part of Thomas Tome III. in the Dispute 196 chap. 4. * Ego existimo verba illa Non bibam c. Christunâ— dixisse de calice sanâ— guinis sui I thinke Christ said these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine of the chalice of his blood and proveth his saying by the Fathers CHAP. VI. How much Christ is dishonoured by this Doctrine And of the character indelible And of the power of creating ones Creator THe very cauteles of the Masse doe sufficiently discover the abuse and maketh every man that loveth Christ shake with horror At the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree are added many penitentiall Canons whereof the nine and thirtieth is such * Quando mus corrodit aut comedit corpus Christi When a mouse eateth or gnaweth the body of Christ for the penance in this case lookâ— for the second distinction of the Consecration towards the end In the new mass-Masse-Booke reviewed and amended by the Popes authority there is in the beginning a treatise of the defects that happen in the Masse where these rules are found in the third chapter †De defectibus circa Massam occu◠étibus cap. 3. §. 7. Si host a consecrata dispareat vâ—â— casie aliquo ut venlo aut miraculo velab liquo aâ—â—mali accepta acqueat repeâ—eri tunc alterra consecretur ab â—o loco incipiendo Quâ— pridie c. If the consecrated hoste vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the winde or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated beginning again about the place of the Masse Qui pridie c. And in the tenth chapter * Cap. 10. Si musca vel aranea cecîderit in calicem non fuerit Sacerdoti nausea nee ullum periculum â—â—meat sumat cum sanguâ—ne If a Flye or Spider fall into the chalice and that the Priests Stomack rise not against and feare not any danger thereby let him swallow the Flye or Spider with the blood And in the same Chapter †Cap. 10. § 11. Si in hieme congelatâ—â— sanguis in calice involvatur calix pannis calefactâ—s If in winter the blood doe freeze in the chalice let the chalice be wrapped up in hoâ— clothes Note these words If the blood doe freeze Whilest Christ is full of glory in heaven they thaw him here upon earth Let them tell us what body or what substance is frozen in the chalice For all Ice is a body But above all is to be noted that which is found in the same Chapter * Cap. 10. §. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam si species integrae appareant reverenter sumantur nisi nausea siat Tunc enim species consecratae caute separentur in loto sacro reponantur If the Priest vomit up the Eucharist and that the species appeare whole they must be chewd againe with reverence unlesse the stomack should loath them For then the consecrated species must bee carefully severed and put into a sacred place and after that be cast into the reliquary or shrine wherein reliques are kept Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 16 moveth a very important question He asketh that if a flux or loosenesse takes a Priest that hath nothing in his stomack but consecrated hostes what is the matter that comes out of his body Of which difficulty the Pope rids himselfe wisely saying with the Apostle Be not wiser than it behooveth but bee wise unto sobriety By these things it appeareth that God stirred up with anger against men that have rejected his word hath strucken them with giddines For who would ever have thought that Christian men would have come to that point as to worship a God which may bee stolne or carried away with the winde so that one may say God is lost A God that may be gnawed by mice and devoured by brute beasts A God that is wrapped in the middest of vomiting and spuing and that must be eaten and chewed againe A God who being fallen downe cannot rise up againe Of whom their Doctors * Vasquez in 3 partem Thamae Tomo 3. â—â—sp 191. cap. 3. Neque agere neque pati poâ—est corpus Christi prout est in hoc Sacramento corpoâ—ea actione neque passione say that under the hoste he cannot open his eyes nor stirre his hands and that he is neither lieing sitting nor standing Our Adversaries doe answer that when Mice have gnawed or carryed away the consecrated hoste or that a beaste hath devoured it Christ suffereth no paine nor hurt thereby But they cannot deny but that Christ there by is exposed to laughter and suffers a greater ignominie than that of the Crosse To be eaten by beasts and vomited up and wrapped among vomiting and spuing is a thing more shamefull than to be crucified The Turks and Pagans will say Is that the God of the Christians that could not defend himselfe against Mice and which is devoured by Dogs Certain it is that God would never make the glorious body of his Son to be subject to so many ignominies without it were very beneficiall and usefull unto the Church And yet our Adversaries cannot tell us what good it doth to our Salvation that Christ should be thus carried away by a mouse or devoured by brute beasts Cardinal Tolet the Jesuit in the second Booke of the Institution of Priests chapter 25. saith †Potest consecrare Sacerdos multos cophinos panis vini dolium The Priests can consecrate many baskets of bread and a Tunne of wine If he can consecrate one Tun he may also consecrate two yea tenne or twentie and so may turne into blood all the Wine of a Market Whereupon t is necessary to know that the Church of Rome holdeth that by conferring of the order of Priesthood an Indelible character is engraven into the Soule of the Priest So that the Pope himselfe cannot blot it out And that a Priest degraded for Heresie or other crime may consecrate and transubstantiate bread into flesh and wine into blood by vertue of that character remaining in him though the function of his office be interdicted unto him By that meanes a Priest that hath forsaken the Roman Religion yea a Priest * Vasquez Tomo Ill. in 3. parteÌ„ Thomae Disp 171. Cap. 3. Cum constet Sacerdoâ—bus coÌ„missam fuisse potestatem consecrandi ita ut licet consecrare velit in malum usum nempe pro veneficijs incantationibus consceratio corum effectum haberet Sorcerer and Magician may transubstantiate whole tuns of wine into blood and make Christs blood to be carried up and downe in pints and bottles over al the taverns tipling houses of a town which is truly to make Christ the sport of Magicians and drunkards and expose him to great ignominy By the same doctrine Christ is in
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
the things signified That this is the sense and meaning of the Fathers when they speak thus appeareth in that they call also the Eucharist Christs death As Cyprian in his 63 Epistle * Passlo est Domiâ— sacrâ—fiâ—um quod offeâ—imus The Lords Passion is the Sacrifice wee do offer And Chrysostome in the 21 Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whilest this death is a perfeciting and this dreadfull Sacrifice and these ineffable mysteries And so the Canon Hoc est in the 2 Distinâ—tion of the Consecration b Vocatur ipsa immolatio câ—â—nâ—s quae Sacerâ—dotâ—s manibus sit Chrâ—sti passio mâ—rs crucafixio non râ—â— veritate sed significante mysterio The immolation of Christs flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ not according to the truth but by a significant mystery Austin in his 23 Epistle to Bonifacius Was not Christ once sacrificed in himselfe and yet hee is sacrificed to the People in a sacred signe And in his 10 Book of the City of God chap 5. c Sacrificium visibile invisibilis Sacrificâ—i Sacramentumid est sacrum signâ—m The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament that is to say a sacred signe of the invisible Sacrifice And a little after * Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur SacrificiuÌ„ est signum veri sacrificii That which men do call Sacrifice is a signe of the rue Sacr fice Note that he saith that men do call it a Sacrifice acknowledging tacitely the holy Scripture doth not call it so Wee have then