That the Originall of the word, ASSE, nothing ad∣vantageth the Romish Masse. SECT. I.

That the word, MASSE, in the Primitive Signification thereof, doth properly belong unto the Protestants: and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse. SECT. II.

The Name of CHRIST his MASSE, how farre it is to bee acknowledged by Protestants. SECT. III.

Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE; and at what words it beginneth. SECT. IV.

The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse, and appertaining to our present Controversie, are of two kindes, viz. SECT. V.

SECT. I.

TEN TRANSGRESSIONS, And Prevarications against the command of Christ [DO THIS] practised by the Church of Rome, at this day, in her Romane Masse. SECT. II.

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 concerne the Couse∣cration of this Sacrament. SECT. III.

The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse; is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution, [HE BRAKE IT] SECT. VI.

The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse; contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command, viz. [—GAVE IT VNTO THEM.] SECT. V.

The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contradicting the sense of the next words, [—SAID VNTO THEM.] SECT. VI.

Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, is a second ontradiction against the Sense of the former words of Christ [—SAID VNTO THEM] SECT. VII.

The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contra∣dicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institu∣tion, [TAKE YEE.] SECT. VIII.

The seventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse. contradicting the Sense of the next words, [EATE YEE.] SECT. IX.

The Eighth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, by a second Contradiction of the sense of the former words, [EATE YEE.] SECT. X.

The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contra∣dicting the Sense of the words following, [IN REMEM∣BRANCE OF MEE.] SECT. XI.

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, 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 LIKE∣VVISE TOOKE THE CVP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT, IN REMEM∣BRANCE OF MEE.] SECT. I.

The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary: proving the Precept of Christ, for the Vse of Both kinds to all lawfull Com∣municants, SECT. II.

Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrary Example. SECT. III.

Our third Comparison, is, by conferring Apostolicall Pra∣ctice with contrary Practice. SECT. IV.

Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custome with the contrary Custome, in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof. SECT. V.

Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons, for the Vse of Both kindes, collated with Reasons objested to the contrary. SECT. VI.

A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegi∣ous dismembring of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites. SECT. VII.

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection, represented by this Sacrament. SECT. VIII.

Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers, for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds. SECT. IX.

The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution, by the publique use of but One kind. SECT. X.

The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Instituti∣on, and manner of Alteration thereof. SECT. XI.

Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary Dispositions of Professors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in rejecting Both kindes. SECT. XII.

A GENERALL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè. SECT. XIII.

An Appeale 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.

That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY, &c.] is evinced out of the words themselves; from the Principles of the Romish Schooles. SECT. I.

That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors, of great learning, (re∣ferring the word [THIS] properly to Christ his Body) perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech; by the Confessions of Romish Doctors. SECT. II.

That the second Romish Exposition, referring the Pronoune [THIS] to demonstrate a Third thing, called Individuum vagum, or In∣determinate substance, perverteth the sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY:] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors. SECT. III.

That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ; or Wine his Blood, without a Figure. SECT. IV.

That the Pronoune [THIS] doth as verily notifie Bread, in the words of Christ, as if hee had expressely said, This Bread is my Body; proved first by Scripture. SECT. V.

That it was Bread and Wine, which Christ called his Body and Blood; in the judgement of An∣cient Fathers. SECT. VI.

That it was Bread, which Christ called his Body, is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles. SECT. VII.

{fleur-de-lys}A Confirmation, that in the words [Hoc est Corpus Meum: This is my Body] the Pronoune [HOC, THIS] is ex∣pressely spoken of Bread; by the Analogie it hath with the other Pronoune [HOC, THIS] spoken of the Cup. SECT. VIII.

Our first Proposition. The Verbe [EST] being joyned with a thing that is a Signe, is alwayes figurative, and the very same with this word, SIG∣NIFIETH. SECT. I.

The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches, whether Artificiall, Politike, or Mysticall. SECT. II.

Our Second Proposition, answerable to the first. All the like Sacramentall Speeches, in Scripture, are figuratively understood. SECT. III.

Our third Proposition, viz. Eight Confessed Figures are apparently found in the words of Christ his Institution of this Sa∣crament. SECT. IV.

That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome. SECT. V.

That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is a∣greeable to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church. SECT. VI.

