours wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholike Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretickes by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending b Booke 1. thorowout Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine and used onely 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 Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iump with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout literally and why you urge his other Saying Except you eate my flesh k Ibid. for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails because forsooth the words of Christ are l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Ioh. 3. Borne againe who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but onely Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis BOOKE 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 Transubstantiation to be by n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarily inferreth a Body called and believed to be Christs which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the Heresie of Apollinaris who taught a p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly You exclude all judgement of q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses in discerning Bread to be truly Bread as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Pr●teol Elench Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body when hee was heere alive which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretike and instantly coudemned by ſ Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius BOOKE IV. Catholike Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious Heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eutychians and Eunomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct termes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth I. The Heretikes who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. ● Chap. ● 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

Materiall Idolatry p. 533. 534. c. IDOLATRIE what it is p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous as is confessed by many hundred maner of wayes because of so many defects of due Consecration Ibid. pag. 533. That it is Formall Idolatry pag. 534. c. notwithstanding any Pretence p. 553. either of Morall Certainety pag. 534. As ill as the heathen p 547. In one respect worse p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles p. 541. By Co-adoration Ibid. By Canonization of Saints p. 542. By Consecration of Popes pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference betweene Protestants Not-Adoring and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 545 c. The Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse Epitomized in a Generall Synopsis p. 568 569 c. IEALOVSY of God ought to deterre us from Adoring the Eucharist pag. 534 c. IEWES ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians pag. 314. Iewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech pag. 404. Iewish Sacrifices how proper in themselves and yet Representative which nothing advantageth the Romish p. 440 441 c. IMPOSSIBLE Somthing so called even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotencie was the Sanctuary of Heretikes as of the Arians Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason because of Contradiction p. 230. Impossibility of Christs Body to be in diverse places at once Confessed by Aquinas Vasquez and other Schoole-men pag. 240 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction as for the same Body to be hot and cold and the like at once p. 255 256 c. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine Christs Passion as Bread his Body that is Improperly saith the Romish Glosse p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity p. 287. Romish Answers to this pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 291 292 293 294 c. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities pag. 96 97 c. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Innocent erroneously p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretikes occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen upon the whole Christian Church pag. 375 c. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Cōmand of Christ DOE THIS repugnant to both the Apostolicall and Primitive Traditions concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist p. 9. 10 11 c. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laicks pag. 68. The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christs Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates with an Odious Vncharitablenesse in preferring a meanes of Lesse Grace before a meanes of More with Arrogancie in attributing more Wisedome to the now present than to the then Ancient Church of Rome By Perjury in swearing to maintaine the Apostolicall Traditions and protesting to disclame them By Blasphemy in teaching the Pope to dispense with the expresse Command of Christ p. 85 86 87 c. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth p. 4. What Circumstances excepted p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions pag. 9. 10 c. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 504 505. See TRANSGRESSION INTENT Defects of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry p. 530. Intent though good cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formall Idolatry pag. 536 c. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia perversly Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 516 517 c. IOANE MARTLESSE A miraculous wench Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Hoast out of a thousand Vnconsecrated p. 173. IRENAEVS teacheth that Hoc in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. His Saying It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly p. 177. And It is no Common Bread p. 104. Calumniously Objected p. 493. That the Godly are onely Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Objected Vnconscionably for Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants p. 365. Confessed p. 356. That they spake of a Permanent Vnion Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament he meant not any Substantiall Change thereby as is Confessed p. 362. Hee is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is Vnconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. His Saying The Altar in Heaven pag. 419. ISYCHIVS His Saying Wee perceive the truth of his Blood pag. 343. And that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. ISIDORE HISP Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. Hee teacheth Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Hee teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 128. He saith Bread is called Christs Body because it strengtheneth mans soule p. 165. He saith also It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christs Body Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ against Heretiks that denyed the truth of his Body p. 278. IVDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things p. 318 319 c. IVLIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians as a note of Atheisme p. 464. IVSTINIAN the Emperour against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice p. 23 c. IVSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe doth yield a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum 118. He is Objected in saying It is no Common Bread p. 194. Hee is against the Romish maner of Christs Bodily Penetrations of the Doores p. 276. as is there Confessed His saying Wee are made one by Baptisme not only in affection but also in nature pag. 356. His Apologie to the Heathen Emperour concerning a slander against Christians for Eating the flesh of an Infant p. 374. Where a meere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish for proofe of the Orall-Eating of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Ibid. Bellarmines Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of Iustine against the Romish Corporall Presence pag. 380 381. Hee saith that Giving of thankes and Praise is