in these places of S. Austin a cleare exposicion of this place wherein he calleth the Eucharist the Sacrifice of our price The sixth Book of Apostolicall Constitutions of Clemens chap. 23 a Pro sacrificio crueÌ„to rationale incruentum ac mysticum sacrificium instituit quod in mortem Domini per symbola corporis et sangumis sui celebratur The Lord instead of a bloody Sacâ—â—fice hath instituted a reasonable and unbloody and mysticall Sacrifice which is celebrated in consideration of the Lords death by the signes of his body and blood In the 4. Book of Sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose chap. 5. wee have these words of the ancient Service b Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabile acceptabilem quod est sigura corporis sanguinis Domini Grant that this oblation be imputed unto us as reasonable acceptable which is the FIGVRE of the body and blood of the Lord. The succeeding ages have razed out the word Figure Procopius Gazaeus upon the 49. chap. of Genesis Christ gave to his Disciples the Image or Figure and Type of his body and blood receiving no more the bloody Sacrifices of the Law Eusebius in the 10 chapter of his first Book of the Evangelicall Demonstration a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord having offered a Sacrifice and an excellent victime unto his Father for the salvation of us all hath appointed us to offer continually the remembrance of it instead of a Sacrifice And in the same place b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee have received the remembrance of this Sacrifice for to celebrate it at his own table by the signes of his Body and Blood according to the institution of the New Testament In a word the Fathers are full of such places Wherefore in the Eucharist they put no difference between the Sacrament and the Sacrifice But to speak properly there is such difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament as between giving and receiving For in a Sacrifice we offer unto God but in a Sacrament we receive from God The Fathers do not make this distinction For by reason the Sacrament is a signe and a figure of the Sacrifice they call the Sacrament a Sacrifice This kind of speaking to call the Lords Supper a Sacrifice had its beginning from the offerings and gifts which in old time the people offered upon the sacred table afore the Communion which gifts were commonly called Sacrifices and Oblations Cyprian in his Sermon of Almes a Locuples Dives Dominicum celebrare te credis quae sorbonum non respuis quae in DominicuÌ„ sine sacrificio venis quae partâ—m de sacrificio quod pauper obâ—ulit sumis chides a rich woman that had brought no Sacrifice and yet took her part of the Sacrifices the poor had brought And in the 21 Distinction at the Canon Cleros b Hypod acon oblatioues in â—eplo Domini 〈◊〉 sideâ—bus susâ—â—pâ—â—nt Lâ—vitis superponâ— das altari buâ—dâ—serat Let the Subdeacons in the Lords Temple receive the Oblations of the Faithfull and carry them to the Levites that they may put them upon the Altars Which manner of speech remaines yet at this day in the Masse wherein the Priest before the CoÌ„secration saith Receive Lord thiâ— immaculate Host c. as is acknowledged by Bellarmin in his first Book of the Masse ch 27. And he prooves it by Ireâ—eus who in the 4 Book chap. 32. saith we offer unto God a Sacrifice of his creatures that is to say bread and wine And that even before the Consecration In that therefore the Fathers have said nothing but what is agreeable conformable unto the Faith Yet neverthelesse the abuse that hath followed thereon a longtime after is unto us an excellent example that the safest way is to cleave to the Apostles language and not to depart from the stile of the holy Scripture THE SECOND BOOK OF The Manducation of the Bodie of Christ CHAP. I. Of two sorts of manducation of Christs flesh to wit Spirituall and Corporall and which is the best MEtaphors are similies contracted and reduced to a word So wee say feeding for teaching and to flourish for to be in prosperity and we call Pride a swelling and truth a light We say of a childes tongue that it is untied and of his wit that it is displayed These Metaphors besides the ornament have some utility For they propose an Image of the things whereof wee speake and make them more intelligible by a tacite comparison Specially it is a thing very usuall and frequent to expresse the functions and qualities of the soule by tearmes borrowed from the actions and corporall qualities So we say that Envy fretteth that love burneth that Covetousnesse is a thirst of money and that hope is a tickling or soothing The holy Scripture is full of such manner of speeches wherein nothing is more frequent than to speake of good instructions as of meats and drinks and of the Graces of God as of a water that quensheth the thirst and of the desire of these graces as of a hunger and thirst So in the 9 of Proverbes the supreame Wisedome saith Come eate of my bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled And David in the 36 Psalme saith God makes us drink in the river of his pleasures
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
far as to be able to make God with words and to have Christ in their own power This abuse beginning to creepe in France King Charles the Bald about the yeere 870 made a commandement unto one Bertram a Priest and as learned a man as these times did affoord to compose and write a Book of this matter which Book we have yet whole and â—xtant at this day wherein hee maintaines the true doctrine and withstands stoutly and vigourously that opinion of the reall presence of the body of Christ under the species of the bread For of Transubstantiation there was yet no speech of it For which cause also Bellarmin in his first Book of tee Sacrament of the Eucharist first chap. puts this Bertram amongst the Hereticks Who not withstanding in his time lived with honor and was neither troubled nor received any rebuke or reprehension upon this subject Of the same opinion were Iohn Scotus and Drutmarus and others of the same time And I make no doubt but many others with them have defended the same cause in writing But the following ages in which error prevailed have abolished their writings and it is marvel how this Book of Bertram could escape thus The tenth and eleventh Ages are the Ages wherein this error did strengthen it selfe most in which neverthelesse God left not himselfe without testimony For Bruno Bishop of Angiers and after him but more vigorously Berengarius his Arch-Deacon taught and maintained openly that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were not the body of Christ but the figure and remembrance of it * Sigebert ad annum 1051. This Berangarius began to shew himselfe about the yeare of our Lord 1050. Against whom Pope Victorius 2. caused a Councel to be gathered at Tours about the yeare 1055 and foure yeeres after Nicholas II. cited him to Rome to the Councel assembled for that effect where Berengarius was forced to condemn his own doctrine submit himself to the Popes wil. By the reading of that Councel it appeares that â—here were in it many others of the same opinion of Berengarius And Leo * Leo Hostiensis Chrâ— Cassinensi li. 3. c. 35. E que cum nullus valeret resistere Alberiâ—us â—deÌ„ evoâ—ntur Hostiensis recordeth that none of those that were there present could resist Berengarius The forme of the abjuration prescribed unto him is to be found in the Collections of the Decrees made by Ivo Carnutensis and by Gratian which forme is set down in absurde tearmes and which the Church of Rome her selfe beleeves not For they make him say a Can. Ego Berengar Dist 2. de consecr that the bread is the true body of Christ and that Christs body is truely and sensibly handled and bruised by the teeth of the Faithfull But Berengarius being rid out of the hands of that Councell and returned back into France