That the onely Objection out of the Greeke Fathers, concerning the Pronoune [HOC] in the Testimony of Epiphanius, advantageth not the Romish Cause. SECT. VII.

That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly unfolded their Meanings, touching a Figurative Sense. SECT. VIII.

That the same Figurative Sense of Christs words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latine Fathers; more largely (now) insisted on. SECT. IX.

{fleur-de-lys} A Cleare Glasse, wherein the judgment of Antiquitie, for a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Bo∣dy,] may be infallibly discerned. SECT. X.

The first Objection. SECT. I.

The second Romish Objection, against the Fi∣gurative Sense. SECT. II.

Your third Romish Objection. SECT. III.

Your fourth Romish Objection. SECT. IV.

Their last Romish Objection. SECT. V.

Ten Reasons, for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the words of Christ Figuratively. SECT. VI.

{fleur-de-lys}A Confirmation of a Figurative Sense of Christs words, [THIS IS MY BODY] opened unto us by a Third Key, in the Pronoune [MEVM] as it is pro∣nounced by the Romish Priest, in his Con∣secration; a Point as observable as any other. SECT. I.

That the Answeres given are each of them Insufficient. The first is, that the Priest pronounceth Christs words both Narratively, and Significatively. SECT. II.

That the words of Christ, as they are pronounced by the Priest, are meerely Narrative, and not Significa∣tive, is proved by the Text it selfe. SECT. III.

That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of Christ's words was never Patronized by any Ancient Father. SECT. IV.

The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporall Presence, Personall Sacrifice, and Adoration, Consequently, upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest. SECT. V.

First of the Sacramentall. SECT. I.

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

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

The Noveltie 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be onely De modo, that is, of the maner of Being; yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall: and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe. SECT. I.

That Protestants, albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament; yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers Respects; according to the Iudge∣ment of Antiquitie. SECT. II.

That the Romish Disputers do Odiously, Slanderously, and Vncon∣scionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as it is ce∣lebrated by PROTESTANTS. SECT. III.

The Romish professed maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament. SECT. I.

The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corpo∣rall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, in this Sacra∣ment, taken from pretended Miraculous Ap∣paritions of visible Flesh, and Blood, re∣vealed to the World. SECT. II.

That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh, and true Blood of Christ, by the judgement of Ro∣mish Schoole-men. SECT III.

That the Romish Answer, to free their former pretended Mi∣raculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments, or Illusions, is Vnsufficient. SECT. IV.

Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions; and of their Complices: SECT. V.

{fleur-de-lys} A Digression upon occasion of a late Discourse of a greatly priviledged Doctor, concerning the Histories, mentioning the Blood of Christ miraculously Separated from his Body (which will be pertinent to the Point in question) wherein wee may finde ma∣ny Observables. SECT VI.

II. The same Authors Discourse upon the Romish Stories, con∣cerning the mentioned Reliques of Christs Blood, issued out Miraculously from Images. SECT. VII.

That the Romish manser of the Corporall Presence of Christ, in the Sacrament, is mani∣foldly Impossible. SECT. I.

I. That, by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers, some things (by reason of Contradiction in them) may be called Impossible, with∣out the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God; yea, with the great advance∣ment thereof. SECT. II.

II. That the Dotrine of the same Impossibiity (by reason of Contradiction) doth magnifie the Power of God, by the Universall consent of Romish Doctors; and their divers Examples of Impossibility, con∣cerning a Body. SECT. III.

III. That the Doctrine of Calvin (who is most traduced in this point) accordeth to the former Iudgement of ancient Fathers. SECT IV.

The first Romish Contradiction, in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin. SECT. I.

The second Romish Contradiction, to the overthrowing of that which Christ called [MY BODIE:] by making one Body of Christ, not One, but Many. SECT. I.

That the same Second Romish Contradiction, holding the Pre∣sence 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. II.

The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scrip∣ture, by an Argument Angelicall. SECT. III.

That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture, Act. 9. is frivolous. SECT. IV.

That the Opinion of the Being of a Body, in many places at once, implyeth a Contradiction, is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures, Godhead and Manhood, one from another, by Circumscription and Incircumscription. SECT. V.

That the Romish Doctors (in their Objections) have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once: from the Iuagement of Antiquitie. SECT. VI.

