are truly the plague and contagion of the mind All that in figurative tearmes and yet true and wherein the word true excludes not the figure 6. What they do adde is not a whit better Christ say they used an oath saying Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But it is not convenient say they to use figures in an oath What will they say then to these places Verily verily I say unto you that he that entreth not by the doore into the sheepfold the same is a theife and a robber Iohn 10.1 And a little after Verily verily I say unto you that I am the doore of the sheep And in S. Matth. 18.18 Verily I say unto you that whatsoever ye shal binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven And Iohn 3.5 Verily verily I say unto you Except a man be borne of the water and of the spirit c. Where we have the same oath with figurative words What more the same verse which they alleadge Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eaâ—e my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you is the same verse in which they will have drinking to signifie eating And in the same chap. ver 32. Christ calleth himselfe the true bread wherein our Adversaâ—ies do acknowledge a figure To let passe that the word Amen is not an oath but a simple and strong assirmation CHAP. VI. Testimonies of the Fathers IT is good upon this point to heare the ancient Fathers S. Austin shal march in the fore front In his Book of Christian Doctrine chap. 16. * Nisi manducaver it is inquit carnem filii hominis c sacinus vel slagitium videtur juhere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Dominâ— esse communicandum suaviter at que utilter recondendum in memoria quodpro nobis caro ejus crucifâ—a a el vul nerata sit When the Lord saith Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in your selves it seemes that he commands some great crime or haynous offence It is then a figure that commandes to communicate unto the Lords Pâ—ssion and sweetly and profitably to put in remembrance that Christs flesh was crucified and wounded for us Our Adversaries to cleare themselves and avoyd the force of this place do make long discourses and sinde there are figures in these words Except yee eate c. To wit that in the Eucharist Christs body is not eaten by peece-meales as the flesh of the Shambles But they come not neare the point For Saint Austin saith not onely that it is a figure but he declares also how that figure is to be taken and expounded to wit that to eate Christs flesh is to meditare and call to remembrance with delight that Christ his flesh was crucified for us Which is an exposition our Adversaries doe not allow The same Father upon the 98 Psalme Vnder stand spiritually whâ—t I have said unto you Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and shall not drinke that blood that shall be shed by those that shall crucifie mâ— I have commended unto you a sacred figne which being under slood spiritually shall quicken and vivisie you We have in this Father a long exposition of the sixth Chapter of Saint John in the 25.26 27 Treatise upon Saint John In the 25 Tractaâ— he saith a Vi quid paras detâ—s el vetrem crede el maduâ—asti This viz. to beleeve is to eate the meate that perisheth not Why doest that make ready thy teeth and thy belly Beleeve and thou hast eaten And in the 26 Treatise b Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivuÌ„ Quâ— credit iâ— cuÌ„ manducal invâ—sibiliter sagâ—natur quia el invisibiliter renascitur To beleeve in him is to eate the living bread He that beleeves in him eateth him he is fed invisibly because he is regenerated invisibly And in the same place c HuÌ„c it aque cibuÌ„ et pot 〈◊〉 societatem vult intellâ—â—i corporâ—â— et membrorum suâ—â—um quod est sanila Ecclesia in praedestinatis c. By this meate and drinke Christ will have to be understood the society of his body and members which is the Church of the Predestinate This Father was so far from beleeving that Christ was eaten even by the mouth of the body that by this meate he will have the Church to be understood Whence also he addeth d Hoeveraciter non praestat nisi iste cibus potus qui cos aÌ„ quibus sumitur immortales incorruptibiles sacit iâ— societas ipsa Sanctorum c. This meate and drinke which makes such as doe take it immortall and incorruptible is the fellowshippe of Saints where there shall bee peace and perfect unitie And in the same place e Hoc est ergo manduâ—â—â—al lamescam bâ—bere ill â—mpotumâ—â— Câ—â—â—stoâ—â—â—â— manere ilum manâ—â—ntâ—â—in se habere de per haeâ— qui non maâ—â— in Chrisio in quâ— nor manâ—â— Chrisia in quo nor manâ— Châ—â—slâ—â— procâ—â—dnâ—no nec manducat spiratalâ—ter â—â—nem â—jus aâ—c bâ—hâ—â— ejus sâ—nguâ—nâ—n luet carnalaeâ— â—â—silâ—luâ—â— prâ—â—â—â— doelâ—bus Sacraâ—â—â—â— isâ—â—â— corpoâ— is sangâ—â—â—â—â— Châ—â—sâ—i That therefore is to eate this meate and to drinke this drinke to dwell in Christ and to have him dwelling in us And therefore he that dwelleth not in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doublesse he eates not spiritually his flesh and drinkes not his blood how be it that carnally and visibly he presfeth with his teeth the sacred signe of Christs body and blood In summe in three long Treatises containing many pages wherein this good Doctor expoundeth the sixth Chapter of Saint John there is not one word of eating by the mouth of the body the Lords flesh crucified for us Which exposition was so disliked by Cardinall du Perron that he speaketh contemptibly of these Tractates of Saint Austin upon Saint John f In his Booke against the King of Great Britaine In the Treatise of the Eucharist saying that they be popular Sermons made before all kindes of persons to whom he would not declare openly the Churches beleife Tertullian in the 37 Chapter of his Booke of the Resurrection expounding these words The flesh profiteth nothing The sense saith hee must bee addressed according to the subject whereof he speaketh g Quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determâ—nasset ut in spiritu dispone ret statum salutis oraemisit Spiritus est quâ— vivificat Tum add t Caro non prodeâ—t quiâ—quam ad vivificandum sâ—ili et For because they esteemed his words to be harsh and intolerable as though he had determined to give them truely his flesh to eate that he might render spirituall the state of salvation he
is no more bread and that it is transubstantiated into Christs body Now how the bread is Christs body himselfe teaches it when he adds that it is his commemoration Even as in the next line following he saith that the Cup is the New Testament because it is the signe and commemoration of it according to the stile of the Scripture that giveth to the signes and memorials the name of the thing which they doe signifie and represent 9. Christ called that which was in the cup the fruit of the Vine saying I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine On the contrary the Church of Rome teacheth that that which is in the cup is not the fruit of the Vine but blood And saith that in the Cup is not onely the very blood of Christ but also that his Body and his Soule and his Divinity is there and that the Body is whole in every drop of the Chalice Whereupon it followeth and the Roman Church beleeves it so that Christ dranke his flesh and swallowed downe his owne soule and body and ate himselfe and had his head in his mouth 10. The Evangelists doe record that Christ having taken bread blessed it But according to the Church of Romes doctrine which abolisheth the substance of the bread in the Eucharist Christ did not blesse the bread for to destroy a thing and reduce it to nought is not to blesse it 11. Christ distributing the bread and breaking it spake in the present tense saying b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod frangitur This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it appeareth that by his body he meant the Sacrament or commemoration of his body For Christs naturall body cannot be broken To shun the force of this argument the Latin Version of the Romane Church hath corrupted this place and in stead of these words Which is broken for you hath turned Which shall bee delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.14 Quod pro vobis tradetur putting delivering for breaking and the future for the present And indeed our Adversaries are mightily pestered to tell us what it is that the Priest breaketh in the Masse Doth he breake bread But they say that it is no more bread Doth he breake Christs body But it cannot be broken and they themselves say that it is whole and entire in the least crum of the hoste as big and as large as it was upon the crosse Doth he breake the Accidents of bread which most fraudulously they call species viz. the taste the colour and roundnesse of the hoste But these things cannot bee broken Can a man make peeces of taste or of whitenesse None but bodies can bee broken 12. The Apostle Saint Paul conforming himselfe to the Lords institution saith in the 10 chapter of the 1â— to the Corinthians 16 Verse that the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The Church of Rome gaine says and contradicteth every word of this sentence The Apostle saith that it is bread The Church of Rome on the contrary saith that it is not bread The Apostle saith that it is bread which we breake On the contrary the Church of Rome saith that it is flesh which we doe not breake The Apostle saith that this bread is the communion of the body of Christ On the contrary the Church of of Rome saith that this bread is Christs body it selfe Behold then a cleare and a plaine exposition of these words This is my body given by the Apostle to wit The bread which I breake is the communion of my body and not that which the Church of Rome giveth viz. That which is under these species is transubstantiated into my body 13. It is very considerable that the same Apostle in the same chapter and 21 verse maketh an opposition between the Lords table and the table of devils saving Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils The reason of the opposition sheweth plainely that as to be partaker of the table of Devils is not to eate Devils * But to be partaker of the meat consecâ—ated to Devils So to be partaker of Christs Table is not to eaâ— Christ but to be partaker of the meaâ— consecrated by Christ in remembrane of Christ and of his death 14. Christ in distributing the breaâ— and the cup said Doe this in remembranâ—â— of me These words shew manifestly thaâ— the Priest maketh not Christ in the Masse and sacrificeth him not For it is impossible to make Christ in remembrance of Christ It is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Can a man build a house in remembrance of that house Did Aaron sacrifice a Lamb in remembrance of that Lambe Besides that the remembrance is but of things absent and past as Saint Austin saith upon the 37 Psalme Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentia non est positum No remembrance can be had but of things that are not present The councell of Trent declareth indeed that Christ by these words Doe this commanded that he should be sacrificed in the Masse But besides that Christ cannot be sacrificed in remembrance of Christ the Apostle Saint Paul presently after these words Doe this in remembrance of mee addeth the explication saying For as often as ye eate of this bread and drinke of this cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come Will we therefore know what is to Doe this Saint Paul teacheth us that it is to eate this bread and drinke of this cup for to shew and declare the remembrance of Christ his death 15. Our Lord Jesus brake the bread before he pronounced the words which they call the words of consecration He tooke the bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it saying This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it followeth by the doctrine of the Roman Church that he brake bread unconsecrated and untransubstantiated On the contrary in the Roman Church the Priest breaks the hoste after the words of consecration to the end the people may beleeve that he breaketh and sacrificeth the very body of Christ Our adversaries then confesse that the Priest breaketh an other thing than Christ brake Some for to arme themselves against the Apostle which saith that the bread that we breake is the communion of the body of Christ tell us that Saint Paul saith that we breake bread because that when he did minister this holy Sacrament he did break afore he consecrated following Christs example and consequentlâ— did breake unconsecrated bread Brâ—â— those that speake so contradict the Râ—man Church which doth not beleeâ—â— that the fraction of the unconsecrated bread is the communion of the body of Christ 16. The same Apostle 1. Cor. 11.28 saith Let a man examine himselfe and sâ— let him eate OF this bread Which is the same kind of speech used by Christ saying Bibite ex eo omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drinke yee all