protested against the violence offered unto him and continued to teach the same doctrine till the yeere 1088. in which he died Upon his tombe Hildebertus * Hild. Epitaphio Berengar apud Malmesburiensem Quem modo miratur semper mirabilâ—ter orbis Ilâ—e Berengarius non obiturus obit Quem sacrae fidei fastigia summa tenentem c. Vide Baron ad ann 1088. § 21. who after was Bishop of Mans made an honorable Epitaphe wherein he tearmes him the Prop and Support of the Church the hope and the glory of the Clergy And France Germany Italy and England were full of people that embraced his doctrine as William Malmesbury testifies in the 3. Book of his English Historie All France saith hee was full of his doctrine And Matthew of Westminstâ—r in the year 1087 * Eodem tempore Berengarius Turonensis in haereticam lapsus pravitatem omnes Gallos Italos Anglos suis jam pene corruperat pravitatibus Berengarius of Tours being fallen into heresie had corrupted by his depravations almost all the French Italians and English Platina in the life of John XV. speaks thus of Berengarius It is certain that Odius Bishop of Clugni and Berengarius of Tours men famous and renowned for doctrine and holinesse were in great esteeme in that time Adde to this that Berengarius distributed all his meanes to the poore and betooke himselfe to get his living with the labour of his hands * Guit alias Berengarius istevir bonus plenes eleemosynis et humilitate magnorum possessioneÌ„ qui omnia â—â—usiâ—spauperum â—dispersit c. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence whom the Pope hath canonized and made a Saint gives him this testimony in the 2 Tome of his Chronicles Tit. 16 § 20. This Berengarius was otherwise a good man full of Almes deeds and humility and having great possessions and riches which hee distributed to the poore and would have no woman to come before his eyes About the latter end of Berengarius his life lived Gregory the seventh who entred into the Papacy in the yeare of our Lord 1073. called Hildebrand before he was Pope This Gregory was suspected to incline to Berengarius his opinion Sigonius in his 9 Book of the reigne of Italy in the yeare 1080 recordeth that the Bishops of Germany assembled at Brixina in Bavaria did call this Gregory Vâ—terem haeretici Berengariâ— discipulum an old disciple of Berengarius the heretick accusing him of calling into question the Apostolicall Faith touching the body and blood of the Lord. And this agrees with Cardinall Benno Arch-Priest of the Cardinals who was very inward and familiar with the said Gregory and who wrote his life wherein hee saith that Gregory appointed a fast to three Cardinals to the end God might shew whither of the two to wit Berengarius of the Church of Rome had the rightest opinion And there he relates that John Bishop of Port in a Sermon at S. Peters Church did declare in presence both of Clergy and People that Gregory for to obtaine some divine answer had in the presence of the Cardinals cast the holy Sacrament into the fire Berengarius being dead he had many successors that maintained the same doctrine even to the time of Petruâ— de Valdo of the City of Lions whose disciples were named by their enemies Valdenses and Albigenses Of whose Religion and Confession of Faith conformable to ours Fasciculus rerum expetâ—ndaruÌ„ fol. 95. Indocus Câ—â—cius Tom. H. lib. 6. de Euchar fol. 602. hath been spoken before in the 21 chapter of the first Book and shewed that their Churches remaine even unto our times Furthermore John Wicklâ—f in England in the yeere 1390. taught the same Of whose doctrine contained in eighteen Articles here is the first That the substance of the bread remaines after the Consecration and ceases not to bee bread Against the Faithfull that professed this doctrine the Pope stirred up Kings and Princes and caused an incredible butchery to bee made of them preaching the Croisadoe against them whereby hee gave the same spirituall graces unto those that should
Gabriel Biel and the old editions of Saint Austin have oportet Reason also requireth it For it would be repugnant to common sense to say that the body of Christ may be in one place as if one should say that the Sunne may be in one place it were to say that it may be in no place Cyril of Alexandria in his eleventh booke upon Saint John chap. 3. * Dâ—st 10. A. Thomas 3. parte suâ—â—mae qu. 75. art 1. Gabr el Biel Lell 39. in Canonem M ssâ— Eâ—st abest corpore Patri pro nobis apparens ac à dextris ejus sedens habitat tamen in Sanct is per Spiritum Though he be absent in body appearing for us before his Father and sitting at his right hand he dwelleth in his Saints through his Spirit He supplyeth the want of his corporall presence by giving his Spirit and nor in keeping himselfe hidden under the accidents of bread The Eutychian hereticks spake as our Adversaries doe For they said thâ—â— Christs body is present on earth as well as in heaven by an invisible presence Against whom whither Vigil or Gelasius Pope hath written five Bookes in the first whereof he speaketh thus * Vigil l. 1. Dei silius secundum humanitatem suam recessit à nobis Secundum divinitateÌ„ suaÌ„ alt nobis Ecce sum vobiscum usque ad consummationem saeculi The Sonne of God according to his humanity hath left us and withdrawne himselfe from us But according to his divinitie he saith unto us I will be with you till the consummation of the world And in the 4 Booke †Lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo Et nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra When Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in Heaven and now that it is in Heaven it is not on earth Even as Vigilius saying that when Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in heaven understood it was not in heaven neither visibly nor invisibly So when he saith that now it is no more on earth he meaneth it is not there neither visibly nor invisibly That if he meant or understood that Christs flesh is present unto us invisibly then would he plead the Eutychians cause for that was their opinion To be short the Apostle to the Ephesians chap. 3.17 saith that Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith and not in our stomacks in the midst of meat When we aske of them after what manner the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament they answer that it is not present there circumscriptively as wine is enclosed in a tunne or caske nor definitively as immateriall spirits But that it is Sacramentally present This answer truly is ridiculous For to say that Christ is in the Sacrament sacramentally present is a thing as absurd as to say that a man which is in a Temple is there Templarily present and he that is in a Coach is present in it Coacharily Moreover it is certaine that by this answer they come to be of our side For they say themselves that this word Sacrament signifieth a sacred signe Therefore to be present sacramentally signifieth no other thing but to be present significatively and by figure and representation CHAP. XIV Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that Transubstantiation is not grounded in the Scriptures That the Primitive Church did consecrate by the prayer and not by these words This is my body THe most learned of the Roman Church ground their Transubstantiation not upon these words This is my body but upon the authority of the Church of Rome which as they hold cannot erre Scotus which is termed the suttle Doâ—tor upon the fourth of the Sentences Dist 11. quest 3. saith There is no place 〈◊〉 be found in the Scripture that may wi hout the determination of the Church compellâ— man to beleeve the Transubstantiation Vpon which place Cardinall Bellarmine in his 3. booke of the Eucharist chap. 23. speaketh thus * Secundo dicit non extare loâ—uÌ„ ulluÌ„ Scripturae tam expressuâ—â— ut sine declara â—â—ne Ecclesâ—â—â—â—â—dentâ—â— cogaâ— Trasubstant â—â—â—ionem admittâ—â—â— Et id non est