That your most plausible Objection, taken out of Augustine, con∣cerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands, is but Sophisticall. SECT▪ VII.

That (thirdly) the Contradiction, and consequently the Impos∣sibility of the Being of one Body in divers Places at once, is evicted by two sound Reasons; the first taken from Contradi∣ctory Relations. SECT. VIII.

That (fourthly) a Contradiction, and consequently an Impos∣sibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once, is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions, which are voyd of Relation to Place. SECT. IX.

A Confutation of the first Romish Reason, obtruded for proofe of a Possibilitie of Existence or a Body in divers places at once, taken from the nature either of a Voyce, or Colour. SECT. I.

A Confutation of their second, and third Reasons, taken from the Similitude of mans Soule, or Presence of God, devised to demonstrate a No-Contradiction of a Bodies Being in two places at once. SECT. II.

A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Mans Soule, and God himselfe, by Ancient Fathers, in their Doctrine concerning Angels, and Mens Spirits. SECT. III.

A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence, why they need not yeeld to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is pro∣ved to be so grossely Vnreasonable. SECT. IV.

The third Romish Contradiction, against the words of Christ [MY BODIE,] is by making a Body Finite, to be a Body not finite. SECT. I.

That, by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, the Being in divers places at once inferreth an Infinitenesse Proper unto God: which without Heresie cannot be ascribed to any humane Body; Proved from the maner of Existence of the Holy Ghost. SECT. II.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of Truth, against an egregious Infatuati∣on of the Iesuite Lessius, in framing an whole Army consisting of but one man. SECT. III.

Of the (fourth) Romish Contradiction against the words Of Christ [MY BODY,] by teaching it to be Or∣ganicall, and not Organicall; Divisible, and Indivisible. SECT. I.

That it is necessary the Body of Christ (wheresoever) consist of distinct members and proportions of a Body. SECT. II.

That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ, with all the parts thereof in the least Indivisible point of the Hoast. SECT. III.

That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new, and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body, in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times. SECT. IV.

That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be propor∣tionable to the Dimension of the places, wherein they are; is proved by the confessed Romish Prin∣ciple it selfe. SECT. V.

That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of ancient Fathers. SECT VI.

That the Romish Objections, against our former Tenet, taken from Miraculous Penetrations, are feeble and vaine. SECT. VII.

A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary, for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT. VIII.

Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ [MY BODY] as the same Body is now con∣sidered to be most perfect, by making it most Imperfect. SECT. I:

That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine, teaching a Body of Christ, now glorified, to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense, and of Vnderstanding. SECT. II.

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.

That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ. SECT. IV.

That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle. SECT. V.

The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ [MY BODY,] as it is now most Glo∣rious, by making it most Inglorious. SECT. I.

That the Indignities, whereunto the Body of Christ is made sub∣ject, by the Romish Doctrine, are most vile, and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ. SECT. II.

That the Romish fore-sayd Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures, and Iudgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III.

That the Romish Answeres, for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion, are but false and fond. SECT. IV.

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.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the former Truth, against the palpably-Absurd (albeit amongst you, most plausible) Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities, in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES, of Blessed and ever survi∣ving Memory. SECT. VI.

Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice, objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and against it. SECT. I.

The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides. SECT. II.

The state of the Difference, concerning this Canon. SECT. III.

That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence: proved by divers Observations; Three heere. SECT. IV.

The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice, to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand. SECT. V.

Your Objections, from the former Canon, answered. SECT. VI.

The State of the Question. SECT I.

That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body; but also a Spiritually-Reall. SECT. II.

That the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule. SECT. III.

That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be. SECT. IV.

That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Par∣takers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and thereby united to Christ; in the judge∣ment of Protestants. SECT. I.

That the wicked Communicants, albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body, yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body, for not re∣ceiving Spiritually, (namely) through their Con∣tempt, in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby. SECT. II.

That some Fathers understood the Apostles words, 1. Corinth. 10. Spiritually, (namely) as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh, and drinking his Blood; both in the Old Testament and in the New. SECT. III.

That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body; not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily, but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament there∣of Symbolically. SECT. IV.

