Salmoron Barradius and Jansenius THe two kindes in the Lords Supper are like the eyes in our body which are mooved by the same nerve opticke or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike 〈◊〉 comparative reason therefore drawne from the one to the other cannot but be of great force The sixt argumenâ—… therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawne after this manner The words used in the Consecration of the bread are so to bee expounded as the like in the consecration of the cup. But the words used in the Consecration of the cup are to bee expounded by a figure Ergo the words used in the Consecration of the bread are to â—…ee expounded by a figure In this Sylogisme because you lay youâ—… batteries at both propositions the Major and the Minor I will fortifie them both and first the Major It is a topiâ—…k axiome similium est idâ—…m judicium like are to be judged by the like and these are so like that Bellarmine himselfe draweth an argument from the one to the other I will add saith hee a most forcible argument If the pronoune hoc used in the Consecration of the bread demonstrateth bread then also the same pronoune this used in the Consecration of the cup must needs demonstaâ—… wine the validity of which consequence dependeth upon the correspondencie betweene the words used in the institution of each kinde neither indeed can any reason bee assigned why the words used in the one may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other both are dogmaticall both have a precept annexed unto them both are words of a Testament both Sacramentall and according to your doctrine alike operatory never therefore exclaime against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body thaâ—… is a signe or Sacrament of my body when you your selves interpret This cup is the New Testament that is this drinke is 〈◊〉 signe or Sacrament of the New Testament If you alleadge that Calix is expounded in the same place by funditur and argue from thence that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us therefore this cup must needs signifie his blood I answer that the figure in panis in like manner is expounded in the same place by frangitur and argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament and not Christs body therefore this must needs signifie thiâ—… bread If you replie that frangitur is â—…t for frangetur I will say in like manâ—…er that funditur is put for fundetur â—…he Major being therefore put out of all doubt let us examine the Minor which was this The words used in the Consecration of the cup are to he expounded by one figure or more For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke are these This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Where we have a double figure First a Metonomie â—…ntinentis pro contento the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Secondly signatuÌ„ pro signo the Testament for the Signe Seale or Sacrament of the New Testament So saith Theophylact alleadged by you In the Old Testament Gods Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts but now since the Word was made flesh He sealed the New Testament with his owne blood So your Gorran the blood of Iesus Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits Solmeron and Barradius Solmeron pointeth to a double figure saying in these words we have a double figure first the cup being put for that which is contained in the 〈◊〉 Secondly the Testament for a Symbâ—… thereof Barradius though he expoâ—… the word Testament as you doe for Legacie bequeathed by Christs wâ—… yet he addeth expressely that it is taken by a figure called Metonyâ—… What say you here to this 〈◊〉 word Testamentum is here taken pâ—… perly enough For not onely a mans 〈◊〉 ward will but also his outward wriâ—… will in parchment is commonly called Tâ—… stamentum because it is an authentâ—… signe of his will I pray expresse yâ—… selfe a little farther what meane yâ—… by properly enough doe you meaâ—… by an usuall figure or without aâ—… figure if you meane by an usuall figure assent unto you and it sufficeth for thâ—… strengthening of my argument if 〈◊〉 meane without a figure name me 〈◊〉 Author of note Divine or Civilâ—… who before you affirmed that either Legacie bequeathed by will or the pâ—… per and parchment in which the willâ—… writteÌ„ is in propriety of speech withâ—… any figure either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Testamentum in Latine or Will in 〈◊〉 glish Not to take the advantage might against you that the blood of Christ as you beleeve it to bee in the â—…acrament cannot bee an authenticall â—…gne of Christs will because if wee should grant it to be there really in your sense yet it is not there visibly â—…nd therefore cannot be an authenticall signe of it like the paper or parchment â—…ou speake of or as we teach the wine in the cup to be I shall bee much inâ—…ebted unto you if you can resolve mee â—…ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure his last Will and Testament sith 1. He made his Will at this his last Supper but made not then his blood 2. His Will was his just determination or appointment of what he would have done after his death his blood is no such thing 3. The Scripture speakes of blood of the Testament hic est sanguis novi Testamenti never of a Testament of blood 4. Blood is a suâ—…stantiall part of the Testator and therefore not his Will or Testamâ—…nt 5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative the blood of the Testator is neither After you have blunted the edge of these weapons see how you can rebate the point of Iansenius his dartâ—… which he lets flie levell at you These words saith he cannot bee taken properly whether the cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking or for the blood of Christ by a Synechdoche for no man will say that the vessell in propriety of speech is Christs Testament sith the Scripture testifieth that Christs Will is eternall so iâ—… not that cup which no man knoweth whether it be extant at this day or no neither can the blood of Christ bee properly said to be his Testament for his Testament iâ—… one not many and Paul in the Epistle 〈◊〉 the Hebrewes teacheth out of Jeremie that the Gospell is the New Testament Christs blood is not therefore properly the New Testament Moreover in Matthew and Marke the blood is said to be the bloâ—… of the New
Testament it is not therefore the New Testament no more then the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament Lastly the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup as it is evident by that which is added in my blood For the speech will not bee congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testament in my blood the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessell which undoubtedly in the proper signification is not the New Testament wherefore of necessity wee must confesse that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee taken in the proper sense but are spoken by a trope or figure PAR. 15. That the words of our Saviour Matth 26. 29. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine are meant of the Evangelicall cup or Sacrament is prooved against D Smith and S. E. by the testimonie of Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Austin Chrysostome Druthmarus the Author of the booke de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Jansenius Maldonat the Councell of Wormes and Pope Innocentius and D. Smith and his Chaplaines evasions refuted THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference was taken out of thâ—… 26. of Saint Matthew ver 29. wherâ—… Christ himselfe not onely after the blessing of the cup but also after hee had ministred the Communion saith will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine Doubtlesse Christ who instituteâ—… the Sacrament and immediatly before consecrated the cup ver 28. best knew what it was wine or blood and he resolves us that it was the fruit of the vine and that we al know is wine not blood whence I framed this Syllogisme No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine That which Christ and his Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the vine Ergo it was not blood For this blow you have a double ward the first is that Christ called his blood the fruit of the vine because it was such in appearance the 〈◊〉 of wine remaining after the 〈◊〉 thereof was turâ—…ed into Christs blood Put the question but to your owne conscience and I dare say it will tell you that this your answer is a meere shift and evasion For why should not Christ who is the truth rather call that hee dranke according to that which it was in substance and truth then that which it was as you teach onely in appearance who ever heard accidents without substance quantity or quality moysture or rednesse called the fruit of the vine did Christ drinke meere accidents in the cup or doe you at this day in the consecrated Chalice if so your Priests could never be at any time overseene or become light-headed in drinking never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of that meere accidents should send up a fume much lesse overcome the braine and cause drunkennesse in any man and I hope you will not flie to a miracle and say that your Priests braines are intoxecâ—…ted by miracle in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated Your owne Schoolemen put the case that a Priest may sometimes forget himselfe by drinking too deepe even in the holy cup. But I presse not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament where you will by no meanes allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing otherwaies if you take a liberty to expound these words by a figure and say that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood wine you shall never debarre us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure and saying that Christ called by a trope that which was in truth wine his blood 'T is hard to say and more then you can prove that Christ ever dranke his own blood upon earth Christ neither dranke his blood properly nor metaphorically but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorically as himselfe said Luke the 22. 29 30. I appoint unto you a kingdome that you may eat drinke at my table in my kingdome therefore Christ spake not of his blood but of wine when he said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven thus your own Maldonate Yet you have another ward you say p. 162 163 164. that there is a Legall cup and an Eucharisticall both mentioned in Saint Luke and that these words were spoken of the legall or common cup as Saint Ierome Saint Bede Saint Theophylact expound This ward will not beare off the blow which comes with such a weight that it drives your weapon to your head for 1. 