words of the Lord d Pene quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt All almost doe call the body of Christ that which is the sacred signe of it Words that are very considerable And in the 27 Treatise upon Saint John e Illi put abant cum erogaturii corpus suii ille aâ—dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrumcum videritâ—s silium ho minis ascendentem ubi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum Certe vel tunc intelliget is quod ejus gratia non consumitur morsibus The Capernaites thought he should distribute his body unto them but he said unto them hee would ascend into heaven whole indeed When yee see the Sonne of man ascend where he was before certainly then at least you shall see that he giveth not his body as you esteeme Verily then shall yee understand that his grace is not consumed with biting Chiefly that place of the same Father upon the 98 Psalme seemes to me very expresse where expounding these words of the Lord Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man yee have no life in you he bringeth in the Lord speaking thus f Spirital ter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videt is manducaturi â—sâ—â—s bibituri illum songuinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cru cisigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commondavi spiritaliter intellectum vivâ—ficabit vos Vnderstand spirituallie what I have said unto you yee shall not eate this body that you see g Qui non manet â—n christo â—u quo â—non manet Christus pro culdubio nâ—c manduâ—â—t spiritaliter earnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem lcet carnalter visic biliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Chr st nor d inke that blood wâ—ich shall bee shed by those that shall crucifie me I have commended a sacred signe unto you which being understood spiritually shall vivifie you According to our Adversaries doctrine both good and bad take the Lords body in the Eucharist For many bee partakers of the Sacrament without Faith and hypocriâ—ically Such neverthelesse doe swallow the consecrated hoste and if we beleeve our Adversaries eate truly and really the body of Christ Jesus Saint Austin impugneth that opinion and maintaineth that the wicked eate but the signes and receive not Christ In the 26 Treatise upon Saint John g Sent. 339 Quâ— discordat à Christo non carne ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibat etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumtionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat Whosoever dwelleth not is Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not for a certaine he eateth not his flesh spiritually and drinketh not his blood though he presseth carnally and visibly with his teeth the sacred signes of Christs body and blood And in the Booke of Sentences of Saint Austin collected by Prosper h Whosoever discordeth with Christ eateth not the flesh of Christ and drinketh not his blood though hee take every day indifferently the sacred signe of so great a thing to the condemnation of his owne presumption And in the 25 Chapter of the 21. Booke Of the City of God i Non dicendum cum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore Christi non est It must not bee said that he who is not in the body of Christ eateth the body of Christ And there he bringeth in Christ saying k Qui non in me manet et in quo ego no maneo non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum c. He that abideth not in me and in whom I abide not let not him say nor thinke that be eateth my body or drinketh my blood Therefore those doe not abide in Christ that are not the members of Christ Saint Hierome saith the same upon the last Chapter of Esaiah l Dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu non comedunt carnem Icsu neque bibunt sangumem Whilest they are not holy in body and spirit they eate not the flesh of Jesus and drinke not that blood whereof he speaketh himselfe Whosoever eateth my flesh c. Let no man wonder that I have turned this word Sacrament in Saint Austin by a sacred signe seeing that he himselfe expoundeth it so in the fifth Epistle to Marcellinus m Signa cum ad res divinas pertinent Sacramenta appellantur The signes when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments And in the tenth Booke of the City of God Chapter 5. n Sacrificium visibile est invisibilis Sacrificij Sacramentum id est sacrum signum The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament of the invible Sacrifice that is to say a sacred signe And against the adversarie of the Law and the Prophets 2 Booke Chapter 9. Sacramenta id est sacra signa The Sacraments that is to say the sacred signes It is the definition given by Lombard in the first Distinction of the fourth Book Tit. 3. Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum Bellarmin himselfe in his first Booke of Sacraments o Sacramentum nomem genericium significat signum rei sacrie vel arcanae Chapter 7. 11. The word Sacrament signifieth a signe of a sacred or secret thing In one thing principally it appeareth how farre Saint Austin was from beleeving Transubstantiation In that in these words This is my body by this word Body he understandeth the Church At the end of Fulgentius his Workes who was Austins disciple there is a Sermon of Austins which maliciously they have plucked out of his Workes and that had been lost if Fulgentius and Beda had not preserved it Here then be the very words of Austin p Aug. â—o Serm. ad infantes Quod vidistis panis est et calix quod vobis etiam oculi â—estri reâ—untiant quod aute sides vestra â—ostulat inâ—truenda â—anis est â—orpus Christi What ye have seene is bread and wine as your eyes shew unto you but according to the instruction that your Faith demandeth the bread is the body of Christ and the Cup is his blood Bellarmin in his first Booke of the Eucharist Chapter 1. acknowledgeth that these words This bread is Christs body cannot be true if they be not taken figuratively But let us learne how Saint Austin will have the bread to be the body of Christ He saith then q Quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus Ista fraires ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in eis alâ—ud vidotur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur formam habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructu habet spiritalem Corpus ergo Christi sivis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus Vos estis corpus Christ et membra c. How is the bread his body and how is the
whole Church when he drinketh By this reason the People might as wel forbeare eating and be contented that the Priest should eate for them For the commandement for eating in this place is not more expresse than that of drinking By the same meanes when Christ commands the People to beleeve in him the people may dispense themselves from beleeving in Christ saying it sufficeth that the Priest beleeve for others for he representeth the whole Church In a word it is an impious temerity and presumption to adde out of ones owne authority unto the words of the Lord whole clauses yea absurd clauses as if Christ had said Except ye drink my blood your own selves or by another ye shall have no life in you With the like licence they say that when Christ said Except ye eate my flesh AND drinke my blood this AND must be turned into OR and that Christs meaning was to have said Except ye eat my flesh or drink my blood If it may bee lawfull to change thus the words of the Lord there is no law in the Scripture from which a man may not dispence himselfe When the Law of God commands one to love God and his Neighbour one may by the same reason say that the Law meaneth that one must love God or his Neighbour And when the Law saith Honor thy Father and thy Mother it meaneth that one must honor his Father or his Mother and that it is enough to honor either of them Adde withall that by this depravation of the Lords Words it followes that the people may drink the Cup without eating the Hoste since it sufficeth to do either of them CHAP. IV. That the principall Doctors of the Roman Church yea the Popes themselves do agree with us in this point and hold that in the 6. of S. Iohn nothing is spoken but of the spirituall Manducation and that those that contradict them do speake with incertitude IN this controversie we have the Popes for us and a great multitude of the Romish Doctors who hold with us that in the 6 of S. John it is not spoken of the Eucharist nor of eating our Saviour Christ by the mouth of the body but that Christ speaketh of the spirituall manducation by Faith in Christs death Such is the opinion of Pope Innocent the III and of Pius II called Aeneas Sylvius afore he came to the Papacy Item * BonaveÌ„ in 4. Dist 9 art 1 q. â— Cajet in 6. Iohannis Cafaâ—us epist 7. ad Bohomos Petrus de Alliaco an 4. Sentent q. 2. art 3. Durant Raâ—â—â—nali divinor Offic. lib. 4. c. 41. n. 40. Lindaâ—â—rs Panopliae l. 4. c. â—8 Tapper in expliâ— antiâ—uloâ—â—m 15. Lovanensium Iansen Concord c. 5â— Feruâ—in 26. Maâ—â—h 〈◊〉 6 Iâ—hâ—nnis Valdensis Tomo 2 de Sacram. c. 91 I lesselâ—â—d communjone sub uttraque specie of Bonaventure Câ—jetan Cusanus De Alliaco Cardinals Item of Durandus Episcopus Mimatensis Gabriel Biel Hessel one of the Doctors of the Councell of Trente Lindanus Ruardus Tapperuâ— Iansenius Bishop of Gand Ferus a Divine of Maguntia Valdensis and many others Among others Gabriel Biel in his 36 Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse saith that the Doctors hold with a common consent that in the 6 of Sâ—â—ohn no mention is made but of the spirituall manducation But for brevity sake it shall suffice to produce the places of the two forenamed Popes Pope Innocent 3. in the 14. chap of his fourth Book of the Mysteries of the Masse hath these words * De spirituali