That a Guiltinesse of Contempt of Christs Body and Blood is to be acknowledged in all Prophane Neglect, even in not com∣municating thereof, by whatsoever person ca∣pable of this Blessed Sacrament. SECT. V.

That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things, without respect to the Corporall presence of Christ therein. SECT. VI.

That onely the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and thereby Vnited unto him, is not Contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fa∣thers, as is Objected. SECT. VII.

That the Vngodly do not Communicate of Christs Body in Re∣ceiving the Eucharist, is the Determinate Iudgement of Antiquity, and Consequently argueth a No-Cor∣porall presence of Christ, as an Vnion with him in the Eucharist. SECT. VIII.

That Saint Augustine (to whom both sides appeale) is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause, for proofe, that the Wicked eat not the Body of Christ: And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporall Presence in this Sacrament; noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine, by a Ro∣mish Doctor. SECT. IX.

A Vindication of a Speciall Testimony of Saint Augustine, in the same point, against the notorious Falsification of his words, by Doctor Heskins. SECT. X.

1. That the Errour of the Capernaites, Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ. SECT I.

II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence, as Pro∣testantly as can be. SECT. II.

That the now Romish maner of Vnion, and Bo∣dily receiving of the Body of Christ, is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds. SECT. I.

{fleur-de-lys} That the First maner of Romish Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants, by Bodily Touch, is Capernaiticall, and the Testimonies of the Fathers are unconscionably urged to the Contrary. SECT. II.

That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ, which is by Orall Eating, once professed in the Church of Rome, was both Capernaitically-Hereticall, and is also still no lesse, in the Profession of di∣vers in the same Church. SECT. I.

That the foresayd Romane Faith, of Properly Eating the Body of Christ, is Capernaitically-Hereticall; as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church. SECT. II.

That the former Romish and Popish Faith, for the Maner of re∣ceiving of the Body of Christ, is at this day but some∣what altered; yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse. SECT. III.

That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament, was an∣ciently by Chewing. SECT. IV.

That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie, is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. SECT. V.

The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers, in wrest∣ing the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ, proved by just eviden∣ces out of the Fathers themselves. SECT. VI.

The Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Disputers, in Object∣ing the former Testimonies of Ancient Fathers: from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. VII.

The Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ, with the Bodies of the Com∣municants, is with Swallow∣ing it downe. SECT I.

That this former Doctrine is fully and fil∣thily Capernaiticall SECT. II.

That the same Romish maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly, is proved to be Capernaiticall, by the Iudgement of Antiquity. SECT. III.

{fleur-de-lys} The miserable straights of Romish Disputers, in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine, concerning Christs words, of Eating his flesh; and of the Romish Shift in saying, they do but Swallow it. SECT. IV.

The Fourth Corporall maner of Vnion of Christ his Body, by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants (professed by some Romanists at this day) is Capernaiticall. SECT. I.

The Confutation and Expulsion of this Foggie Mist of Error, by your owne more Common Confessions. SECT. II.

That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion; but are proved by their owne Dialect to be unconscionably alleged. SECT. I.

{fleur-de-lys} The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fa∣thers, more vehemently (and as unconscionably) insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril. Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav. SECT. II.

The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable, by their owne Confessions, in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense. SECT. III.

That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, in two more especiall Points. SECT. IV.

Of the Second kind of Objections out of the Fathers, from their Similitudes, especially insisted upon by Romish Sophisters, because of their calling Christ both Feast and Guest, and the Eucharist Viands and Pledge; Confuted by the like language of the same Fathers, in respect of other things. SECT. I.

That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity, concerning Feast and Guest, &c. Viand and Pledge, do, in them∣selves, altogether Confute your Romish Pretence, to the further manifestation of the Vncon∣scionablenesse of your Romish Disputers. SECT. II.

That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves; and yet Re∣pugnant to the Romish Profession. SECT. III.

The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants. SECT. IV.

The Divine Contemplations, which the Holy Fathers had, in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body, and Nou∣rishment thereby to Immortality; for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood. SECT. V.

Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon, out of Iustine, concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh, sprung (as is pretended) from the Catholike Do∣ctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist; which is their First Argument. SECT. I.

That the Romish Objection is, in it selfe, most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers; and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. II.