'T is evident to any man that wilfully shuts not his eyes that this in the 29. ver hath reference to this in the 28. ver drinke ye all of this for this is my blood but I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine these words immediatly follow the other and of necessity have relation to them neither can they have relation to any other cup then the Eucharisticall here and in Saint Marke because they make mention but of one cup and that cup whereof Christ said drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. Iansenius who thus writeth upon this verse Some Catholickes saith he affirme that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunke of the consecrated cup but after the former whereof mention is made in Saint Luke But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it For sith Matthew and Marke make mention of no other cup then the consecrated when it is said by them of this fruit of the vine no other cup can be conceived 〈◊〉 be pointed to or demonstrated by them theâ—… that cup whereof they make mention Of the same minde is Titelmanus whose opinion Barradius the Jesuite relateth and defendeth in his 3. Booke of the Eucharist c. 5. 2. The Authors alleadged by you to the contrarie doe not weaken the sinewes of my argument for neither Ierome nor Bede nor Theophylact denie these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup though they allegorize upon them 3. By following Bellarmine you and your Chaplaine are fallen into a fowle flow either you must say you tooke up your quotations upon trust or els confesse you are a falsificator For none of these Fathers alleadged by you either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them to wit that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to bee understood of the Legall or common cup Saint Ierome and Bede and Anselme have no distinction of two cups but leaving after their manner the literall sense expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jewes and the fruit of the vine to be either their beliefe or their legall observances and
M. F. You meane I hope non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery as your Canon law distinguisheth D. B. Significante mysterio that's significante mendacio M. F. What is every mysterie a lie with you doth not your speech rather deserve the name of significans mendacium a signall untruth then Saint Austins cited by Gratian answer directly say you Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word if not so then you must acknowledge a figure in the word frangitur if you say that Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word you gainesay the Scripture and go against your owne beliefe D. B. Christs body is truly broken for he saith so which is broken M. F. Christs body was whole when he administred the Sacraments therefore it was not broken D. B. It was whole in se but broken sub speciebus M. F. That which is whole and entire sub speciebus is not broken sub speciebus Christs body according to the Canons of the Councell of Trent is whole sub speciebus and in qualibet parte specierum and is entirely eaten of every Communicant Ergo it is not broken sub speciebus D. B. Your Maior is true respectu ejusdem not otherwise M. F. Whrt meane you by respectu ejusdem ejusdem substantiae or ejusdem accidentis D. B. I say Christs body which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus but alio respectu M. F. The species or accidents are not Christs body neither can they be broken truly and properly especially being without a subject as you hold they are in the Sacrament therefore if Christs body be truly broken sub speciebus as you affirme it must needs be broken in sâ—… and so your distinction stands you in no stead D. B. Be it broken in se but sub speciebus M. F. Now you confound the members of your owne distinction I need not to contradict you you contradict your selfe fast enough Answer this argument I pray directly That which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus at the same time But the Body of Christ is whole in se sub speciebus for whosoever receives the body of Christ sub speciebus receives it wholy and entirely and cannot doe otherwise because Christ as your Church teacheth us is totus in toto and totus in qualibet parte hostis Therefore Christs body is not broken in se sub speciebus D. B. I denie your Major M. F. If the Major be false the concontradictorie thereof must needs be true which is this that which is whole in se sub speciebus is broken in se sub speciebus at one and the same time Let this Proposition of M. D. Bagshawes be written That which is whole in se sub speciebus at one and the selle same time is broken in se sub speciebus a flat contradiction After this proposition was taken in writing by M Arscot and M. Ashly M. Featley proceeded to a new argument M. F. The words used in the consecration of the cup are figurative therefore no ground in them for your reall presence of Christs blood in the cup. D. B. They are not figurative but proper M. F. These are the words This cup is the New Testament in my blood but these cannot be expounded but by a double figure Ergo the words of the institution concerning the cup are figurative D. B. They are not the words of the institution M. F. S. Luke Chap. 22. v. 20. and Saint Paul relate them for the words of the Institution will you disparage them as you did Gratian and S. Austin before D. B. S. Matthew and S. Marke have other words hic est sanguis c. This is the blood of the New Testament M. F. Others in sound not in sense All Christians are bound under the paine of damnation to beleeve that all the Evangelists who were inspired by the Holy Ghost have faithfully set downe Christs speeches and actions S. Luke and Saint Paul affirme that Christ used these words dare you impeach their authority D. B. Admit these be the words of the institution you gaine not your figure M. F. Yes a double one one in Calix another in Testamentum We drink not properly the cup neither is that which we drinke in the cup properly Christs Testament D. B. I denie both M. F. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Calix properly that which we drinke write this proposition downe also Calix or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly that which we drinke a man drinks downe a stone pot or silver chalice How say you M. D. Stevens is there not a Metonymie in Calix to wit continens pro contento I take it you granted it on Saturday last as did also D Smith in my disputation with him D. Stevens ingenuously here confessed as much and said he would maintaine it I leave D. Stevens to confute you M. D. Bagshaw touching the cup. I proove there is a figure in Testamentum Either there is a figure in Testamentum or that which is contained in the Chalice is propriè Testamentum Christs last will but that which is contained in the Chalice is not propriè Testamentum or Christs will or Testament Ergo there is a figure in the word Testamentum D. B. It is properly a Testament M. F. I proove the contrarie Christ made his Testament at his last Supper as you grant but hee made not then his blood his blood therefore is not his Testament D. B. He made his blood at his last Supper M. F. Write this downe also Christ made his blood at his last Supper Was not his blood made and in his veines before D. B. It was but till then he made it not potable M. F. To make a thing potable is not to make it blood If his blood were his Testament which hee made at his last Supper it followeth that hee made it then truly as he made his Testament truly But to goe on forward directly against your answer Christ made not his blood potable at his last Supper That he made potable if hee madâ—… any thing potable at his last Supper which he put in and powred out of the Chalice But that was not his blood Ergo he made not his blood potable at his last Supper D. B. It was his very blood M. F. His very blood therefore was then truly shed D. B. What of that M. F. Therefore your sacrifice of the Masse which your Church acknowledgeth to be incruentum unbloody is truly bloody D. B. How doth this follow M. F. Most clearely and evidently as you may see in this Syllogisme That sacrifice in which blood is truly shed is truly blood But in the sacrifice of the Masse as you have already granted me the blood of Christ is truly shed and
powred out Ergo your sacrifice of the Masse is truly a bloody sacrifice D. B. Your Major is not currant unlesse you add thereunto externally M. F. As if a man could not truly bleed inwardly my conclusion is not the sacrifice of the Masse is a bloody sacrifice externally or visibly but truly which is sufficiently inferred out of the premises without your addition For certainely blood truly shed and sacrificed makes a truly bloody sacrifice D. B. I told you before blood could not be truly shed unlesse it were externally shed M. F. And did not I also tell you of a veine bleeding inwardly D. B. Though the veine bleed inwardly that is within the body yet the blood commeth out of the veine M. F. And so must Christs blood also if it be truly powred out for fusio is motio and effusio is extra fusio therefore if Christs blood be truly powred out it must needs run out of his veines D. B. Every naturall effusion is a motion but this is a supernaturall effusion M. F. Every effusion is essentially a motion if it be a naturall effusion it is a naturall motion if a supernaturall effusion a supernaturall motion D. B. I admit of a supernaturall motion M. F. Therfore you admit of a passing of Christs blood from one place to another which cannot be as long as it remaines in his veines D. B. Why so cannot Christs blood be powred out of the cup unlesse it stirre out of his veines M. F. Not possibly unlesse you will say the flesh and bones are powred out together with it and by a consequence that you drink properly flesh and bones in the chalice which I thus demonstrate All that is in the Chalice you truly and properly drinke But the veines flesh and bones of Christ you grant are in the Chalice by saying that the blood is there in the veines Ergo you drinke properly flesh and bones D. B. These are grosse and Capernaiticall arguments unworthy to be urged by Christians M. F. Sir speake in your conscience whither you thinke we come nearer to the Capernaits who teach a spirituall eating of Christ by faith according to those words of our Saviour My words are spirit and life or you who teach a carnall eating of him with the mouth and teeth was not this the very errour of the Capernaites D. B. Nothing lesse for the Capernaites supposed Christs flesh should have been cut and quartered and sold in the market M. F. This is your grosse fancie of the Capernaits error the Scripture chargeth them with no other error but such as arose from the misconstruction of Christs words unlesse you eate my flesh which they understood according to the letter that killeth not according to the spirit which quickneth Now the letter of these words implieth no such thing as cutting or selling Christs flesh in the shambles only it importeth