omatâ—â— improhahile Nam et si Scriptura quam 〈◊〉 suprà ad duxâ—â—â— videatur nobis 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ra ut possiâ—◠〈…〉 non proteâ—â—â—umâ— tamen an 〈◊〉 sit merito dubitarâ— poâ—est cum 〈◊〉 nâ—s doctissiâ—â— acurat â—â—â—mi qualâ—s imprâ—â—â— Scotus 〈◊〉 â—â—â—trarium sentiant Sc tus saith that there is no place in the Scripture so expresse as to compell evidently without the declaration of the Church to receive the Transubstantiation And that is not altogether improbable For although the Scripture that we have alleaged seeme to us so plaine that it may compell a man not proud or insolent yet neverthelesse it may justly be doubted whether it be so or no seeing the most acute and learned men such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary opinion And in the same place he tels us that Scotus saith that Transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the Councell of Lateran held Anno 1215. For that cause Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 3. part of Thomas Disp 180. chap. 5. having represented the opinion of Scotus who saith * Scotus docet potuisse servari veritatem verborum consecrationis etiamsi in Eucharistia maneret substantia panis v ni that the truth of the words of consecration might have beene preserved though the substance of the bread and wine had remained in the Eucharist to whom also Durand joyneth himselfe blameth Bellarmine without naming him for saying that the opinion of Scotus is probable accuseth him of halting on both sides We see †Videas aliquos Theologiae Professores nostriceporis qui in utraÌ„que parteÌ„ al quaÌ„tulum clau diâ—aÌ„tes non putant improhahile id quod Scotus de verhis consecrationis dixit saith he certaine professors in Divinity in our times who halting a little on both sides do not esteeme improbable that which Scotus hath said touching the words of consecration Of that number of learned and acute men was Cardinall Cajetan who in hiâ— notes upon Thomas speaketh thus * Cajetanus in 3. Thomae q. 75. art 1. Alterum quod Evangelium non explicavit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus scile conversionem panis in corpus Christi Thâ— other point which the Gospel expoundeth nâ—â— expresly we have received it from the Church to wit the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ Item Conversio non explicate habetur iâ— Evangelio The conversion of the bread is not to be found explicitly in the Gospel The Cardinall de Alliaco †Petr. de Alliaco in 4. Sent. q. 6. art 2. Patet quod ille modus est possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati Bibliae immo est sacilior ad intelligendum rationabilior quà m aliquis aliorum It appears that this manner which supposeth that
the substance of bread remaines still is possible neither is it contrary to reason nor to the authority of the Bible but is more easie to conceive and more reasonable And for this cause he is checked by Vasquez the Jesuite in the 3 Tome upon the 3 part of Thomas Disp 180. cap 5. And in that same place he saith that Durand followed the opinion of Scotus upon the 4. of the Sentences Disp 11. quest 2. Gabriel Biel in the 40 lesson upon the Canon of the Masse * Biel Lect. 40. Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem aâ—icujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressumin canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether it be by conversion of â—â—me thing into it or whether without converâ—ion Christs body beginnes to be there with the bread the substance and the accidents remaining it is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible And even there That hath beene proved by the authority of the Church and of the Saints for that cannot be proved by reason The same * Sed cur hunc intellectum difficilem Sancti dicere Ecclesia determinarre elegerunt cum scripturae possint exponi salvari secundum intellectum facilem de hoc articulo in the 41 lesson asketh Why the Saints and the Church have chosen to say and determine that that should be understood in so difficult a manner seeing the Scriptures may be expounded and kept in their soundnesse in a manner easie to be understood To this he answereth that the Church hath determined it so meaning by the Church not the Syrian nor the Greeke or Ethiopian but the Roman Church onely Salmeron the Jesuite in the thirteenth Treatise of the ninth Tome expounding these words This is my body speaketh thus b § Secunda Prosectò illis verbis nequaquam conversio significatur ex vi verborum Alià s qui diceret Hoc est corpus meum demonstrando suum corpus significaret conversionem alicujus rei in suum corpus Certainely these words doe not signifie that any conversion be made by the force of the words Otherwise he that should say this is my body in shewing his owne body would signifie that some thing is converted into his body And he insistes very much upon this that these words This is my body are declarative or significative of the thing which is and not effective of that which is not Wherefore the same Jesuite in thâ— same Treatise * Inno. 3. â—ib 4. de Myster Missa cap. 6. Sane dicâ— potesi quod Christus vâ—rtute divina confeâ—â—t poslâ—â— forma expressit c. Et cap. 17. Ab hajus quaestonis laqueo saeâ—le se absolvit qui dâ—cit quod Chrâ—stus tunc conscit cum hened câ—t joynes himselfe to thâ— opinion of Pope Innocent the third a who in the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapters 6. and 17 teacheth that Christ made not the conversion of the bread by these words Hâ—est corpus meum but by his divine power and by the blessing that had preceded For he will have the pronouncing of these words to have another vertue at this day in the mouthes of Priests than they had in the mouth of Christ Which opinion of Innocent the third is followed by Innocent the fourth his Successor and by multitudes of Doctors which Salmeron produceth * § Porio pag. 82. in the same Treatise It is credible that these Popes and Doctors were moved to teach that Christ did not consecrate by these words This is my body but by the prayer 〈◊〉 blessing he made before because the Fathers say the same and that such was the beleefe of the ancient Church Justin Martyr b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calleth that which wee receive in the Eucharist a foode consecrated by the prayer of the Word that is to say Christ Saint Austin in the third booke of the Trinity Chapter 4. speaking of that which we receive in the Sacrament saith that it is taken of the fruits of the earth prece mystica consecratum and is consecrated by the mysticall prayer | 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen in his eight booke against Celsus * We eate loaves of bread which by the prayer are made one bodie which is some holy thing Ireneus in his fourth Booke Chapter 34. * Qui est à terra panis percip â—is vocationem Deâ— jam non est panis communâ—s sed Eucharisiâ—a The bread receiving the invocation of God is no more common bread but Eucharist Basil in the first booke of the holy Ghost 27 Chapter calleth the words of consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words of invocation Isido us in the sixth booke of Origines in the Chapter de Officijâ— * Sâ—â—â—â—ficâ—ii diâ—tum quasi sacrii saâ—â—â—m quâ—â— ece mâ—sti a consecratur in meâ—â—â—â—â—â—m pro 〈◊〉 is domâ—nuae passion v. The Sacrifice is so called as if one should say a sacred deede because it is consecrated by the mysticall prayer in remembrance of the Passion which the Lord sâ—ffeced for us Yet at this day the Greek Churches consecrate by the prayer as Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the fourth Booke of the Eucharist Chapter * § Habemus 12. See the Canon Corpus in the second distinction of the consecration By this it is as cleare as the light that the Ancient Fathers did not beleeve that by these words This is my body any conversion of the bread was made