the Councell of Constance Sess XV. Artic. 19. Dixerant se audivisse quod Iohannes Hus dixisset quod indulgentiae Papae â—ipâ—scopi noÌ„ valent nisi Deus indulgeat in the fifteenth Session To whom also they did impute things farre from his beleefe Some witnesses presented themselves that testified they had heard him say That the Pardons of the Pope and of the Bishop are nothing worth unlesse God doe forgive That was one of the crimes for which he was burned For that venerable Councell hath judged that the Pope may forgive sinnes whether God will or no and that Gods consent is not necessarily required for to make that the Popes and Bishops Indulgences be of force and validity This newes of John Huz his death and of Hierome of Prague brought into Bohemia did pierce the heart of the Bohemians that were called Hussites with exceeding griefe Histor Bohemicae cap. 56. The King seeing their number encrease dayly more and more granted them Churches in Prague for their meetings Aeneas Sylvius saith that the people mooved with anger pulled downe some Monasteries and Churches both within and without the City Namely neere Tabor where thirty thousand persons did celebrate in the middest of a field the holy Communion under both kindes The King Wencestaus being dead the Kingdome of Bohemia fell to Sigismund his brother Emperor and King of Hungaria Whereupon great feare did seise the people of Bohemia because of his great power and that against his oath and violating the safe conduct he had given to John Hux and to Hierome of Prague he caused them to be burned at Constance But a Bohemian Gentleman called Zisca that had lost an eye in the warres a man incomparable for vigour of body and minde exhorted them not to be disscouraged And it fell out at the same time that Sigismund under tooke warre against the Turke in Hungaria with an indifferent bad successe That gave leasure to the people order their businesses The Queene widdow to Wenceslaus levied some troopes for to fall upon this people and hinder their encreasing Sigismund sent Lievtenants to governe the Country and set things into good order againe in whose hands Zisca did surrender and remit Pelzina and Plesta Cap. 39. and other places whereof he had gotten possession For his desire was to obey the Emperour and he sought all meanes to give him content But there came Letters from the Emperour whereby he did declare that his will and pleasure was that the Churches granted to the Bohemians called Hussites should bee taken from them and their Religion interdicted And they had good advice that Sigismonds intention was to destroy them Whereat the People being afraid looked for nothing but for a totall ruine and their enemies being become more vigorous beganne to oppresse them Which things moved Zisca to take Armes and thinke upon his defence With a few forces bee obtained many victories against the Queene having none but foote forces of small experience and little exercised in warre Then came Sigismond into Bohemia with a mighty Armie resolved to destroy this people Besieged Prague wherein Zisea was who in many sallies defeated the most part of Sigismonds armie made him raise the Siege and tooke many townes by the verie terrour of his name As hee was besieging Vissegrad the Emperour came at unawares for to make him raise the siege having with him thirtie thousand Horse and all the Nobility of Mordvia But Zisea defeated him and obtained upon him a great victorie And a little after Sigismond having for the third time prepared a mightie Armie lost a third Battell by which he was constrained to leave Bohemia full of shame and confusion A little after Zisea besieging a towne Cap. 44. received a shot of an arrow in the eye so that of blinde of an eye as hee was hee became blinde of both But that hindred him not from leading and conducting his troopes and giving many combates being victorious every where But the Emperour being irritated and angrie came backe againe into Bohemia bringing along with him two powerfull Armies the one out of Germanie and the other out of Hungaria which like an overflowing torrent overwhelmed all Bohemia Tooke some townes and made great ravage But Zisea though blinde and having but a few men drew directly towards the Emperours Armie and defeated him with a great defeat tooke Bag and Baggage and all things belonging to the Armie and pursued him a whole dayes Journey Pio a Florentine had brought out of Hungaria fifteene thousand horse who passing upon a frozen River for to save themselves the Ice breaking under them were all drowned in the River Furthermore Zisca with his victorious Armie went out of Bohemia and entred into Moravia and passed into Austria and came to succour the faithfull that were oppressed there To him did adjoyne himselfe a Moravian gentleman named Procopius exceeding valiant and an imitator of the vertue of Zisea who caused the Emperour Sigismund to raise the siege before Juâ—emberg in Moravia which he had besieged A great Battell was given betweene Zisea and the Emperours troupes neare Ausck upon the River of Elbe where a great quantity of the Germane Centry were killed on the Emperours side Who pulled downe and confounded with so many losses resolved at last to seeke after Zisca his love and friendship promising him the Generall Lievetenancy of the whole Kingdome and all kinde of Advantages Zisea gave eare thereunto and took his journey for to goe meet the Emperour but hee fell sicke by the way and dyed being very old and blinde Aeneas Sylvius saith that when hee was a dying he gave counsell to his people to make a Drumme of his skinne after his death Cap. 46. assuring them that at the sound of that Drumme his enemies would flie away Zisea being dead Procopius succeeded him in the conduct of a part of the troopes