a reall and proper eating which consisteth in taking flesh into the mouth chamming of it and swallowing it downe the throat into the stomack All this you doe are you not then true Capernaites D. B. For shame leave these idle and foolish collections of yours M. F. I should easily returne the like speeches upon you but I feare to abuse the patience of this Honourable Assembly through our impatience I thought to have spared you but since you have provoked me so farre I charge you with a speech of yours This blood is blood in my blood which you gave me at our last Conference for the true exposition of these words This cup is the New Testament in my blood are you not ashamed of such an absurd Commentarie D. B. The congruity of this exposition I have maintained in writing and I have long expected your replie M. F. You know who imposed silence upon us both to whose authority I acknowledge my selfe obnoxious whilest I stay in Paris But I leave these matters come to my ar◅uments drawne from the testimonies of ancient Fathers D. B. I know what you will alleadge a place of S. Austin de doctrina Christiana and a sentence of Gelasius Theodoret. M. F. It should seeme you remember these allegations the better because you have beene gravelled with them as Plinie reporteth that the Lion taketh especiall notice of one that hath stroken him and strangely findeth him out among a great throng of people M. F. Well what say you first to Saint Austin me thinkes he speakes home to the purpose in that very place If the speech command any good thing or forbid any wickednesse the speech is not figurative but if the Scripture seeme to commād a sin or an horrible wickednesse or forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figurative for example unlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man c. the speech seemes to command a sin or horrible wickednesse it is a figure therefore D. B. What if I should say with some of your owne side that these words on which S. Austin commenteth John the 6. appertaine not to the Sacrament M. F. You should oppose Cardinall Bellarmine and others of your own side you should demolish one of the strongest pillars of Transubstantiation if not the doctrine it selfe of your carnall eating for if those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. unlesse you eate my flesh c. cannot be taken properly as S. Austin proveth by an invincible argument it ensueth necessarily thereupon that the flesh of Christ cannot be properly eaten D. B. You cannot be ignorant of Bellarmine his answer to this place of S. Austin and the other you bring out of Theodoret and Gelasius looke in him for an answer M. F. We come not hither to heare Bellarmines but D. Bagshaws answers if you approove of Bellarmines answers why are you ashamed to bring them to triall If you approove them not make us so much beholding unto you to acquaint us with your new and better anseers D. B. Bellarmines workes are every where to be had what trouble you us with these stale objections M. F. Your manifold Tergiversations M. D. shew that either you are ignorant of Bellarmines answers or you dare not avouch them Answer me but directly to a place of Chrysostome and I will presse you with no more authorities at this time the place of Chrysostome which seemeth to me of all others most pregnant is found Homil. 11. in cap 5. Matthei there he maketh this inference If it be so dangerous to convert sanctified vessells to private uses in which there is not the body of Christ but a mysterie thereof is contained how much more ought we not to give up our bodies which God hath fitted for an habitation for himselfe to the divell to doe in them what he list D. B. Chrysostome was not the author of these Homilies but an Arian heretick for he inveigheth against the Catholicks under the name of Homoousiani M. F. Belike then your Church in her Breviaries and your Popes in
fontes pocula 〈◊〉 sat praâ—…abiberunt the meadours have drunke enough by â—…gant Metaphor D. B. If Calix signifie vinum as you say it followeth that you â—…e no new testament and so consequently no religion M. F. This is a marvellous consequence hovv inferre you it D. B. Christ saith as you expound his words the wine is the 〈◊〉 testament but that materiall wine doth not now remaine â—…refore you you have no new testament M F. What a wofull argument is this vvhat Protestant ever â—…d that the Sacramentall wine was properly Christs Will 〈◊〉 Testament the wine was a signe or memoriall of his Teâ—…ment which wine though it doe not remaine now the â—…e numero yet the same remaines inspecte the bread which â—…st brake remaineth not the same numero Will you hereâ—…on inferre that the Church hath novv no Sacramentall â—…ad D B. Here is a stirre with figures A figure in Calix and 〈◊〉 â—…ure in Testamentum Allyour answers are figurative One â—…ry fitly called you figure-â—…ngers M. F. My figurative answers take away your proper arguments and for your figure-flinging you had need cast a fiâ—…re for your arguments for they are all gone and vanished D. B. I see the company grow wearie I will therfore conclude â—…ith one argument S Luke saith That was shed for us which is meant by Calix But wine was not shed for us Ergo by Calix he meant the true blood of Christ and not wine M F. Those vvords which is shed for you have a reference to â—…e word blood not to the word cup This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed that is which blood is shed 〈◊〉 you S. Matthew and S. Marke who relate the same words 〈◊〉 them to the blood of Christ saying This is the blood of â—…e New Testament which is shed for you D. B. â—…he Greeke construction will not beare it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the dative case and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M F. The construction is no harder then we finde in 〈◊〉 Iohn c. 1. 