The Second Romish Argument out of Justine, termed Insoluble before all others, is, because when hee called the Eating of the Eucharist, the Eating of the Body of Christ, hee wrot to an Heathen Emperour. SECT. III.

That the Hornes of your Cardinals Dilemma are easily blunted by a Three-fold Solution. The Firs is by shewing the Cause to be Impertinent. SECT. IV.

The Second Solution, to prove their Dilemma Insufficient. SECT. V.

The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine. SECT. VI.

That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibi∣lity of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth; And that Attalas (objected) condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body. SECT. VII.

Of Averroes his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God. SECT. VIII.

Shewing the Romish Doctrine of an Vnion of Christs Body with the Basest parts of Mans Body, to be more Beastly than the Carnall and Capernaiticall conceipt of Eating Christs Body is read of ever to have descended unto. SECT I.

That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have beene held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable. SECT. II.

That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food onely for the Soule, and not for the Body, according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie. SECT. III.

First of Christs words. That there is no one word, in Christ his first Institution, which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice; not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. [Hoc FACITE: DOE THIS.] SECT. I.

That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution; Is GIVEN, Is BROKEN, Is SHED. SECT. II.

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.

That the Objected words of Christ, and the whole Text, do utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse. SECT. IV.

That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ, which the Romish Church can justly pretend for de∣fence of her Proper Sacrifice; proved by your owne Confessions. SECT. V.

That the other objected Scriptures, out of the new Testa∣ment, make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians, to witt, not Acts 13. 2. of []. SECT. I.

That the Second objected place out of the new Testament, to witt, 1. Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice. SECT. II.

That the first objected Typicall Scripture, concerning Melchi∣sedech, maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. SECT. I. The State of the Question.

That the Testimonies of the Fathers, for proofe of a Proper Sacri∣fice in the Eucharist, from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice, are Sophistically, and unconscionably ob∣jected out of Psalm. 110. and Heb. 5. SECT. II.

That the Apostle to the Hebrewes, in comparing Melchisedech with Christ, did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedeth, and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. SECT. III.

Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood, out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes. SECT. IV.

That the Analogie betweene Melchisedech his Priesthood, and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe, is most perfect, and so declared to be, Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chapp. SECT. V.

That the nature of every other Priesthood (be it of your Romish High-Priest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as the Priesthood of Melchise∣dech agreeth with the Priesthood of Christ. SECT. VI.

Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacri∣legiously detracting from it. SECT. VII.

That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by an∣cient Fathers; first in respect of Place, or Altar, and Function. SECT. VIII.

That the former Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by Scriptures, and Fathers, in respect of the Time of the execution thereof. SECT. IX.

Of the second Typicall Scripture, which is the Passeover: shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence, for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse. SECT. X.

{fleur-de-lys} That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testament] is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse. SECT. XI.

That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Do∣ctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome, taught by Pope Leo the First. SECT. XII.

An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament, and the thing figured in the New; ear∣nestly insisted upon, and as easily refuted. SECT. XIII.

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.

That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, by the Expositions of Ancient Fathers. SECT. II.

That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice, even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III.

The second Propheticall Text (as is pretended) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning a [Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines:] objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse; but yet as very Romishly, as were the rest. SECT. IV.

CHALLENGE, {fleur-de-lys} By way of Vindication of the truth of our Allegation of the words of Master Brerely; against a late slanderous Romish Traducer. SECT. V.

A Second Vindication, against another Sinister Romish De∣traction; shewing that the other Scriptures, which are said to be Propheticall, are not Iudicially ob∣jected by your Cardinall. SECT. VI.

The first Demonstration, That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; (but Improperly) as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist. SECT. I.

Our Second Demonstration, 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.

Our Third Demonstration is, Because the objected places of Antiquity, for proofe of a Repre∣sentative 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.

The Demonstration it selfe, Because the Eucharist, being onely Commemorative and Re∣presentative, cannot be a Proper Sacrifice: answe∣ring the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law. SECT. IV.

The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers; first Explaining of themselves. SECT. V.

The fourth Demonstration, From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning, by a kinde of Correction. SECT. VI.

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 vaine Instance in a Stage-play, being the last refuge of your desperate Disputers wherein their whole Defense consisteth. SECT. VII.