CHAP. XV. Of the Adoration of the Sacrament The opinion of the Roman Church THe Roman Church having deified the Sacrament hath consequently obliged her selfe to worship it with the highest adoration which is due to God alone By this meanes a wafer of bread hath taken Gods place and is called God and is worshipped as God They speake of lifting up God in the Masse and of Gods feast viz Corpus Christâ— day and of carrying God to a sickâ— body Phrases that are not to bee found in the holy Scriptures and unheard off in the Ancient Christian Church The Councell of Trent in the thirteenth Session Chapter 5. speaketh thuâ— There remaines no doubt but that all faithfull Christian people ought to give the worship of Lâ—tria nullus dubu andi locus relinquitur quâ—n omnes Christi sideles latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant which is due to the true God to this holy Sacrament in the veneration Now by this word Sacrament they understand the body of Christ with the species or accidents For by this word Sacrament our Adversaries never understand Christ Jesus out of the species This Councell then ordaineth that the species of the bread and wine shall be worshiped with soveraigne adoration The practise doth verifie what I say For the people worshipping the consecrated hoste
divide not their minde into two Adorations and worship not the body of Christ with one kinde of Adoration and the species of the bread with an other but carry their whole devotion to worship with soveraigne adoration the hoste they have before their eyes Bellarmin teacheth as much in his fourth Booke of the E charist Chapter 29. * § Sed haec Cultu latriae diciâ— mus per se proprie Christis esse adorandu eam aderaâ—â—one ad symbola 〈◊〉 â—iâ—m panis vâ—nt perâ—nere quaâ—â—nus â—ppre 〈◊〉 dunâ—ur 〈◊〉 auâ—um â—um ipso Christo quâ—m conâ—â—nent We say that Christ For se proprie is to be worshipped with the adâ—ration of Latria and that this adoration belongeth also to the signes or symboles of the bread and wine in as much as they are conceived or considered as being one with Christ himselfe whom they containe And saith it was just so that Christs garments were worshipped with the same adoration that Christ was For saith he they did not pull off his cloaths for 〈◊〉 worship him For he proposeth this for an infalliblâ— Maxime that bee that worshippeth soâ—â—thing worshippeth also all the things thâ—â— are conjâ—yned to it Bell lib. de Imaginibus cap. 25 Qui adoral ea omnia quae cum ipso conjuncta sunt That is to say that hâ— that worshippeth the Images worships also the Cobwebs that are upoâ— them And that he that worshippeth thâ— Pope worshippeth also his Breecheâ— and his shirt Hee will have then thâ— roundnesse whitenesse length breadth and taste of the hoste to be worshippeâ— with the same adoration that God iâ— worshipped with because these accident and Christ are but one Vasquez the Jesuite saith the same in his second Booke of Adoration Disp 9. Chapter 1. * Quae absolute dâ—â—â—tur adorari adorat one latriae cum tamen per accidens cii d vinitate conjunlla colantur Christs humanity saith he and the Eucharist are worshipped absolutely with the adoration of Latria albeit that being enjoyned by accident with thâ— God-head a worshippe is given to theâ— And that we may know that the accidents of the bread that is to say thâ— breadth length colour and savour of the bread are worshipped with the same adoration that Christ is worshipped he addeth * Accidentia panis vini cum existat non propria exisientâ—a sed exâ—stentia corporâ—s sanguinis Christi optâ—â—â— possiil simul sub cundem cultum adorat onis cadâ—re queadmodum humanitas Christi ejusque divinitas â—odem motu adorationis coluntur The accidents of the bread and wine because they exist not by their proper existence but by the existence of the body and blood of Christ may very well receive the same honour of adoration together with the body and blood of Christ even as Châ—sts humanitie and his Divinitie are worshipped with one and the same motion of adoration This Idolatry is prodigious by which the colour and roundnesse of the bread are worshipped with the same adoration that God is worshipped with The Aegyptians did seeme to have attained to the highest degree of Idolatry when they did worship Cats Onions and Storkes But this Idolatry in worshipping the accidents of the bread goes farre beyond them For these things they worshipped were substances and things really existing But these accidents without a subject are imaginary things and which indeed are nothing The folly of those Aegyptians would have beene much greater if they had worshipped the colour and the length and the faces or lowring of a Cat without worshipping the Cat. Adde moreover that they did not worship beasts and plants as the Soveraigne God but as having in them some sparkes of the Divinity But the Roman Church worshippeth the accidents of bread without bread with a Soveraigne adoration and which onely belongeth to God And marke the doctrine of this Jesuite who saith with approbation of the Examinators prefixed in the forefront of his booke that the accidents of the bread doe exist in Christ after the same manner as the humanitie of Christ hath no proper subsistence but subsisteth in the divine nature This truely is to unite and conjoyne the roundnesse and colour of the bread with Christ with a personall union And as errors are link'd together anâ— cleave one to an other it is certain that the accidents of the bread are noâ— more straitly conjoyned with Christ than Christ with these accidents And by consequent even as because of this imaginary union of the body of Christ with the accidents of the bread the things which befall these accidents are also attributed unto the body of Christ of which they say it is carryed and lifted up and walked up and downe and stolne away and eaten by mice and vomited up and devoured by a beast So by the same reason because of the same union they must say that the roundnesse and whitenesse of the bread are the Sonne of God and are borne of the Virgin and are just and without origiginall sinne In all this truely the Roman Church sheweth her selfe idolatrous in the last degree It is a bog or quagmire of abuses and an abyssus or a gulfe of seduction wherein Satan hath plunged men God punishing in his just anger the contempt of his word which is become an unknowne Booke among the people For it is just that those that have lost Piety should loose also the common sense CHAP. XVI Examen of the Adoration of the Sacrament by the word of God That the Ancient Christians did not worship the Sacrament IF the Scriptures had with our Adversaries any authority this controversie would soone be decided Every action that concernes Gods Service and specially Adoration is to be done in Faith and not with doubts and conjectures as Saint James saith Chapter first Let him aske in Faith nothing wavering And Saint Paul Rom. 14. saith that whatsoever is not of Faith is sinne And the same Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 11. It is impossible without Faith to please God Now it is impossible that the people of the Roman Church should worship the hoste of the Massâ— in faith Because God hath not commanded it in his word For as Saint Paul saith Rom. 1â— Faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God In generall we have the Lords commandement saying Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Hee speaketh of the Soveraigne God Creator and Governour of the World and not of a God made with words that is made of bread subject to falling to be vomited up and stolne away Certainly to worship such a god as that is to violate the Commandement of the Law which saith Thou shalt have no other God before me In vaine doe they answer that Christ ought to be worshipped since hee is God For besides that they presuppose that which is not to wit that this bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ they declare themselves