manducatione Dominus ait Nisi manducaveritis carnem siliâ— homenis et bâ—beritis ejus sanguinem c. Hâ—c modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt The Lord speaketh of the spirituall manducation saying Except ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you In this manner the good only do eate the body of Christ A learned Pope is a very rare thing Yet of Pius II. one may say that he was one of the learndest of his age The same Pius in his 130 Epistle to Cardinall Carviall disputing against the Bohemians speaketh thus a Sed non est in Evangelâ—o Iohaâ—nis sensuâ— quem sibi asâ—râ—bitis Non hibit to Sacrament alis ibâ—prae scribitur sâ—d spirit â—alis insinuâ—atur The sense of the Gospell of Iohn is not such as you ascribe unto it For there it is not commanded to drink at the Sacrament But a manner of spirituall drinking is taught And a little after The Lord by these words declareth in that place the secret mysteries of the spirituall drinke and not of the carnall when hee saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing and again The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life Wilt thou know openly that the Evangelist speaketh of the spirituall manducation which is made by Faith Consider that what the Lord saith in the words HEE THAT EATETH AND DRINKETH are words of the present tense and not of the future At that very instant therefore that the Lord was speaking there were some that did eate him and drink him And yet the Lord had not suffered as yet neither was the Sacrament instituted Thomas Aquinas tearmed the Angelicall Doctor was a great worshipper of Popes * Thom. Opusculo 21. c. 10. Dominus utitur in Iohâ—nne quadam interrogâ—tione importuna ter quaerens à suo successore beato Petro quod si ipsum dâ—â—â—git gregem pascat so far as to accuse Christ of importunity for asking his Vicar Peter thrice Lovest thou mee For which likewise the Pope canonized him and made him a Saint after his death This man though a great defender of Transubstantiation yet neverthelesse upon this point of the manducation whereof Christ speaketh in the 6 of S. John speaketh thus in his 7 Lesson upon these words Except ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you * Sihaeâ— sententia referatur ad spiritualem manducationem nullam dubitationem habet sententia c. Sivero ad SacrameÌ„talâ—m dubiâ—â— habet quod dicitur If this saith he be referred to the spirituall manducation this sentence is without all doubt For that man eateth spiritually the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood that is partaker of the unity of the Church which is effected through love c. But if that hath reference to the Sacramentall manducation there is some doubt in that which is said Except yee eate my flesh ye have no life in you But in this latter age the greatest part of the Romish Doctors especially the Jesuites have forsaken this opinion generally received in the Church of Rome in former Ages and have contemned the authority of the fore-alleadged Popes Their opinion is that in the 51 verse of the 6 chap. of S. Iohn Christ beginneth to speake of the Sacramentall manducation which is made by the corporall mouth but that whatsoever is said
before is to be understood of the spirituall manducation As when Christ saith in the 33 35 50 verses that he is the bread come down from heaven And that hee is the bread of Life And that whosoever beleeveth on him shall never thirst And that he is the bread come down from heaven whereof whosoever eateth hee shall not die In all these places they grant that it is spoken of a manner of eating and drinking that is spirituall and will have nothing there to be spoken of the bread of the Encharist but do take all these words figuratively A doctrine truly full of absurdity and which destroyes and overthroweth it selfe For what boldnesse is it to forge in the sequell or prosecution of one and the same discourse two kinds of manducation and by a Master-like authority to will that one part of the chapter be understood figuratively and the other simply since they all be the same kind of speeches and that the same exposition may bee brought both to the one and to the other The Councell of Trente was mightily pestered about that for after this matter had been tossed a long time and disputed upon at the Councell the Prelats seeing the new Doctors were contrary unto the old yea even to the Popes and that the new ones besides did not agree among themselves would determine nothing therein and lest the thing undecided as Salmeron the Jesuite who was present at that Councell doth testifie The Synode * Salmer Tom. 8. Tract 23. Etsi notuerit Synodus nininatius illo tempore decernere quis esset maxime proprius germanus verborum illorum Christi sensus apud Iohannem propter varias sanctorum Patrum et Doctorum interpretationes in utramque partem allatas c. saith he would not then determine namely which is the properest and naturall sense of these words of Christ in S. Iohn because of the variety of Interpretations of the holy Fathers and Doctors that were brought on both sides Yet it was there principally that the infallible perfection of the Pope and of the Councell should have been displayed being a matter of so great importance And yet to this very day the Popes have determined nothing upon that nor condemned those that are of a contrary mind to the Jesuits CHAP. V. Reasons of our Adversaries for to prove that in the sixth chap. of Saint Iohn it is spoken of the manducation by the mouth of the Body BUt let us see how the Doctors of this Age dispute against their Popes Cardinals and Prelates and goe about to prove that in the 6 of S. Iohn is spoken of the manducation by the mouth of the body in the Eucharist 1. They say that Christ sp aketh in the future saying The bread that I will give as speaking of a manducation that was not yet I answer that he speaketh also in the present saying I am the bread come down from Heaven And hee that eateth thereof shall not die They themselves would laugh if from that the Lord saith in the future Whosoever shall beleeve and shall be Baptised shall be saved I should inferre that before Christ spake these words none beleeved none were Baptised none were saved Moreover when Christ speaketh in the future saying The bread that I will give he hath regard to his future death which is the true food of our Soules 2. They say also that if this sixth chapter of S. John were not taken and understood of the manducation by the mouth of the body it would follow that S. Iohn did not speake at all of the Eucharist Stapleton one of the most furious Adversaries answers for us S. Iohn saith he * Stapl. Promptuar Cathol Serm. 1. Hebdom Sanctae Iohannes de tertia Euchar stica coena nihil quidem scribit eo quod caeteri tres Evangelistae ante cum eam plene descripsissent writes nothing of the Eucharisticall Supper because the other three Evangelists had fully written of it before S. John wrote long after the other Evangelists and did only insist upō such things as the others had omitted He did not put in his Gospel the history of the Lords Conception and Birth nor of his Temptation in the Wildernesse nor of his Baptisme nor of his Transfiguration in the Mount 3. They adde that Christ doth distinguish the eating from drinking for to designe the two species of the Eucharist To that I answer that Christ speakes of eating and drinking for to give us to understand that wee have in him and in his death a full and entire spirituall nourishment In the 55 chap. of Isaiah 1. v. God inviteth the hungry and the thirsty to cate and to drink And in the 22 of S. Luke 30 ver Christ saith I appoint unto you a Kingdome as my Father hath appointed unto me that yee may eate and drink at my table in my Kingdom In these places our Adversaries do acknowledge that to eate and to drink signifies one and the same thing and that they are taken in a spirituall sense 4. But say they it is neither fitting nor convenient that Christ should have used so many figures and spoken in such dark tearmes when he might have spoken plainely Wee have already shewed that Christs ordinary use was to speake unto the Jews by figures and similitudes and that the Capernaites objecting unto him the bread of Heaven given by Moses gave him occasion to speak so That if our adversaries do so much dislike figures Why do they say that from the 27 verse this chap. to the 51. the Lord speaks of the spirituall manducation and useth figurative words Why will they have that when Christ said Except ye drink my blood by drinking he understādeth eating That if the question be touching the difficulty is there any thing in the World harder to conceive and to beleeve than this doctrine whereby they will have Christ to have eaten his own flesh and that an human body be whole and entire in every crum of the host and be remote and divided from it selfe and that a Priest should make a God with a few words and that this god must run the risque and be subject to be eaten by Rats and Mice and carried away by the wind 5. Yet say they Christ said My flesh is me at indeed Now this word truly or indeed excludes all figure For they esteem that figurative words are not true If it be so why do they themselves put in so many figures Why will they have this word bread to be taken figuratively and the word drinking to signifie eating They must then say that when Christ in the 15 of S. Iohn 1 ver said I am the true Vine he spake falsly or else they must needs grant that this word true excluds not the figure So in the 8 to the Heb. 2. v. the Apostle calleth Paradise the true Tabernacle It is a common thing to say that God is the true Sun of the Soule and that evill examples
Cardinall du Perron writing against du Plessiâ— maketh many exclamations against Origen and cals him origine of all errors and cries out Shut yâ—â— eares Christian people as if men did read with their cares What Cardinall dâ— Perron saith that Theophilus Patriarck of Alexandria did condemne Origen for speaking so is false and shall never be found Theodoret in his first Dialogue titled the Vnchangeable speaking of these words This is my body saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord hath honored the visible signes with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their nature but having added grace 〈◊〉 nature A little before he had said The Lord gave to the signe the name of his body And in the second Dialogue tearmed the Non confuse The divine mysteries are signes of the true body And a little after he introduceth an Eutychian Heretick maintaining Transubstantiation To whom he answereth in these words Thou art oâ—â—ght by the nets that thou hast woven For even after the consecration the mysticall signes do not change their own nature * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they remaine in their former Substance Forme and Figure And in the same Dialogue Tell me then the signes that are offered unto God what signes are they of The answer is Of the Lords body and blood In the Books of Sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose in the fourth Book cha 5. We have a clause of the publick forme used in the Eucharist in these words a Dixit Sacerdos Fac nobis hanc oblationem asscriptam rationabileÌ„ acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesus Christi GraÌ„t that this oblation be imputed unto us as acceptable reasonable which is the FIGVRE of the body and blood of Christ Iesus our Lord. Which cannot be understood of the unconsecrated bread for it is not an acceptable oblation for our sins This clause is retained in the Masse except this word Figure which they have taken away Eusebius in his 12 Book of the Demonstration chap. 8. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have been instructed to celebrate at the table according to the laws of the New Testament by the signes of the body and blood the remembrance of this Sacrifice And in the eight Book after he had said that Christ delivered to his Disciples the signes or symboles of his dispensation he addeth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding to celebrate the Image or figure of his own Body Euphraemius Patriarck of Antioch b Ex Bibliothe Phocii p. 415. editionis Augustanae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Christs body which the Faithfull receive loseth not its sensible substance and is not divided from intelligible grace So Baptisme being wholly made spirituall and one doth retaine the property of its sensible substance tâ— wit water and yet looseth not that which it is made This place is very forcible for he calleth the bread Christs body and acknowledges not therein any conversion of substance and teacheth that in the Eucharist there is no more conversion of substance than in Baptisme where the water remaineth always water Gregory Nazianzen in his 2. Oration of the Passeover speaketh thus of the participation of the Eucharist c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shal indeed be partakers of the Passeover in figure though more evidently than in the old Passe over For the Passeover I dare say wâ—â— a more darke figure of a figure And the same Father in his Oration in the Praise of his Sister Gorgonia commendeth her devotion in that having received with her own hand the Sacrament she carried back home a parcell of 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If saith he her hand had shut up us in treasure any thing of the signes or aâ—â—itypes 〈◊〉 the body or of the blood of the Lord she minded it with her teares Euphraemius Deacon of Edissa b Ad eos qui Filii Dei naturam scrutari volunt Inspice diligenter quomodo sumens in manibus paneÌ„ benedix it ac fregil in figuram immaculati corporis c. Behold â—iligently how the Lord after hee had taken â—e bread in his bands blessed it and brake it 〈◊〉 figure of his immaculat body and blessed â—e cup in figure of his precious blood and gave to his Disciples The imperfect work upon S. Matthew â—â—tributed to Chrysostome in the 11 Hoâ—ily speaking of those that imploy the â—â—cred vessels as Plates and Chalices to â—ofane uses c Si haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre â—periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christs sed â—â—sterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis â—â—stri c. If it be so dangerous a thing 〈◊〉 transport to privat uses the sacred vessels â—herein Christs body is not but where the myâ—ry of his body is contained how much more â—â—e vessels of our bodies which God hath preâ—red to himse fe for to dwell in them Note â—at hee doth nor say that the body of â—hrist was not in these vessels but that it not in them that it may not be thought â—e speaketh of the vessels of Salomons â—emple The same Fathers upon the third Psalme a Dominus Iudam adhâ—buit ad câ—nviv um â—n quo corporis sangumis suâ— siguram discipulâ—s commondavâ—t tradid t. The Lord admitâ—ed Judas 〈◊〉 the banquet in whâ—ch he recommended anâ— gave to his disciples the figure of his bâ—â—â— and blood The same in his third Booke of Châ—â—stian Doctrine Chapter 16. When 〈◊〉 Lord saith b N si manducaveritis inquit carnâ—m siâ—iâ— hom nis â—iberitis sanguinem non habebi tis vitam in vobis facinus vel flag tium vâ—detur jubere Fâ—gura ergo est praecipiens passions Dominicae esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter is memoâ—â— recondendum quòd â—aro ejus proâ—obis crucifixa vulâ—â—â— rata sit Except yee eate the flâ—sh of 〈◊〉 Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye havâ— no life in you he seemeth to command a wiâ—ked thing or haiâ—us offence It is therefore a figure that commands to communicate to the Passion of the Lord and to puâ— sweetly and profitably into our memory that his flesh was crucified and woundâ—â— for us Note that Saint Austin saith noâ— onely that these words Exce t yee eâ—â— c. are figurative But alâ—o expounâ— unto us the sense and meaning of thâ—â— figure saying that it signifieth we mâ—â— meditate with pleasure and profiâ— that Christ is dead for us Which 〈◊〉 an exposition our Adversaries approâ—â— not The same Author in the first Treatise upon the first Epistle of Saint John c Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed side contingere The Lord comforteth us we that can handle him no more with our hands but touch him by Faith And in the 53 Sermon of the
hoste which is made admirably in remembrance of Christ But it is not lawfull in it selfe for any one to eate of that which he offered on the Altar of the Crosse And in the same place at the Canon Corpus taken out of Saint Austin c Corpus sauguinem Christi dicimus illud quod de fructibus terrae acceptum prece mystica consecratum c. We doe call body and blood of Christ that which being taken of the fruits of the earth is consecrated by the mysticall prayer Certainely a body of Christ taken of the fruits of the earth is not the body of Christ crucified for us Tertullian in the sixth chapter of his Booke of Prayer d Panis est Sermo Dei vivi qui descâ—ndit de coelis Tum quod corpus ejus in pane censetur Hoc est corpus mâ—um The bread is the word of the living God which is descended from heaven Item the body that is holden to be in the bread This is my body Ensebius of Cesarea in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall Divinitie Chapter 12. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord spake not of the flesh which hee tooke but of his mysticall body and blood Saint Austin calleth very often that which we receive in the holy Supper the body of Christ But that we may not thinke that that which we receive by the corporall mouth is that body of the Lord which was crucified for us he bringeth in Christ saying unto us Yee shall not eate this body that you see f In Psal 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturiestis neque bibituri illis sanguinem queÌ„ fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacrament um aliquod vobis coÌ„mendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos â—nd shall not drinke the blood shed by those that shall crucifie me What then I have saith he recommended a Sacrament unâ—â— you which being taken Spiritually shall quicken and vivifie you Saint Ambrose in his Commentarie â—pon Saint Luke maketh a plaine diffeâ—ance betweene these two kinds of body of Christ expounding the words of the Lord Luke 17. Wheresoever the bodie is â—hither will the Eagles bee gathered togeâ—her First he saith that by the body may be understood the dead body of Christ and by the Eagles which are about it Mary wife to Cleophas and Mary Magdalen and Mary mother of the Lord then he addeth There is also that body â—f whom it is said My flesh is meate indeed Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 36. distinguisheth in expresse tearmes these two kindes of flesh or body of Christ saying The forme of the bread comprehendeth both the one and the other flesh of Christ to wit the true and the mysticall Salmeron the Jesuite in his fifteenth Treatise of the IX Tome gathereth the same distinction of two sorts of blood of Christ out of the Booke of the Lords Supper attributed to Saint Cyprian Why saith he in the Law it was forbidden to eate blood and it is commanded in the Gospell Cyprian teacheth it excellently well in his Booke of the Lords Supper For in the abstinence of that blood is designed the Spirituall and reasonable life farre from brutish manners b Bibimus verò de Christi sanguine humane pariter ac divino ut intelligamus per ejus gustum ad eternae ac divinae vitae participium nos vocatos Now we drinke of Christs blood both of that which is humane and of that which is divine To the end we may understand that intasting of him we are called to the participation of eternall and divine life Wee have in the former Chapter alleadged Eupbraemius calling the bread of the Eucharist the body of Christ and yet saying that that body loseth not the Substance of bread And the Canon Hoc est in the second Distinction of the Consecration drawne out of Saint Austin saying that the bread which is the flesh of Christ is after its manner called the body of Christ though indeed it is the sacred signe of the body of Christ And Saint Austin The Lord made no difficultie to say This is my body when hee gave the signe of his body And Theodoret likewise saying The Lord hath given to the signe the name of his body And Origen calling the bread of the Supper a figurative body of Christ The same appeareth more cleare than the very day in that the Fathers which say that in the Eucharist we eate Christs body attribute unto this body things which cannot agree with the naturall body of Christ borne of the Virgin Mary and crucified for us Saint Cyprian c Domiunâ— corpus suiâ— paneÌ„ vocatâ— de multorâ—â— granorum adunatione congestum in his 76 Epistle saith The Lord calleth the bread his body which is made and composed of many graines And in the 63 Epistle d Nec corpus Domini potest esse sarina sola aut aqua sola insi utrumque adunatum fucrit c. The Lords body cannot be of the flower alone or of the water alone except both the one and the other be kneaded and conjoyned together Certainely this body of Christ composed of many graines and kneaded with water cannot be the body of Christ crucified for us Justin in his second Apologie saith e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Deacons doe give to every one of those that are present to participate bread and wine and water whereupon thankesgivings have beene said Then he addeth that this bread is the body of Christ But he sheweth manifestly that this bodie of Christ is not that which was crucified for us in that he saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a meate wherewith ouâ— flesh and blood are fed by the transmutation He speaketh of the change made by the disgestion For our bodies are not fed of or with the body crucified for us that bodie is not changed into our flesh and blood For that Justin beleeved not the Transubstantiation he sheweth it sufficiently in the Dialogue against Tryphonius saying b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The oblation of fine flower was a figure of the bread of the Euchâ—rist which our Lord Jesus hath ordained to be made in remembrance of his Passion Ireneus in his first Booke saith the same c Euâ—n calâ—cem qui est cre tura suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corâ—ora The Lord hath affirmed that the Cup which is a creature wherewith bee maketh our bodyes grow is his bodie Would Ireneus have lost his wit so farre as to beleeve that our bodies grow and are fed with the crucified body of the Lord and with the blood shedde upon the Crosse which did not returne into his body The same distinction of two sorts of body of Christ in the writings of the ancient Fathers appeareth in that they doe speake of the peeces of the