against whom Pope Martin the fifth set all Germanic in Armes and sent into Bohemia three mighty Armies commanded by the Dukes of Saxe the Marquesse of Brandenbourg and the Arch-Bishop of Trivers These three Armies joyned themselves together But so soone as the Bohemians did appeare such terrour and feare seised upon the Imperiall Armies that they presently fled without staying for the enemie forsaking all their baggage and munitions of warre But the Cardinal Julian sent by the Pope stirred up the Emperour Sigismond to make a greater effort than any of the former Aeneas Sylvius saith there was in his Armie forty thousand Horse besides the Foot This Cardinall entred into Bohemia where hee committed many unheard off cruelties killing both women and children But at the very first noyse and rumour that came of the Bohemians approach such a terrible feare tooke this huge Armie that every one threw his armes downe for to fly away more nimbly and left their carriage and munitions of warre to the enemy The Cardinall having escaped this danger came to Basile for to preside at the Councell that the Pope Eugenius the fourth had assembled there in the yeare of our Lord 1431. Now we have made this recitall not for to approve Zisea his actions nor the commotions of peoples taking armes against their Sovaraigne for to avoide persecution and Martyrdom For the truth of the Gospell is not established by these meanes Christ Jesus calleth us to beare the crosse after him The blood of Martyrs hath more efficacy for to encrease the Church and spread the doctrin of the Gospell than Battels But I have represented this history for to be an example of Gods justice punishing the disloyalty of Sigismond who against his faith and promise burned alive two faithfull Martyrs God having made use of weake and contemptible persons for to make him lose above two hundred thousand men and cover him with shame and confusion CHAP. XII The Confession of Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople now living touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist THis Prelate in the seventeenth Article of his Confession altogether conformable to the Doctrine of our Churches after he hath recited the Institution of the holy Supper as it is found in the Gospell addeth That is the simple true and lawfull Institution of this admirable Sacrament in the administration whereof wee doe confesse and beleeve the true and firme presence of the Lord Christ Jesus Yet that presence which faith offereth and makes present unto us but not that which Transubstantiation vainely invented doth teach For wee beleeve that the faithfull in the holy Supper doe eate the body of Christ Jesus our Lord not incrushing and breaking it sensibly and destroying it with our teeth in the participation But in partaking thereof by the sense of the soule For the body of Christ is not that which is taken and seene in the Sacrament with the eyes but that which Faith having taken spiritually makes it present and communicates it unto us Therefore it is 〈◊〉 that we eate it and are made partakers of it if we doe beleeve But if we beleeve not we fall away from all the benefit of the Sacrament By the same reason we beleeve that to drinke the Cup in the Sacrament is to drinke indeed the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ after the same manner as hath been said concerning the body For the Law-giver made the same commandement touching his blood as he did touching his body Which precept must not be mutilated according to every ones fancie and humour But the tradition that hath beene prescribed unto us must be kept sound and entire When therefore in the Sacrament wee have partaked worthily and communicated intirely with the body and blood of Christ we make this profession that we are already reconciled and united to our head and made one and the selfe same body with a firme hope that wee shall be his coheires in his Kingdome Here is the Originall in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS
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
is no consecration THis change and so horrible a depravation of the institution of the Lord hath wholy abolished the nature of the Sacrament For Sacraments are sacred signes Not onely the Ancient but also all the Doctors of the Roman Church doe define the Sacrament after that manner saying that Sacramentum est sacrum signum So in Baptisme water is the signe and Christs blood is the thing signified And in the holy Supper the bread and the wine are the signes but the body and blood of Christ are the things signified Even therefore as if the water were taken away from Baptisme it would be no more a Sacrament nor Baptisme so the Eucharist in the Roman Church is no more a Sacrament since the signes to wit the bread and wine are abolished in stead of which they put Christs naturall body and blood which they call the Sacrament Wherefore the Councell of Trent ordaineth that the Sacrament be worshipped Ses XIII chap. 5. By this meanes Christ in the Masse is the figure and the signe of himselfe Bellav lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 24 Christus sui ipsus sigura fuit as Bellarmine with the rest teacheth as if one should say that a man is the picture of himselfe Moreover the Sacraments are not instituted for to make Christ come downe to us but to lift up our hearts to him Nor for to eate Christ with our teeth but to feed our soules and strengthen our faith Againe by Transubstantiation the consecration of the Sacrament is destroyed and there is nothing in the Masse that is consecrated The bread is not consecrated for they hold that the bread is no more bread Christs body is not consecrated for Christ cannot be consecrated by men Neither can the accidents of bread and wine be consecrated