unconceivable a plain contradiction 16. This body also which was under the residue of the consecrated bread muâ—â— of necessity either bee living or deal when the Lords body was in the Sepulcher If living behold there was two bodies of Christ at one and the same time whereof the one was dead the other living Or if that body which was in these crummes suffered death under those species there was a body of Christ which suffered death without being put to the crosse and without the Souldiers touched it 17. That if whilst the body of the Lord was dead any of his Disciples had celebrated the Eucharist if he had offered a living body it would not have beene the same body that was in the Sepulcher Or if by pronouÌ„cing the words of consecration he had turned the bread into a dead body he had not offered a Sacrifice For a dead body is not an acceptable Sacrifice These difficulties would deserve wel to consult the Papal Oracle or some decision of the Sorbon 18. From the same Doctrine followeth that when in the Procession on Corpus Christi day two consecrated hostes meet one another and passe by one an other Christ incounters himselfe and goes to meet with his owne selfe And it is to bee presumed that these Hostes know one another and make one to another a mutuall salutation and that if one should come to fall the other that is not fallen would looke upon that which is fallen with great compassion 19. This is one of the best of all and wherein the Romish Doctors entangle themselves most and trouble their braines exceedingly A time was that they disputed in the Church of Rome whether it be in Gods power to make that one body be circumscriptively in two or in many severall places As for example whether God can make that Philip be at Paris and at Rome at one and the same time contained and limited by two severall remote places But now they hold with a generall consent that it is possible Among those that have written in these our times I know none but Vasquez that is of another opinion This thing admitted to be so it will follow that if Philip be at Rome in the water and in the fire at Paris he shall be both wet and burned at once If one of his armes be cut off at Paris he shall have but one arme at Paris but at Rome he shall have two If hee be kil'd at Paris he shall be dead at Paris and living at Rome and perhaps comming from Rome to Paris hee shall find himselfe to be dead not knowing of it before and shall assist at his owne funerals Perhaps that Philip of Paris will come to Rome to see himselfe and being arrived there shall not find himselfe there because he absented himselfe from Rome That if both of them set forth on the way for to meet one another one and the same man shall goe to meet himselfe And having met with himselfe how shall their noses jumble themselves into one How shall a man turne his back to his owne selfe That if Philip doth feast at Paris and fast at Rome one and the selfe same man shall be both full and empty fat and leane at the same time That if Philip meete with himselfe upon the way and that Philip embrace Philip it is evident they shall be two For every conjunction is at least betweene two divers things 20. That if the body of one and the same man may be in a thousand severall places at one and the same time it may be also in a hundred thousand places and if in a hundred thousand so likewise in a Million and so still in augmenting so that at last one mans body shall be able to fill up the whole world Indeed the plurality of places and the Vbiquity comes all to one The difference between the Church of Rome and those that put Christs body everywhere is onely in this the one say this body is everywhere and the other say it may be everywhere Truely the Roman Church hath no reason to contend with the Vbiquitaries about a thing which she beleeves to be possible 21. The point in Mathematicks is no quantity and hath no magnitude and is indivisible To put therefore one and the same point in two divers remote places is to divide the point and to separate it from it selfe That is the thing our Adversaries doe putting one body in two severall places For example if Philip may be at Paris and at Rome at one and the same time the point that is in the midst of the apple of his eye is the same point aswell at Rome as at Paris and yet it is farre from it selfe and separated and divided from it selfe 22. And since Angelicall Spirits are but in one onely place definitively those that put the Lords body in severall places at once make it more spirituall than the very Spirits themselves and divide it from it selfe 23. There is impietie mingled with that For after the Priest hath eaten the hoste they hold that Christs body is in the Priests stomack untill the species by disgestion be destroyed After then that those species be destroyed the Lords body is no more there and yet is not gone out of it for these Doctors say it cannot move it selfe locally Whereupon it must follow of necessity that this body of Christ which was in the Priests stomack is turned into nothing And our Adversaries cannot tell us whither he is gone nor what is become of him CHAP. XIX Of accidents without a subject places of Fathers THe accidents without a subject which they put in the consecrated Hoste are another swarme of ridiculous absurdities and meere contradictions For what is there more incompatible than this * Arist l. 6. Metaph. cap. 1. Loquens de accidentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that Accidentia non accidunt as if one said Albentia non albent that the speakers speake not and to forge qualities which qualifie nothing colour and nothing coloured a length and nothing long a roundnesse and nothing round as if one should forge a sight without an eye a sicknesse without a sicke body a halting without a legge an Ecclipse of the Moone without a Moone So they put in the Hoste a taste of bread a colour of bread a roundnesse of bread without bread And as Pope Innocent the third saith in his 4 Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chap. 11. †Est enim hic color sapor cum nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapiduÌ„ quantum aut quale There is here colour and savour quantitie and qualitie though there be here nothing savory nothing coloured nothing that hath quantitie or qualitie In summe God hath so created substances and accidents that as a created substance cannot be without accidents so accidents cannot be without a substance These things be so relative one to another as to separate them is as if one should
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
Cup his blood These things Bethren are called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene and another is understood What is seene hath a corporall forme What is meant hath a spirituall fruite If then thou wilt understand what the body of Christ is heare the Apostle saying to the Faithfull Ye are Christs body and his members If ye bee therefore Christs body and members your mysterie is set on the table of the Lord c. He giveth the same exposition in the 26 Treatise upon Saint John By this mâ—ate and by this drinke the Lord will have to bee understood the society and fellowship of his body and of his members to wit the holy Church of the Predestinate And in the Roman Canon in the a Distinction of the Consecration at the Canon Hoc est a Coelestis anis qui â—hristi caro 〈◊〉 suo modo â—ocatur â—rpus â—hristi cum 〈◊〉 vera sit â—cramentii â—rporis â—hristi illiâ—s videliâ—t quod â—alpabile â—ortale in â—uce posiâ—m est tâ—b Glos â—oeleste Saâ—amentum â—uod vere â—praesenâ—t Christi â—rnemdiciâ—r corpus â—hristi sed â—aproprie crum diciâ—r suo moâ—â—sed non â—iveritate sed significante mysterio Vt sit sensus vocatur Chriâ—â— corpus id est significatur The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after its manner called the body of Christ although to speake truely it be the sacred signe of Christs body to wit of that which being visible palpable mortall was put upon the Crosse And thereupon the Glosse of the Doctors hath these words which truely are excellent The heavenly Sacrament that representeth truely the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly for it is thus called after its manner but not according to the truth of the thing but by a significant mystery So that the sense is that it is called the body of Christ that is to say that it is signified S. Cyprian in his 63 Epistle will have in the sacred Cup water to be mingled with the wine His reason is because that as the wine is the blood of Christ so the water is the People and that the People ought not to bee divided from Christ b §. 