bodie of Christ and of the residues of the body of Christ that remaine after the Communion Which cannot agree with Christs naturall body crucified for us that cannot be broken in peeces and whereof there can be no residue Pope Gelasius in the Canon Comperimus second Distinction of the Consecration d Comperimus quod quidam sumpta taÌ„tum modo corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant We have learned that some having taken one part of the body of Christ abstaine from the cup which thing he calleth a sacriledge And Evagrius the Historian in his fourth Booke Chapter 36. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancient custome of the royall City requireth that when many Peeces of the immaculate body of Christ remaine children not yet in age to be corrupted going to Schoole be called for to eate them How could one give peeces of the naturall bodie of Christ who sitteth at the right hand of God What likelihood is there to give to a troope of little children the residues of the body of Christ Would not that bee esteemed at this day in the Romane Church an horrible profanation Wherefore it is a thing very frequent in the Fathers to say that Panis est Corpus Christi The bread is Christs body And we have heard Saint Austin here above speake so Words which if they were taken or understood of the naturall body of Christ would be false For the bread is not the body that was crucified for us It is therefore unjustly done by our Adversaries to expose unto the View with great noyse and rumour some placeâ— out of the Bookes of Sacraments attributed to Saint Ambrose and out of the Booke of the Lords Supper attributed to Cyprian wherein is sayde that the bread after the words of Consecration becometh and is made Christs bodieâ— since we doe shew by so many proofâ—â— that they speake of another body that of that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and that was crucified aâ— we will shew yet more clearely hereafter For that the Author of these Bookâ— attributed to Saint Ambrose hath beleeved that after the Consecration the bread is bread still he shewes it plainly when he saith c Lib. 4. de SacrameÌ„t cap. 4. Let us therefore establisâ— this to wit how that which is bread may be Christs body And a little after a Si tanta vis in Sermone Domini Iesu ut inciperent esse quae noÌ„ erant quaÌ„to magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur If there be such power and vertue in the word of the Lord Jesus as to make that things which were not begin to bee how much more shall he make that the things which were be and be changed into other things This excellent place which saith that the things which were are still that is to say that that which was bread is bread still is found thus alleadged by Lombard in his fourth Booke of Sentences Distinction 10. And by Thomas in the third part of his Summe question 78. Art 4. And by Gratian in the second Distinction of the Consecration at the Canon Panis est And by b Gabr. lect 40. in Can. Missae Alger de Sacram corp lib. 2. cap. 7 Ivo Car. 2. Parte cap 7. Et Iodocus Coccius Tom. 2. lib. 6. pag. 621. Gabriel Biel and Alger and Ivo Carnutensis and Jodocus Coccius and not according to the new editions of Ambrose in which these words Sint quae erant are left out Such falsifications are frequent in the new editions Some places may bee found indeed wheâ—ein some Fathers say that the bread of the Eucharist is the body of the Lord crucified for us But that must be understood after the sâ—me manner as Christ said of the bread that it was his body and that the Cup is the New Testament because it is the Sacrament or remembrance of it They doe object a place of Saint Hilarie out of his eighth Booke of the Trinitie where he saith a De veritate carnis saguinis noÌ„ relictus est ambigendi locus Nunc enim â—psius DoÌ„mi professione side nostra vere caro est vere sanguis Et hac accepta atque hausta essiciunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit Of the truth of the flesh and blood there is no doubt For at this day both by the profession of the Lord and by our Faith it is flesh indeed and blood indeed and these things taken and swallowed downe cause us to be in Christ and Christ in us First of all it is a great abuse to urge Saint Hilary who in this point of the nature of Christs body had an errour that destroyes the whole Christian Religion For b Hilar. lib. 10. de Trinitate In quem quanvis aut idlus incideret aut vulnus descenderet c. afferrent quideÌ„ haec impetuÌ„ passionis non tamen doloreÌ„ passionis inferrent ut teluÌ„ aliquod aut aquam perforans aut ignem compungens aut aëra vulnerans Et paulo post Virtus corpoâ—is sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit he teacheth that Christ in his Passion suffered no manner of paine at all and that the stripes they gave him were as if they had pierced the aire or the fire with a dart Secondly it appeareth that Hilary speaketh of the Spirituall manducation For by it alone are we in Christ and Christ in us Thirdly when Hilarie saith there remaineth no place to doubt of the truth of the flesh and blood of the Lord he doth not meane it must not be doubted but that in the Eucharist we cate truely the naturall flesh of Christ by the mouth of the body But he saith that we must not doubt but Christ had a true flesh and a true blood For he disputeth against certaine Hereticks that destroyed the truth of his human nature For as touching the Mystagogicall Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem which are objected against us where it is sayd that we must not beleeve our senses telling us that it is bread it is certaine that those Catecheses are supposed and falsly attributed to Cyril For the Stile of them is very different from those 18 Catecheses of Cyril that precedes them which are cited by Theodoret and by Gelasius and by Damascen but these last are never alleadged by any one In the first Catechese there is an evident marke of falsity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For hee disswadeth his hearers from frequenting the Amphitheater where the Gladiators chases and combates were made against wild beasts and the Hippod omus or Circus that is to say the Parke or Place where horses races and combates were exercised For then were no such buildings nor spectacles in Jerusalem nor never were any since Jerusalem was Christian And concerning Chrysostomes hyperbolical amplifications saying that the Altar streames with
blood that wee fasten our teeth in his flesh that wee put ouâ— fingers in his wounds and suck the blood of them and that a Seraphin bringeth unto us a burning coale with a paire of tongs they bee outlashing words that savour of a declamation and which our Adversaries themselves doe not beleeve CHAP. XXIX That divers Ancient Fathers have beleeved a mysticall Union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread of the Sacrament NEverthelesse I cannot deny but that many Fathers have had an opinion which with good reason is rejected by the Roman Church of these dayes They teach that as Christs divine nature hath united it selfe personally unto his humane nature so the same divine nature by vertue of the Consecration is united to the bread of the Eucharist by an union though not personall and hypostaticall yet mysticall divine and ineffable by which the bread remaining bread is made the body of Christ For they use this comparison taken from the personall union of the two natures of Christ for to shew how the bread is the body of Christ This opinion hath no foundation in the Scripture Yet I dare say it is an errour no way prejudiciall to Christian Religion For that opinion changeth not the nature of Christ and destroyes not his humanitie Neither doth it destroy the nature of the Sacrament since they did beleeve that the bread changeth not its substance Whence also they worshipped not the Sacrament neither did fall into Idolatrie To be short it was an innocent error serving to augment and encrease the peoples respect and reverence to the holie Sacrament which for that cause they call terrible and wonderfull In the meane while we have in that a most evident proofe that these Fathers did not beleeve the Transubstantiation For as they beleeved not that by the union of Christs divinitie with his humanitie the human nature was transubstantiated or his bodie abolished so did not they beleeve that by this mysticall and divine union of the God-head of Christ with the bread the bread should be destroyed and turned into another substance By this doctrine the bread of the Eucharist is the body of Christ in two manners the one because of that mysticall union of the bread with Christ after the same sorte as Jesus Christ man is called the Son of God because of the personall union with the Sonne of God The other because this bread is the sacred signe and remembrance of Christs body as it is usual to give to the signes the name of that which they doe signifie For this second consideration they say that the bread of the Eucharist is the body which was borne of the Virgin and crucified for us For as touching the first Consideration it is certaine that this bread which they say is made Christs body by that mysticall union is another body of Christ than that which was crucified for us For to effect such a transmittation they interpose the Omnipotencie of God For it must bee a divine power for to cause that the bread remaining bread bee so straitly united to the Godhead of Christ as to become the body of Christ Now that these Fathers doe hold that this mysticall body of Christ is another body than that which was crucified for us though it be the same in signification we prooved it just now by a multitude of places of Fathers wherein they say that Christ hath two sorts of flesh and that we may very well eate of that flesh or mysticall body which is taken in the Sacrament but no manner of way eate the flesh that was crucified for us The first Father that ever made use of the personall union of the two natures of Christ for to shew how the bread is made the body of Christ not by Transubstantiation but by the mysterious union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread is Justin Martyr about the end of his second Apologie where he speaketh thus Wee doe not take these things as common bread but after the same manner as Christ our Saviour was incarnate and made flesh and blood for our salvation so we have beene taught that the meate whereon thankesgivings have been rendred by the prayer of the Word whereby our flesh is nourished by a By this transmutation hee understandeth the change of the bread which is made in the stóach for the nounishment of our bodies transmutation is the body and blood of Christ Jesus Now that Justin beleeved that this meate is bread stil and hath not lost its substance he sheweth it when hee saith that our bodies are fed with it And by that which he saith in that very place that the Deacons give to all them that are present to participate the bread and wine whereupon graces have beene said The Author likewise of the Catechesticall prayer attributed to Gregory of Nysse useth the same comparison b I shew this falsity in my book against Cardinall du Perron lib. 7. cap. 22. Namely in that he speaks of one Severus an Heritick which came above a hundred yeares after the death of this Gregory The body saith he was changed into a divine dignity by the inhabitation of the Word God With good reason then also now I beleeve that the bread sanctified by the word of God is changed into the body of God the Word If this comparison be good as the body of Christ was not transubstantiated by the inhabitation of the Godhead no more likewise is the bread transubstantiated by the consecration which is made at the Sacrament Hilary speaketh just so in the eighth Booke of the Trinity c Sivere Verbum caro factum est nos Verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus If the Word was truly made flesh and wee also in the meate of the Lord doe take the Word flesh Gratian in his second distinction of the Consecration d Can. hoc est Hoc est quod dicimus c. Si ut Christi persona constat ex Deo homine cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus sit homo alleadgeth a place of Austin drawne from the Sentences of Prosper in these words The Sacrifice of the Church is composed of two things to wit of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacriment hat is to say of the body of Christ after the same manner as Christs person is composed of God and man For Christ is very God and very man Ireneus hath an opinion by himselfe For he saith c Quomodo constabâ—t cis eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse Domini sui calicem sanguinem ejus si non ipsum fabricatoris muÌ„di filium dicunt .i. verbum ejus per quod lignuÌ„ fructâ—ficaâ— defluunt fontes dat terra primo quidâ—m foenum deinde spicas that the bread is the body of Christ because Christ is the Creator of all things esteeming that the whole world in respect of God is what the body