The Sixth Demonstration Of the No-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, because divers Epithets objected, as given by Fathers to this Sa∣crifice, are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice. SECT. VIII.

The Seventh Demonstration, Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist: Because the Principall Epithet, of Vnbloody Sacrifice, used by the Fathers, and most urgently objected by your Doctors, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice, doth evince the Contrarie. SECT. IX.

A Confirmation of the former Demonstration, from the use of the word, Vnbloody, in the objected Sentences; wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ. SECT. X.

The eighth Demonstration Of the no-Proper Sacrifice of the Masse; Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice, which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken. SECT. XI.

An Elucidation of the Premises, by a Similitude of a Stage-play, manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might fur∣thermore have beene called both Bloody and Vn∣bloody, by Ancient Fathers. SECT. XII.

The ninth Demonstration, Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme a Sacrifice, for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death; which is Argu∣mentum à paribus. SECT. XIII.

The tenth Demonstration, Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice. SECT. XIV.

Our Eleventh Demonstration, Because the Relatives of Sacrifice, which are Altar and Priest, Objected as Properly taken, are used Vnproperly of Ancient Fathers. SECT. XV.

That the Thing, pretended to be Sacrificed, is not Pro∣perly in the Romane Masse. SECT. I.

I. That no Act, now used in the Romane Masse, can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act: proved by your owne Principles. SECT. II.

II. That that, which is properly a Sacrificing Act, is wanting in the Romane Masse; proved by your owne Principles. SECT. III.

I. That Spirituall Sacrifices, albeit Vnproper, are in one respect more true, and do farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices, according to Scripture. SECT. I.

II. That all these Spirituall Acts, although Improperly called Sa∣crifices, yet are they more excellent than all meerely Cor∣porall and Proper Sacrifices; in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. II.

III. That Protestants professe, in their Celebration, divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellencie. SECT. III.

That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ, which was Sacrificed on the Crosse, as the Object of Remembrance, and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption: which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe. SECT. IV.

The State of the Question of Propitiatory, what it is. SECT. I.

That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ. SECT. II.

That many things are said to pacifie and please God, which are not properly Propitiatory, by their owne Virtue, according to criptures and your owne Confessions. SECT. III.

The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers, concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice. SECT. IV.

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucha∣rist A Propitiatory Sacrifice, in respect of divers Spirituall Acts therin, without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propitiation it selfe. SECT. I.

That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Obje∣ctively, for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse, made by the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof. SECT. II.

I. Confutation, from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice. SECT. I.

II. Confutation, from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice. SECT. II.

III. Confutation, from the Apostles Position, against the Vnbloodinesse thereof. SECT. III.

IV. Confutation, from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice. SECT. IV.

I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Masse, for remission of sinnes or Punishment. SECT. I.

That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christs Passion, but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes. SECT. II.

That the Romish Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants, because of their present Attendance, is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity. SECT. III.

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 Gaine, in behalfe of the Priest; without all warrant of Antiquity. SECT. IV.

That the Protestants, in their Celebration, offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice, which is Propitiatory, by way of Complacencie. SECT. I.

That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne, than the Romish do. SECT. II.

The State of the Question, concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT. I.

Of the Institution of Christ; shewing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacra∣ment, nor Practice thereof. SECT. II.

Of the Doctrine of Antiquity, concerning the A∣doration of the Eucharist. SECT. I.

That neither the objected maner of Invitation to come with Feare, nor of Association of Angels, spoken of by the Fa∣thers, imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. SECT. II.

That the most earnestly-objected Phrase [] and Adora∣tion, used of the Fathers, doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist. SECT. III.

That no objected Act out of the Fathers, for proofe of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, is conscionably alleged; not the first, which is their pre∣scribed Concealment of this Mysterie. SECT. I.

That the objected Elevation, or lifting up of the Hoast, and preserving of it from falling, are no Arguments of Divine Adoration. SECT. II.

That the Objection taken from any Gesture, used in the daies of Antiquity, doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. SECT. III.

That no Example of Invocation, objected out of Antiquity, can inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament, as is pretended. SECT. IV.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen, against the late vaine Calumni∣ations of a Romish Seducer. SECT. V.

That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Re∣pugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity. First by their Silence. SECT. I.