9. Quando in Calice vino aqua â—iscetur Christo populus adunatur c. Sivinum tantum quis â—crat sanguis Christi inc pit esse sine nobis si veroaqua sit sola â—ebs incipit esse sinc Christo If saith he any one offereth nothing but wine Christs blood beginneth to bee without us but if the water be alone the people begins to be without Christ Whereby it followeth that as Cyprian did not beleeve that the water was transubstantiated into the people so did he not beleeve that the wine was transubstantiated into the body of Christ And in the same Epistle c Vinum fuit quod sanguiuem suii dixit That which Christ called his blood was wine And in the 76 Epistle d Dominus corpus suii paneÌ„ vocat de multorii granorum adunationâ— congestum The Lord called his body the bread compounded with the gathering together of many graines We have a Treatise of the two natures of Christ against Nestorius and Eutyches made by Pope Gelasius who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 495. There is this sentence to be found which vexeth and grieves mightily our Adversaries e Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ divinae effiscimur consortes naturae tameÌ„ esse non desinit substaÌ„tia panis vini Et certe image similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebraÌ„tur Certainely the Sacraments that we take of the body blood of Christ are a divine thing for which cause also by them we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be And verily the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Note that hee disputed against the Eutychians who held that the substance of the body of Christ was passed and changed into the substance of the divine nature The controversy was not about the conversion of the accidents but of the Substance which Gelasius maintaineth to remaine in the body of the Lord as the substance of the bread remaineth in the Sacrament Now no man can doubt but that this Book be of Gelasius Bishop of Rome Hoc etiam eatae meâ—orie Papa Gelasius c. in co â—bro quem â—emoratus â—â—ntistes â—onscripsit â—dversus eâ—â— qui in 〈◊〉 omino Ieâ— duarum at urarum â—olunt indiâ—â—aÌ„ credere â—ritatem Quomodo â—cend t in â—â—lum nisi â—â—ia localis verus est â—mo aut â—omodo aâ—st fidelâ—â—s suiâ—â—nisi â—â—a idem â—mensus 〈◊〉 â—rus dâ—us seeing that Fulgentius who lived in Gelasius time alleadgeth it * in his Book to Feâ—randus the Deacon in the 2 proposition and attributeth it to the Pope Gelasius Fulgentius Disciple to S. Austin in his second Book to Trasimondus chap. 17. a How is Christ ascended into Heaven but because he is in a place and a man indeed Or how is he present to his Faithfull ones but because he is infinit and a God indeed Again in his Book of the Faith to Peter the Deacon chap. 19. b Cuâ— nunc id est tempore nov Testamenti cum Paâ—e et Sp Sancto cum quibs illi est una diviniâ—as sacrificium â—ais et â—â—niâ—n side et charitâ—te sancta Ecclesia Catholica per uversum orâ—â—â—â—eâ—rae offerre non cessat etc. The holy Catholick Church which is over all the world now that is to say under the New Testament ceaseth not to offer unto Christ Jesus with the Father and the holy Ghost with whom he is one and the same Godhead a Sacrifice of bread and wine in Faith and Charity For in those caâ—n ill oblations of the Old Tetestament there was a figure of Christs flesh which he was to offer for our sins being without sin But in the sacrifice of the Eucharist is made an action of thankesgiving and a remembrance of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the blood that himselfe who is God hath shed for us Besides this that he calleth the Holy Supper a remembrance and a Sacrifice of bread and wine it is very remarkable that he saith that this Sacrifice of bread and wine is offered unto Christ Jesus Whereby it appeareth that this Sacrifice is not Christ himselfe for Christ is not Sacrificed unto Christ Facundus an Affrican Bishop who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 550 in the defence of three heads or points of the Councell of Chalcedon * Potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuÌ„cupari sanguâ—neÌ„ dicimus noÌ„ quod proprie corpuâ— ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium
corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant c. The Sacrament of Adoption to wit Baptisme may be called the Adoption even as we call the Sacrament of his body and blood which is in the bread and in the consecrated Cup his body and blood Not that to speake properly the bread is his body and the Cup his blood But because they containe in them the mystery of his body and blood This Book of Facundus drawn out of the Vatiean Library was published by Jacobus Sirmoudus a Jesuite who for this cause was suspected And I heare he hath been in trouble about it a Turrian li. 1. de Eucharist c. 18. §. Ad illud Vasq in 3. part Thomae Tomo 3. Dis 180. c. 9 pag. 107. Greg de Val. lib. de Trans c. 7. Sicut enim antequam sactificetur panis paneÌ„ nominamus divina auteÌ„ illum sanclificante gratia incdiante Sacerdote liberatus quideÌ„ est ab appellatione panis â—lignus habiâ—us est Dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in co remansit Turrianus and Vasquez and Gregory of Valentia Jesuites object unto themselves a place of Chrysostome in his Epistle to Caesarius which Epistle also is in Biblioth Patr. Printed at Colen anno 1618 in the 8 Tome That place is such Afore the bread be sanctified we coll is bread But the divine grace sanctifying it by the meanes of the Priest it is freed indeed from the appellation of bread and is honored with the name of the body of the Lord though the nature of bread remaine in it These Iesuites answer that this place is not of John Chrysostome but of another John of Constantinople Which they say without proofe Yet it matters not for it sufficeth they acknowledge that place to bee of an ancient Author The 8 Books of Apostolicall Constitutions attributed to Clement the first Bishop of Rome are not of him Neverthelesse these Books are ancient and there is much good to be learned in them In the 5 Book chap. 16. it is said that b Cum verâ— anttypa mysteria pretiosi Corporis sanguinis sui nobis tradidisset Christ having given the figurative mysteries of his body and blood went to the mount of Olives And in the 7 Book chap. 26. c Etiam agimus gratias tibi Pater pro pretioso sanguine Iesu Christi qui effusuâ— est pro nobis et pro pretioso corpore cujus haec Antitypa perficimus We give thee thankes for the precious blood of Christ which was shed for us and for the precious body whereof we performe the signes by his command for to shew forth his death There would never be an end if wee should gather up all the places of the ancient Fathers wherein they say that that which we receive in the Eucharist is bread and that the bread and wine are Signes Symboles Figures and Antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord I will adde but two Canons of a Councell which are very formall The 24 Canon of the III Councell of Carthage is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let nothing be offered in the sacred service but the body and blood of the