of man is to his Soule Which was the opinion and beleife of Plato of Cicero of Virgil and of all the Platonick Schoole that bore the sway in Ireneus his time Such was the beleife of the Author of the Booke of the Lords supper attributed to Saint Cyprian That Author speaketh thus f Panâ—s ste communis in carnem sangumem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adjutamsirmit as sensibil argumento edocta est visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum The common bread being changed into flesh and into blood bringeth â—ife and growth unto the body And therefore the infirmity of our flesh being helped by the accustomed effect is taught by a sensible proofe that in the visible Sacraments there is an effect of eternall life When he saith that the common bread is turned into flesh and into blood he doth not meane that it is turned into the flesh and blood of Christ but into our flesh and blood by disgestion for hee addeth that this bread nourisheth our bodyes and maketh them to grow and all the currant of the speech sheweth that But a little after hee addeth some wordes whereupon our Adversaries doe triumph and glory for lack of understanding what this Authors beleefe was * Panis queÌ„ Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur et latebat d vinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia The bread saith hee that the Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shew but in nature is made flesh by the omnipotency of the Word But in the words following he sheweth that this conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ is made not by Transubstantiation but by an union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread like unto the union of Christs divine nature with his humane nature For he added immediatly after And even as in â—he person of Christ his humanity was â—eene but his divinity was hidden so the * Panis itaque hic azymus cibus verus sincerus per speciem Sacramentum nos tactu sanctificat divine essence is infused in the visible Sacrament by an unspeakable manner There is nothing more expresse nor more contrary unto Transubstantiation For according to this Authors beleefe even as Christs divine nature did not transubstantiate his Manhood but made it to be the flesh of the Son of God So the divine Essence which he saith to be infused in the bread of the Sacrament maketh it to become Christs body without being Transubstantiated Wherefore a litlte after he saith that that which we receive in the Sacrament * Caro quae VerbuÌ„ Dei Patris assuÌ„psit in utero virginali n un tate suae personae et panis qui consecratur in Ecclesia unum corpus sunt Divinit atisenim plenitudo quae fuit in illa replet et istum paâ—em is unleavened bread which sanctifieth us by touching it acknowledging that it is bread still Bellarmin in the 15 chap. of his third Book of the Eucharist alleadgeth Saint Remigius that wrote about the yeare of our Lord 520 in these words a The flesh which the Word of God the Father tooke in the Virgins wombe in unity of person and the bread that is consecrated in the Church are one and the selfe-same body For the plenitude of the divinity which was in that flesh filleth also this bread Bellarmin addeth that Haimo held the same language and that Gelasius and Theodorets words that we have alleadged above may be fitted to this opinion The Author our Adversaries alleadge with more ostentation is Damascene whom they rank among the Saints This man may be tearmed the Lombard of the Grecians because he is the first among the Grecians that handled divinity in Philosophicall tearmes And is the first that wrote for the adoration of Images Now he did write about the yeare of our Lord 740. This man in his 4 Book of the Orthodox Faith chap. 14. extendeth himselfe upon this matter and will have the bread b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into the body of the Lord not by transubstantiation but by c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assumption and union with the divinity like unto the union of Christs divinity with his humanity Because saith hee d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is the custome to eate bread and to drink wine and water the Lord hath conjoyned his divinity to these things and hath made them to be his body and blood And a little after e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou inquirest in what manner that is done let it suffice thee to understand that it is done by the holy Spirit after the same manner as the Lord hath made himselfe to himselfe and in himselfe a flesh taken of the holy Mother of God by the holy Ghost And a little after he saith that the bread and wine c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the body of Christ Deified Chiefly he is very expresse in that he addeth d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bread of the Communion is not meere bread but it is conjoyned to the Divinity But still he acknowledgeth that it is bread saying the bread is the body of Christ and calling it the bread of the Communion And a little after The loaves of proposition did figurate this bread Item The broad is the first fruits of the future bread And a little after We partake all of one bread Only he hath this of particular to himselfe that he will not have the bread to bee called the figure of Christs body rejecting that kind of speech usuall and ordinary in the Fathers that have written afore him It appeareth likewise in that he will have the Sacrament to bee honored but not to be worshipped d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us saith he honor it with purity corporall and spiritual and will have it to be received with the hands set in forme of a Crosse For then it was not as yet the custom to chop it into the mouths of Communicants Rupertus was imbrued with the same opinion e Rupertus Tuitiensis in Exod. c. 12. Sicut Christus humanam naturaÌ„ nec mutavit nee destruxitysed assumpsit it a in Sacrameto nec destruit nec mutat sub stantiam panis et vini sèd assumit in unitatemcorporis et sâ—ngumis sui Even as Christ saith he did neither change nor destroy the humane nature but joyned himselfe unto it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe unto it in the unity of his body and blood For which cause also Bellarmin placeth him among the Impanators This doctrine doth no whit agree with the ubiquity For they did put this union of
in us hee must be eaten by the mouth of the bodie Christ by the same reason must eate us that we may dwell in him 11. Christ for to divert and turne away our mindes from carnall thoughts addeth in the 63 Verse The fâ—est profiteth nothing It is the Spirit that quickneth Since that by the spirit hee meaneth his Spirit whereby he regenerateth us by the flesh also he understandeth his human body Whereof he saith that it profiteth nothing to wit being taken after that manner as the Capernaites did imagine themselves What would it profit a man to have in his stomach the head and feet of Christ Jesus whether hee doe swallow him by peeces and parcels or doe swallow him whole For the absurditie is a like 12. Christ addeth The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life that is to say are spirituall and quickening They are not quickning but to them that understand them spiritually and that imagine not a carnall and corporall manducation So teacheth Saint Austin in his 27 Treatise upon Saint John Hee demandeth * Quid est spiritus vita sunt Responder Spirit aliter intelligenda sunt Intellexisti spiritaliter spiritus vâ—â—a sunt Int ellexisti carnalâ—ter â—tiam siâ— spiritus vâ—â—a sunt sed tibi non sunt What meaneth these words are spirit and life His answer is That they must be under stood spiritually Hast thou understood them spiritually They are spirit and life unto thee Hast thou understood them carnally In this manner they bee also spirit and life but not unto thee 13. And upon that the Capernaites and some of the Lords Disciples were scandelized and said that these words were an hard saying he saith unto them * Illi putabant cum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Cum videritis Fil um hominis ascendentem ubicral prius certe vel tune videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis crogat corpus suum Certe vel tunâ— intelligetis quta gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus What and if ye shall see then the Sonne of man ascend where he was before Which words Saint Austin in the same Treatise explaineth thus What meaneth that Thereby he resolveth that which had moved them They thought he would give them his body but he saith unto them that he would ascend up to heaven to wit whole and entire When ye have seene the sonne of man ascending where he was before certainely then at leâ—st shall ye see that he giveth not his body as ye thinke Then at the least shall ye understand that his grace is not consumed with biting CHAP. III. That the Romane Church by this doctrine depriveth the People of Salvation THat which grieves our Adversaries most in all this discourse of the â—ord is this clause of the 53 Verse Veâ—ily I say unto you Except ye eate the flesh â—f the sonne of man and drinke his blood â—e have no life in you For if by these words Christ doe speake of the partiâ—ipation of the Sacrament it followes that the People of the Roman Church whom they have deprived of the cup â—hall have no life and are lost eternally â—or they drinke not Christs blood To say as Bellarmin doth that the People â—akes the blood in the Hoste is to say â—ust nothing For Christ commandeth â—ot onely to take his blood but also commandeth to drinke it If he speaketh of the Sacrament hee commandeth men not onely to be partakers of his blood but also declareth the kind and manner how he will have them to participate thereof for to drinke is thâ— kinde and manner of participating