For lines colours and taste are not the offering which is pretended to be offered unto God Therefore there being nothing consecrated there is no consecration and there being no consecration there is no Sacrament CHAP. IV. That by altering the Lords Institution the Romane Church hath changed the nature of Christ THis change is gone so farre that Christs humane nature by Transubstantiation is wholy destroyed and abolished For the Scripture speaking of Christs humane nature saith that he is like unto us in all things Heb. 2.17 c. 4.15 sinne excepted But the Roman Church gives unto Christ a body that is nothing like ours Whence followeth that he is no more our brother so that all the glory of the faithfull which consisteth in haveing a brother who is the eternall Sonne of God is altogether abolished For the Church of Rome forgeth unto Christ a body which is in many severall places at one and the same time which is in Heaven and upon severall Altars but not in the space that is between From whence followeth that Christs body is separated from it selfe and farre from it selfe and higher and ower than it selfe There is no lesse aburdity in willing that an humane body â—e at the same time in severall remote places than to will that a man in one and the selfe same moment be in two severall yeares and so be young and old at once and out-live himselfe The same doctrine giveth unto Christ an humane body which is whole in every crumme of the Hoste and hath his head and his feet in one and the selfe same place and both his eies under one point Can a man say that a body whose parts are not one out of the other and differ not in situation and which taketh and filleth no place and is more spirituall than the very spirits themselves is a true humane body And for that cause the priests of the Romane Church shave or keep short the beard of their upper lips For that Church beleeveth that if a Priest should dip his mustachoe in the chalice the whole body of Christ would remaine hang'd at every haire thereof The same doctrine forgeth unto Christ two bodies of a contrary nature and unto which are attributed contradictory things For the body of Christ which was at the table celebrating the Eucharist did speake and stirre his hands But he that was in the mouthes and stomaâ—â— of the Apostles neither spake not stiâ—â— his hands The soule of Christ as he at the table was in anguish but tâ—â— which was in the Apostles mouth suâ—â—red no griefe Christ after he was riâ—â— from the table entred into the gardâ—â— did sweat great drops of blood but that was in the Apostles stomacks did 〈◊〉 sweat drops of blood Which of thâ— two is our Saviours Or if it be the sat Christ how is he contrary to himselfe Furthermore by this doctrine 〈◊〉 whole history of Christs life is madeâ—â— diculous and turn'd into a fable Fâ—â— if Christs body may be in severall remoâ—â— places at once it may be said that whilâ—â— he was in the Virgins wombe peradventure he was in other wombes And thâ— whilst he was upon the Crosse he walked in Spaine From thence also followeth that all the journies that Chrisâ— made to and fro going and comminâ— from Galilea to Judea were to no purpose For why did he goe from Galilea to Judea if he might be in both places at one the same time and be found it Judea without budging from Galilea What say they is not God omnipotent for to doe this I answer that God without question could doe all these things if he would But I say It is impossible that God should will such things For he is no lyar and cannot contradict himselfe But it were to contradict himselfe if he would that at one and the same time a man should speake and not speake stirre and not stirre suffer and not suffer and be farre and remote and divided from himselfe He will have Christs body to be a true humane body God will not have a thing so absurd and contradictory wherby they will that in the Hoste there be accidents without a subject Innoc. III. lib. 4. de myster Missa cap. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quaâ—â— and as Pope Innocent the third teacheth that there be in the hoste greatnesse and nothing great color and nothing coloured As if one should suppose an ecclipse of the Sunne without a Sunne a halting of a legge and no legge a sicknesse without a sick-man Besides the omnipotencie of God is not the rule of our faith but his Will By that meanes a man might maintaine all the fables of the Alcoran saying that God is powerfull so to doe Joyne to this that God doth nothing but wisely Therefore he will never have Christ to be subject to sinnefull men now that he is glorified and be exposed to 〈◊〉 disgraces and ignominie which thâ— make him suffer every day whereof shâ—â— be spoken hereafter CHAP. V. Of Maldonats audaciousnesse 〈◊〉 giving Saint Paul and Saiâ— Luke the lye and
taking it figuratively For the body of Christ was not dead when he did institute this Sacrament But it is very true in the sense that we take it to wit that the bread which he did breake and give to his Disciples was the figure or remembrance of his body dead for us For we have shewed already that in the holy Supper Christs body is presented to our faith not as glorious and spirituall but as broken and dying and dead for us This is confirmed in that in the Evangelists this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth body is in most places taken for a dead body As in the 17 of Saint Luke Verse 37. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wheresoever the body is thither will the Engles be gâ—thered together †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Mâ—tthew 27.52 * Many bodyes of Saints which slept arose And Mark 14.