5 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hovvsoever it is farre better to acknovvledge a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an enallage then make an absurd tautologie as you do expounding Calix blood and saying it is the New Testament in his blood blood in blood or as you mend thâ—… matter glossing the words thus This cup is the New Testament in my blood that is this blood is blood in my blood D. B This must needs be the meaning of the words the latter words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be referred in any tolerable construction to any other word then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therfore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifieth Christs blood which he saith is the New Testament in his blood And with these words he arose from his chaire and brake off the disputation M F. Although D. Bagshaw as it seemeth sitting upon thornes would not stay to heare out M. F. full ansvver yeâ—… M. F. I held it fit for the satisfaction of those vvho desire to knovv the truth to add to his former answer First that Saint Basil in moral reg 21. c. 3. readeth the words in S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not as they and we now reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly that admitting the words to be so read as our adversaries vvould have them I say yet still these words which is shed for you must be referred to Christs blood as S. Matthew and S Mark referre them and for the Grammaticall construction we have the like Apoc. 8. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS The Grand Sacriledge of the Church of Rome â—…ly Lip pref in Sen. Ovid. Ep. Printed by Felix Kingston An 1630. Epig. grâ—… l. 〈◊〉 c. 3. a Strabo geograph l. 7. p 221. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. b Plin. nat l. 6. cap. 32. Chalcedon Procerastis antea dicta dein Compâ—…sa postea â—…corum oppâ—…dum quod locum eligere nescissent c Concil Chalced. act 7 Binius nota in concil Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 409. Cum Imperator instaret 〈◊〉 Chalcedon nomine â—…enus Metropolis 〈◊〉 consequâ—…retur citra prâ—…iudicium N comedâ—…e 〈◊〉 câ—…ilij act 7 communi consensu admiserunt d Prâ—…es generâ—… 〈◊〉 regiminis congregat 〈◊〉 Benedictinorum e Hâ—… maâ—… 〈◊〉 spongia Nicolao Richardij ordinis Sancti dominici dâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…aropoli 1631. Eccles. angliâ—…an querimon apologet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f A modest discussion by Nicolas Smith approved Iohn Floyd Iesuiâ—… printed at Roven Anno. 1630. apolog Danielis a Ieâ—… g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paris 1â—… Pâ—…us Aâ—…relius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sorb 〈◊〉 Paris 〈◊〉 h Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paris 1631. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the â—…log Paris 〈◊〉 1631. k Censurâ—… Sorb de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 42. de Hierar â—…p p 48 49 〈◊〉 chrisâ—…te 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perâ—… sâ—…t christiani legi divinae satisfit licet nulli sint Episcopi in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anglia l Schisme 〈◊〉 card 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…mentis ingenij postquam in unum extremum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nerâ—… 〈◊〉 rationem sese a praeterito criâ—…e 〈◊〉 opâ—… 〈◊〉 putarunt si se aed 〈◊〉 extremum conferrent 〈◊〉 papaâ—… 〈◊〉 m Swâ—…t in vita Neron * The Arch-Bishop of Paris See quâ—…rimonia Eccles. angl v. 17. n Praeses Benedictin F. Clemens p. 175. Ep scopuâ—… titularis 〈◊〉 Grâ—…a non nisi impropriè valdè prâ—…ter naâ—…ram potest 〈◊〉 caput corporis nostri in Anglia Horat Graeculus â—…suriens in coelum 〈◊〉 ibit o Exemplar 〈◊〉 Vrbani octavi per quod Episcopâ—…lis authoriâ—… Richardo Chalâ—…edoneÌ„si demandatur Dâ—… Româ—… sub annulo 〈◊〉 4 Februarij â—…25 Iuvenal Satyr 〈◊〉 infaeliâ—… ipsâ—…m nihil Hiâ—…re de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dâ—… Lâ—…tto o See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S E. his pamphlet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sigâ—…e 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 And â—…ill nâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…ou 〈◊〉 â—…phlet â—…e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her bones A pretious stone mentioned in the Apoc. 2â—… 19 the third a Calâ—…edonie the fâ—…rth an Emerald p â—…ra Clemens de maÌ„dâ—…to reâ—…m 〈◊〉 pâ—…es genâ—… muit 〈◊〉 nomine câ—…ert Anglicani nam câ—…pitulum chimaericumâ—…st â—…st 2 Prâ—…pos Benedicit Chalcedâ—… eÌ„sâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…abet 〈◊〉 â—…m nâ—…c 〈◊〉 nec deâ—… 〈◊〉 Angliâ—… 〈◊〉 regna c p. 31. p 83. iam 〈◊〉 Scoâ—…s cum risu â—…anc Ordinarij praetensam authoritatâ—…m reiecisse Vid. Poem Vâ—…b 8. 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 Loemelij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apostolicâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caâ—…bden