thereof Briefly he commandeth to drinke But to eate a dry Hoste or wafer is noâ— to drinke That if to eate is to drinke the Priest drinketh twice in the Masse once in taking the Hoste and anotheâ— time in taking the Cup. Vnto which thâ— common sense contradicteth and Popâ—â— Innocent the third too in his fourt Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 21. Neither is the blood drunâ— saith he under the species of the bread nor the body eaten under the species of tâ—â— wine Here then our Adversaries do forge an absurd figure whereby to drinâ— signifieth to eate Everywhere else the doe distinguish eating from drinking but here they confound them as if thâ— were all one Indeede to eate and 〈◊〉 drinke taken in a spirituall sense signifieth one and the same thing Bâ—â— when the question is of the Sacramâ—â— of the Eucharist and of eating thâ— bread and drinking the Chalice tâ— eate and to drinke are different thing That if to eate the Hoste be to drink so to drinke the Cup shall be to eaâ—â— the Cup. And if drinking bee take figuratively why not also the word eating Here the truth is so strong that Vasquez the Jesuite sticks not to dispute with might and maine against Bellarmin who saith that the Lord commandeth only the perception of his blood but not the manner of participating therunto * Vasquez in III. partem Tomo 3. Disp 206 num 50. Hoc respoÌ„ sum mihi non proba tur quia verba Domini non tantum reseruntur ad rem sumpt am sed ad modum sumeÌ„ dâ—eam Nam manducare bibere si verba proprie usurpentur â—â—â—tois species cor venire non possunt neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bibâ— dicitur sicut neque corpus sub specie vini manducari ut optime notat Innocent III lib. 4. de Mysteriis Missae qu mvis sumâ— dicatur Christus autem praecipit ut bibamus I do not approve saith he of this answer because the words of the Lord have not only reference unto the thing that is taken but to the manner of taking it For to eate and to drink if the words be taken properly cannot agree with any species whatsoever For the blood is not said to be drunk under the species of the bread no more than the body is eaten under the species of the wino as Innocent the third observeth very well in his 4 Book chap. 21. And he addeth a thing very considerable to wit that from this answer of Bellarmin who will have this word drinking to bee taken improperly it will follow that in the whole chapter there shall not be a word spoken of the Cup. Salmeron another Iesuite is of the same opinion saying * Salmer Tom. 9. Tract 24. Quinon bibit non bibit sanguinam â—eet carneÌ„ et sanguine siâ—mat that he that drinketh not drinketh not the blood though he do take the flesh and blood But the same Jesuites that contest against their own fellows bring no better things themselves They say that when Christ said Except ye drink my blood yee have no life in you he bindeth the people to drink the Cup and that they drink it indeed in as much as the Priest drinketh for the people and representeth the
said before It is the spirit that quickneth Then he addeth The flesh profiteth nothing to wit for to vivifie And there againe h Quia sermo caro câ—at factus proinde m causam vitae appetendus devorâ—ndâ—s audau et â—uminandus intellectu et fide digerendus The word was made flesh and by consequent for to have life it must be desired and devoured by the eare and ruminated by the understanding and disgested by faith And a little after The Lord had a little afore declared that his flesh is the heavenly bread i Vrgens usquequaque per allegoriaÌ„ necessarioruÌ„ pabuloruÌ„ memoriam PaetruÌ„ c. urging altogether by allegory taken from necessary meates the remembrance of the Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus in his second Booke De Pedagogo Chapter 6. k Hee said eate my flesh and drinke my blood propoundiog by an allegoric the evidence of the faith and the drinke of the promise And a little after l Si secundum literam sequeris hoc ipsâ—ra quod â—â—â—â—um est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sangutaâ—â—â—â—um hoec litera occid t. Hee calleth the holy Spirit flesh by aâ—â—egory For the flesh was created by him and the blood signifies the Word Origene upon the Leviticus in the seventh Booke n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know that these things writen in the divine volumes are figures and understand them as spirituall and not as carnall For if you receive them as carnall they hurt you in stead of nourrishing you For in the Gospells there is a letter which killeth him that observes not the things that are spoken spiritually m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if thou takest according to the letter that which is said Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood that letter killeth The Commentary upon the Psalmes attributed to Saint Hierome upon the 44 Psalme n Quando dicâ—t Qui non manducaverit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem me um licet in mysterâ—o possit intel ligi tamen veriùs corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo Scripturarum est When the Lord saith He that eateth not my flesh c. though that may be understood in mysterie yet to speake more truely the body and blood of Christ is the word of the Scriptures and the heavenly doctrine And a little after o Corpus et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris fund tur The flesh and blood of Christ is powred into our eares It is true that some places may bee found in ancient Fathers that apply and fit the words of the sixth Chapter of Saint John to the Eucharist because the manducation of the Sacrament serves to helpe the spirituall manducation and there is some analogie betweene these two Adde moreover that we have proved already by a multitude of places of Ancient Fathers that when they say that in the Eucharist wee eate the flesh or the body of Christ they meane to speake of another flesh and another bodie than that which was crucified for us which is called Christs bodie because of the mysticall union of the bread with Christ and because the signes take the name of the things signified Vpon this the words of Pope Pius the second are notable in his 130 Epistle p Sed nec â—overi debetis quod nonnulli Doctores de communione Sacramentali loquentes ill amque populo suadentes Iohannis verba recipiunt Neque enim propterca illius loci vel talis verns est es proprius intellectus sed ex quadam similitudiâ—e consonantique ratione trahitur inde magis sensus quà m ducitur c. Yee must not wonder saith he if some Doctors speaking of the Sacramentall communion and counselling it unto the People doe imploy Saint John his words For it doth not follow from thence that it bee the true and proper sense of that place but by some resemblance and agreeable reason this sense is rather drawne than led And it is lawfull for the Doctors speaking after the manner of Orators to use sometimes figures and translations so that often times speaking of the signe they passe vnto the thing signified CHAP. VII Impiety of Salmeron the Jesuite and of Peter Charron And of Bellarmins foure men inclosed in one sute of clothes That by this doctrine Christ hath not a true body in the Sacrament Superstition and Atheisme are verie neere neighbours and the one leadeth unto the other For frantick superstition intangles the minde with extravagant conceits that expose Religion to laughter and make men to thinke that Religion is a shop of fables and a meere imagination Whence it comes to passe that those that take upon them to defend Superstition let goe very often certaine words of impietie whereby they profane the mysteries and scoffe at their owne Religion under colour of defending it Salmeron the Jesuite and Doctor Charron gives us an example thereof This Jesuite in the IX Tome and 26 Treatise for to represent the manner and the end for which Christ gives us his flesh to eate Sub finem Tractatus saith that Christ hath done as men doe who for to kindle and inflame a woman with love doe give her an amorous potion or morsell and that just so Christ in the Eucharist gives to his Church Panis bucellam sanctè benedictam incantatam a morsell of bread holily blessed and INCHANTED for to transport her with his love Charron hath followed him but with an addition that declares what are the ingredients of those philters or amorous potions to wit that there enters in them something of the substance of the Lover which substance is a thing not fit to be named In his eighth Discourse of the Eucharist after hee hath said that God comes downe in the forme of bread and wine and that to dance for to serue God is lesse strange then what is done in the Masse a little after he declares how Christ communitates himselfe unto men in the Eucharist to wit that he allures and intices them with a dainty and delicious bit Love saith he is so ingenious and inventive that for to win and allure the heart and will of others it hath found out a device to imploy inchanted morsels philters and amorous potious and to make them to be taken and drunke by those of whom one desires to bee loved in which morsells or potions enters some thing of the Lover or Suitor Thus it seemes that God for to draw and allure unto himselfe the heart and love of the Church would present a bit or potion made of his substance in this Sacrament the philter and amorous drinke of all Christians the dainty and delicious bit for to draw and allure them unto himselfe Doubtlesse this man jeasted and intended to make the world laugh for he could not expect that men should beleeve him I know not whither Bellarmin did mock or jeast Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar cap 7 〈◊〉 ad tertiuÌ„ Potest
massacre them as to those that went into Syria against the Sarasens for to reconquer Christs Sepulcher to whom he gave the remission of all their sins and a degree of glory above the ordinary as may bee seene in the Bull of Innocent the third placed at the end of the Councell of Lateran The Earle of Montfort having with him one Dominicke author of the Order of the Jacobins with an army of these crossed ones did massacre in a few moneths above two hundred thousand of them And for to strengthen and fortifie this abuse there was no speeche in those times but of miracles coyned of purpose tending to the worshipping of Images and establishing of the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist They gave out to the people that such an Image had sweated blood that another had nodded his head That a woodden Crucifix prickt in the side had cast blood This fable is recited by Fulgoslib 1. c. 6. And by Nauclerus Gener. 