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to annoint the body For the proper word in Greek for to signifie a dead body is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T is true that in the Syriack Testament the word Peger is taken sometimes for a living body But it is not credible that Christ tooke this word in an other sense than it is taken in the Old Testament where it signifieth alwayes a dead bodie Neither is it to be omitted that Saint Paul cals oftentimes the Church Christs body Ephes 1.23 and Chapter 5.23 If then from these words This is my body they will inferre that the bread is transubstantiated into Christs body by the like reason when the Scripture saith that the Church is the body of Christ it may bee inferred that the Church is transubstantiated into Christs bodie CHAP. XII That our Adversaries to avoide a cleare and naturall figure forge a multitude of harsh and unusuaall ones and speake but in figurative tearmes And of Berengarius his confession OVr Adversaries who make a shew to be enemies to Figures forge neverthelesse a great number of absurd and violent figures and turne all into figures When Christ saith This is my body by This they understand an individuum Vagum or that which is under these species without determining any thing Others interprete the word IS by shall be or shall become For they say that the Transubstantiation is not made or effected till the words be pronounced When the Evangelists say that the Lord gave bread by this word bread they understand flesh And wee have heard them confesse that these word This cup is the New Testament in my bloeâ— are figurative By their doctrine which puts 〈◊〉 body into the cup Christ giving 〈◊〉 cup might have said This is my body and had spoken truely if wee beleeâ— them Christ called that which he dranâ— in the Eucharist the fruit of the Viâ—â— But our Adversaries by the fruit 〈◊〉 the Vine will have the blood to be understood By these words Doe this they understand Sacrifice me but the words following Doe this in remembrance of 〈◊〉 doe refute that interpretation For it 〈◊〉 impossible to Sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Wee shall see anone that when iâ— the 6 of Saint John Verse 53. Chriâ—â— saith Except yee drinke my blood yee haâ—â— no life in you our adversaries least thâ—â— should be accused of taking the liâ—â— from the Lay people in depriving theâ— of the cup by the word drinking they understand eating And that wheâ— Christ saith I leave the World and am 〈◊〉 more in the world they add this taile to it to wit by my visible presence We have seene before that the Apostle saith foure several times that in the Lords Supper we breake bread and eate bread To shun the force of these words they wrest them into figures saying that it is not bread that we eate But that figuratively Christs body is called bread because it seemes to be so Which thing they know to be false for Christs body never seemed to be bread Item they say that it is called bread because it was bread before the consecration Which also is false For the Lords body was never bread To such figures Rhethorick affords no name They bring indeed for example Moses Rod which is still called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent and the water of the wedding of Cana Iohn 2. which is still called water after it was turned into wine Which are examples making against them For of that rod it is expressly said that it was turned into a Serpent Exod. 4.3 And of that water it is said in expresse termes that it was turned into wine John 2.9 But of the bread of the holy Supper it is not said that it was converted into flesh Of this Serpent one might have truly said that it was once a rod and of this wine that it was once water because it was the same matter clothed with another forme But of Christs body it cannot be sayd truely that ever it was bread The matter or substance of the body of Christ is not the matter of the bread For Christs body is not made of bread and was never bread Others say that the Apostle saith not When ye eate bread but when ye eate of this bread understanding by the pronoune This a spirituall and heavenly bread But they consider not that the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians Chapter 10 saith not THIS BREAD but the bread that we breake And Saint Luke in the 20 of the Acts 7 Verse The Disciples came together to break bread There their Philosophy fayles them They must also learne that when the Scripture taketh this word Bread in a spirituall sense it is never opposed to the cup because that when the question is of a spirituall foode to eate and to drinke are but one and the same thing But Saint Paul opposeth this bread to that cup saying Let every man eate of this bread and drinke of this â—up That if any one consider exactly all the termes which our Adversaries use in this matter hee shall perceive that they be unintelligible figures They say that the Priest breaketh the hoste and that this hoste is the body of Christ which neverthelesse cannot be broken They say they lift up God but God cannot be lifted up They say the consecrated hoste is round And that Christs body is in the consecrated hoste Whence will follow in good Logick that the body of Christ is round Which neverthelesse they doe not beleeve They grant both propositions and deny the conclusion Which is against common sense And when they speake of drinking the cup by drinking they understand a swallowing downe of flesh and bones and the Soule of Christ with his Divinity This confession of Berengarius is to be found in the 2 Distinction of the Consecration at the CanoÌ„ Ego Berengarius The Roman Councell under Nieholas the second prescribed to Berengarius a forme of abjuration of his doctrine in the most exquisite and formall tearmes that ever they could devise These tearmes are
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