That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and the Adoration therof, by their Preface, in their presenting the Host, saying, [Lift up your Hearts.] SECT. II.

That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration. SECT. III.

That the Romish Adoration of the Host, in the hand of the Priest, is necessarily a Materiall Idolatry, by reason of many hundred confessed Defects: whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament. SECT. I.

That there are Sixe other confessed Defects, incident to either Element in the Eucharist, which may hinder the Consecra∣tion; and necessarily inferre an Idolatrous Ado∣ration, in respect of the Forme of Consecrating. SECT. II.

That there are Foure other confessed kinde of Defects, in respect of the Priests Intention, whereby the Consecration being hindred, the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous. SECT. III.

That there are Sixe other Defects able to frustrate the Consecra∣tion, by reason of the person of the Priest himselfe, as being Incompetent for want of due Baptisme. SECT. IV.

That there are manifold confessed possible Defects; disabling the person of the Priest to Consecrate, in respect of his undue Ordination; whereby is occasioned a Materiall Idolatry. SECT. V.

That there are many hundred confessed Defects, which may nullifie the Consecration, to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous, in respect of Insufficiencies, which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest, whoso∣ever hee be, that now Consecrateth; for causing a Materiall Idolatry. SECT. VI.

The State of the Question. SECT. I.

That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread, instead of Christ, cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry. SECT. II.

That the Second Romish Pretence, which is of a Good Intent, cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formall Idolatry. SECT. III.

That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habituall Condition, in the Worshipper, excuseth him not from formall Idolatry; proved first by Scripture. SECT. IV.

That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity. SECT. V.

The first is your Definition of Idolatry. SECT. I.

II. That Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Idolatrous, by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle, concer∣ning Co-adoration, or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread. SECT. II.

III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Ido∣latrous in your Masse, by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine, touching Canonization of Saints. SECT. III.

IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Ido∣latry, by the Consequence used from the Conse∣cration of your Popes. SECT. IV.

{fleur-de-lys} An Answer to a Conceited and Deceiptfull Impious Objection of a bold Spectacle-maker, a Iesuite; Shewing his Spectacles to be but Counterfeit. SECT. V.

That the Romish Adoration, by your former Pretences, justi∣fieth the vilest kind of Idolatry among the Heathen. SECT. I.

That the Romish Worship of that, which may possibly be Bread, may seeme to be in one respect worse than almost the worst of the Pagans. SECT. II.

Our Examination of the Reverence professed by Pro∣testants, and the Securitie of their Profession therein; First, defining and distinguishing the Properties of Reverence. SECT. I.

That the Reverence used by Protestants, in receiving this Sa∣crament, is Christianly Religious. SECT. II.

That Protestants, in their Profession and Practice, stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities, in respect of Prepara∣tion of the Elements, and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration. SECT. III.

The Protestants Security, in respect of the third Romish Perplexity, of Adoring in a Morall Certaintie. SECT. IV.

That the Protestants stand secure, in respect of the Fourth Romish Perplexity, by defect in the Priestly Intention. SECT. V.

Our fifth Securitie from your Romish Perplexitie, touching Ordination. SECT. VI.

Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition. SECT. VII.

Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse; in a Synopsis. SECT. I.

Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse, and Defence thereof, in the point of Sacrifice; comprized in this Synopsis. SECT. II.

A New Instance, for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse, in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse. SECT. III.

That the former Romish Prayer, as it was Ancient, doth in the (then) true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation. SECT. IV.

A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse, and Defence thereof; by many Evidences from Antiquity. SECT. V.

Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers, made palpable by their owne Contradictions; and of the De∣fence thereof, as being Contradictory in it selfe. SECT. I.

One Example, instead of many, of a stupendious Obstinacie, in ur∣ging the Iudgement of Antiquity, for Defence of your Ro∣mish Masse, in the chiefect parts thereof; proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme. SECT. II.

A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers, ob∣jected throughout this whole Treatise, for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers; to the manifold and ma∣nifest Conviction of all Romish Deli∣ration, in this their Controversie of the Masse. SECT. III.

A Synopsis of manifold Overtures of Perjuries, in Defence of the Romish Masse. SECT. IV.

Our last Advertisement followeth. Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse. SECT. V.