44 That to an Image of the Virgin Maries brought from Damascus breasts of flesh were grown upon the wood That in such a place the Host had appeared in the forme of a child and an Angell by it that did hacke him to peeces That an Hoste pricked by a Jew had gushed out blood and being cast into a great cauldron or kittle was turned into a man as is to be seene yet at this day in Paris represented upon the forefront or porche of the Church of the Billetes The life of Saint Anthonie of Padoua saith that he presented the consecrated Hoste to an Asse which presently left eating of his Oates and worshipped the Hoste a Albertu Krantzius Metropol lib. 1. ca. 9. Wedekindus a Saxon Prince saw a child thrust into the mouth of the Communicants b Paschasius Rathertus de corpore sangnine Domini c. 14. Guil. Mal. mesbur l. 3. cap 27. An Angell did present Christ in the Masse unto a Priest called Plegâ—ls in the shape or forme of a childe which he kissed and imbraced with great courage 〈◊〉 A little Jewish boy comming by chance into the Church as he was playing saw upon the Altar a little boy that was minced and cut into small peeces and thrust by small lumps into the mouths of the Communicants Thomas Cantipratensis in his second Booke of Miracles Chapter 40 saith that at Doway in the yeare 1260. the consecrated host being fallen to the ground rised up againe of it selfe and pearched it selfe upon the cloth wherewith the Priest did wipe his hands in the shape or forme of a fine little boy who instantly became a tall man having a crowne of thornes upon his head and two drops of blood running downe from his forehead on both sides of his nose Jodoeus Coccius collected about one hundred of such miracles Iodoeus Coccius Thesaur Tom. II. lib. 6. de Eucharistia For in Berengarius his time such miracles were very rise and frequent Matthew Paris an English Historian in the yeare of the Lord 1247 relates that the Templers of the holy land sent to Henry the third King of England a little Christall bottle full of the true blood of our Saviour Christ that he shed upon the Crosse which Cristall bottle that silly King carried upon his nose to Westminster Church in Procession a foot clothed with an old sleâ—velesse gowne Salmeron the Jesuite in the XI Tome and fifth Treatise page 35. saith that at Rome in the Church of Lateran there is some of Christs blood kept Item in the Church of Saint Maximin at Rome which Marie Magdalen gathered up at the foote of the Crosse There was also at Rochelle some kept as the same Jesuite saith in the same place Sigonius in his fourth Booke of the reigne of Italy * Forte saÌ„guinis ex imagine crucâ—fiâ—â— Salvatoris in syria effusi portio delata MaÌ„tuam fuerat c. Carolus Leonem Pontisicem per literas obsecravit ut accurate horum miraculâ—rum vâ—ritatem vellet explorare compertam sibi significare Ob id Leo Roma â—gâ—â—ssâ—s Mantuam venâ—t re cognâ—ta ad C roâ—tum ser psit saith that in the yeare 804. was brought out of Syria to Mantua a portion of the blood that ran out of the Image of a Crucifix which did many miracles And that the fame of it being come to Charles the Great he intreated by letters Pope Leo to enquire of the truth of the matter And that the said Pope having knowne and perceived the truth of the thing wrote to Charle-maine touching the same And in the eighth Booke in the yeare 1048. he saith that the inhabitants of Mantua having forgotten this blood and knowing no more what it was this blood beganne againe to doe miracles Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 76 question of the third Part of Thâ—mas * Art 8. saith that yet at this day there is in Spaine some of Christs blood kept in Reliques Thus the darknesse grew thicke and the mysterie of iniquity strengthened it selfe dayly more and more the kings having no knowledge at all of the holy Scripture and trembling under the Popes thunderbolts and excommunications and powring abundance of wealth and riches into the bosome of the Clergie for the easing of their soules after death And for a full measure of mischiefe new Orders of Mendicant Friers did spring up namely the Franciscans and Dominicans whereof Francis Assisias in Italy and Dominick Calarogensis in Spaine were the first Founders in the yeare of our Lord 1216. and 1223. An incredible multitude of these Monks were dilated and spâ—ead over all the regions of the Popes Empire who made use of them as of so many torches and trumpets for to provoke and encourage Princes to the persecution of the faithfull And it was the said Monks that hâ—ve coyned and forged the Schoole Divinity all bristled with pricks and twisted about with subtilties much like unto the Cray-fish in which there is much picking but little to eate It is from this Divinity that suttle distinctions are drawne wherewith they cover themselves against the truth Aâ—istotle is alleadged there a great deale oftner than the Apostle Saint Paul Thus it behooved the mysterie of iniquitie should advance it selfe At the birth of these begging Friers Innocent the third in the yeare 1215. called a Councell at Rome in the Lateran Church in which the word of Transubstantiation not as yet received by any definition in the Roman Church was established by an expresse Canon and authority of Councell CHAP. IX Of the Judgement which the Doctors of the Romane Church doe make touching the apparitions whereby a little Child or a morsell of flesh hath appeared at the Masse in the hands of the Priest and touching Christs blood that is kept in Reliques A Long time hath beene that if one had doubted that a childe or a pâ—â—ce of flâ—sh that had appeared in a Priâ—stâ— hand were not truely Christ and that Christs blood that was kept in
reliques was not truely his blood it would have beene an heresie deserving the fire and a manifest impiety The People did flock together for to worship this blood Therefore Guitmondus in his third booke of the Sacrament and Paschasius in his Booke of the body and blood of the Lord Chapter 14. and Iâ—docus Câ—câ—ius in his Collection of the places of the Fathers and many others doe make use of these miraculous apparitions for to prove Christs reall presence in the Eucharist Thomas Aquinas a Thom 3. part q. 76. Art 8. Tali apparitione facta eadem reverentia exhibetur eâ— quod apparet quae etiam primo exhibebatur quod quidem non sieret si vâ—re non esset ibi Christuâ— cu reverentiam latria exhibemus in the third part of his Summe question 76. Art 8. findes himselfe mightily pestred upon this point For though hee teacheth that that which appeareth thus miraculously ought to bee worshipped with the adoration of Latria as Christ and that Christ is there present yet withall hee esteemes that sometimes these apparitions are not true but onely in appearance especially when the same thing appeares but to some and not to all For which cause C jetan in his Annotations upon this place of Aâ—uinas departes from his opinion touching the Adoration b Cajetan in Notis Si quaeratur qua adoratione venerandus esset hujusmadi sanguis miraculosus dicendum â—dâ—m esse judicium de â—pso de veste Christi and will have this blood or flesh that appeares sometimes in the Massâ— to be worshiâ—ped not as Christ but as Christs garment which is an inferiour adoration But the Jesuite Vasquez goes more plainely to worke in his 193 Disput here bee his words c Vasquez in 76. q. tertiae par Thomae artic 8. Disp 193. cap. 2. Respondeo neque apparere carnem Christi neque alterius quae re vera caro sit sed carnis solum essigiem ut dixit S. Thomas c. Quod a. simplices decipiantur et credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili et cruento modo parum refert haec enim deceptio instructione vera Doctorum corrigenda est I answer that that which appeares is not the flesh of Christ nor of any other that bee truely flesh but that it is onely an effigies or appearance of flesh as Saint Thomas saith And as touching the simple that are deceived and beleeve that Christs flesh is there in a manner diâ—isible and bloody it matters not much For that deception ought to bee corrected by the true instruction of the Doctors Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor in his 51 Lesson upon the Canon of the d Potest fieri divina permissione illusione daemonis ad decipiendum incautos Masse goes further and saith that such appariritions of flesh and blood may bee done by illusion of the divell for to deceive the simple God permitting it thus And he brings an example of it To wit that in the Countrey of Thuringe in the City of Ysennae in a Convent of Minorite Friers e Apparuit quidam in specie Angell particulam apparenter porrigens Apparuit stultus ora sumens de manu porrigentis apparentem bostiae particulam et continuo à diabolo obsessus est et graviter vexatus a certaine man in the likenesse of an Angel appeared to a Lay Brother preparing himselfe to the communion who chopt into his mouth peece of flesh which so soone 〈◊〉 hee had swallowed he was posseâ—â—â—â— and grievously tormented by the devill And truely those that esteeme that Christ appeareth truely upon the Altar in the forme of a childe or of a peece of flesh and worship it are very much puzled For the Roman Church doth acknowledge but two sorts of Christs reall presence the one naturall and visible after which he conversed with his Disciples here on earth the other Sacramentall under the accidents of bread But when these things doe appeare yea if ever they doe appeare Christ is neither present in the one nor in the other manner For he appeares neither under his owne proper accidents nor under the accidents of the bread And it shall behoove one to beleeve that Christ is a child upon the Altar Or that a perfect man is under the accidents of a child That if it be onely a peece of flesh we aske whether this peece of flesh be whole Christ Or if it be but a part of his body whether this portion or peece of fl sh was taken out of the Arme or out of the Legge These things serve to make us to know how powerfull â—e seduction of Sathan hath beene and with â—ow much horrible darknesse he did envelope 〈◊〉 in the Ages wherin this monster of Transubstantiation was formed This latter age hath beene ashamed of it for now we see no more the People run to Mantua or to the Billettes Church at Paris for to worship the flesh and the blood of Christ that are there kept in reliques The French Pilgrimâ— passing by Mantua for to goe to Rome stay there no more They passe the Pyrenean Mountaines for to visit the supposed reliques of Saint James but doe not goe into those places of Spaine where Christs blood is kept That blood of Christ sent from Syria to King Henry the third of England whereof I have spoken in the former Chapter that putrified in a few dayes lost instantly its credit and there was no more speech of it CHAP. X. OF the corruption of the Papall Sea in the Ages wherein this errour was most advanced IN the Eighth and Ninth Ages were cast the first foundations of Transubstantiation neverthelesse it was not yet then establish d by Lawes and I cannot finde that ever any man was molested for that subj ct But in the Tenth and Eleventh Ages the Popes laboured to hatch that monster and to establish it with authoritie But God branded these two ages with infamous blemishes and disgraces For as vices agree well with errors the Popes of those times led such an infamous life that hardly the like is to be found in all Pagan histories and that Chaire was filled with horrible confusions Since Pope Formosus who in the yeare 890. attained to the Popedome by violating the oath hee had taken never to accept of it and whose dead body was dragged ignominiously up and downe the City of Rome and cast into the Tiber by his Successors For the space of a hundred and fifty yeares yea of two hundred yeares we see nothing in histories but of Popes murtherers Popes Adulterers necromanticall Popes perjured Popes Popes intruded by force or by money creatures of the Earles of Toscane that werer then powerfull in Italie and of the harlot Theodora and of her daughters Marozia and Theodora that reigned a long time in Rome and made and unmade Popes at their pleasure Of which time the Carmelite Frier Author of Fasciulus Temporum makes this lamentation f Heu heu