Lord as also the Lord hath ordained it that is to say nothing but bread and wine mingled with water The same Canon is found repeated in the very same words in the Councell of Trull in the Canon 32 aswell in the Greeck as in the Latin Copies Upon which Canon Baâ—samon maketh this Commentary The two and thirtieth Canon of the Councell of Trull hath ordained very at large a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the nonbloody Sacrifice was made with bread and wine mingled with water because that the bread is the figure of the body of the Lord and the wine the figure of his blood Here is then above two hundred Bishops gathered in a Councell that interpret these words the body and blood of Christ by the bread and wine mingled with water The same Councell in the 23 Canon ordaineth that when a man officiates at the Altar the Prayer must always be directed to the Father Whence appeareth manifestly that then they worshipped not the Sacrament seeing that the Councel forbiddeth when men assist at the Altar to addresse their Prayers to Christ If this hoste be Christ it must be worshipped and by consequent invocated And that it may appeare how lately this opinion of Transubstantiation was received in the Tome de Divinis officiis which is in Biblioth P atr we have an Epistle of that Great Emperor Carolus Magnus where he saith b Cum adaltare assistitur semper ad Patrem d rigatur oratio Christ supping with his Disciples brake bread and gave them likewise the Cup in figure of his body and blood This Epistle happily might bee written about the yeare of our Lord 800. Walefridus Strabo who wrote about the yeare 850 in his Book of Ecclesiasticall things chap. 16. c Christus coenando cii discipulis panem fregit calicem pariter cis dedit in figuram corporis sanguinis sui In coena quam ante traditioneÌ„ suaÌ„ ultimaÌ„ cum discipulis habu t post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis et saÌ„guinis sui SacrameÌ„ta in panis et vini substaeÌ„tia cisdeÌ„ discipulis suis tradidit et ea in coÌ„memorationeÌ„ sanctissimae suae passionis celebrare perdocuit The Lord at the last Supper he made with his Disciples afore he was betrayed after he had made an end of the solemnity of the ancient Passeover gave to his Disciples the sacred signes of his body and blood in the SVBSTANCE of the bread and wine and taught them to celebrate them in remembrance of his most holy Passion Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch neare Colen who lived in the yeare 1112. and whose works are yet extant hath condemned Transubstantiation and taught that the Substance of bread remaineth after the Consecration Here are his words upon the 12 chap. of Exodus d Rup Tuitiensis in Exo. 12. Sicut Christus humâ—na naturam nec mutavâ—â— nec destruâ—â—â— sed assumpsit ita in SacrameÌ„to nec destruit nec mutat substantiaÌ„ panis vini sed assumit in unitatem cororis et sanguinis sui Even as Christ neither changed nor destroyed the humane nature but joyned himselfe to it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe to it in the unity of his body and blood This place of Rupertus is alleadged by Salmeron in the 16 Treatise of the IX Tome § Ruit and Bellarmin in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers alleadgâ—s out of him many such like places and blameth him for it To so many places that say that the substance of the bread remaineth after the Consecration our Adversaries do reply that by the word of Substance the Fathers understand the Accidents As it is a great absurdity by the word of Accidents to understand the Substance So
is it as great an absurdity by the word of Substance to understand Accidents If it may be lawfull for them to wrest the Fathers thus and when they say a thing is white understand that they mean black never will there be any thing cleare nor sure Certainely if by this word Substance the Fathers had understood the Accidents they would have said the Substances in the plurall For Accidents are many Among which our Adversaries must chuse one that may be called a Substance But Theodoret in his second Dialogue saying that the bread after the Consecration remaineth in its former substance forme and figure refuteth this evasion For hee distinguisheth expressely the Substance from the Accidents Now as this error of the bodily presence of â—hrists body under the species of the bread began to be set on broach Bertram a Priest in Charles the Bald his time about the yeare of our Lord 870. made a Book against that abuse which Book is yet extant For which cause also Bellarmin in his first Book of the Eucharist chap. 1. placeth him among the Hereticks But Bertram all his life time lived with credit and honor and was never reprooved for it CHAP. XXVII Confirmation of the same by the customes of the ancient Church THis truth is confirmed by the ancient customes different from what is done in the Masse at this day and incompatible with Transubstantiation For in the ancient Church Service was said in a known tongue Every one received the Communion in both kinds The people offered upon the table abundance of bread and wine and not round light wafers * Cypr. Serm. de Lapsis Euseb Histor lib. 7. c. 9. Theod. Histor lib. 5. cap. 18. Nazianz. Orat. de Gorgonia The people aswell men as women received the Sacrament with their hand and many carried it home a long with them * Hesychius lib. 2. in Lev. c. 8. Ivo 2 part 2 de Sacr. c. 59. Burch l. 5. c. 12. The residues of the sacred bread that remained upon the table after the Communion were either burn't or * Evagâ— l. 4 cap. 36. given unto little children coming from Schoole or carried into the Priests houses for to be eaten there Than were there no private Masses Nor no Corpus Christi day The consecrated Host was not carried in procession * Ambâ—l de Viduis Oportet eam Viduam primo carere variarum illecebris voluptatuÌ„ vitare internum corporis animiq laÌ„guoreÌ„ ut corpus sanguinem Christi ministret Ambrose in his Book of Widdows saith that the Widdowes were imployed in the administration of the Sacrament a Editionis Parisiensis anno 1624 coluÌ„ 161. Virgo postquaÌ„ coÌ„municavit reservet de ipsa coÌ„munione unde iâ—sque ad diem octavum communicet In the Roman Order which is in Bibliotheca Patrum these words are to be found Let the Virgin receive the Communion after the Masse is ended and after she hath received let her reserve of the Communion sufficiently for to communie the eight dayes together Had they then beleeved the Transubstantiation they would never have given unto maids the Sacrament to keep so long a time Certain it is the ancient Church worshipped not the Sacrament There may be found indeed some places of the Fathers that say that in the Eucharist wee worship Christ But it is one thing to worship Christ in the action of the Sacrament and another thing to worship the Sacrament The Father and the holy Ghost in the Eucharist are also worshipped In vaine do they alleadge some ancient Fathers that speak of the elevation of the Sacrament For the elevation inferreth not necessarily adoration seeing that in Moses Law the Priest * Exod. 29 24. Levitiâ— 8.27 29. Num. 5.25 waved the breast and shoulder of the offering and a handfull of the first fruits without worshipping these things Moreover that elevation was nothing like to the elevation of the Host which the Priest maketh now a dayes over his head turning his back to the people and ringing a little Bell. But then after the Priest had uncovered the bread and wine he tooke the Platter or Dish with both his hands and lift it up for to shew it unto the people and that even before the words which are called of Consecration CHA. XXVIII Explanation of the places of the Fathers that say that in the Eucharist we eate the body and blood of Christ and that the bread is changed into the body of Christ and is made Christs body Specially of Ambrose Hilary and Chrysostome That the Fathers speake of severall kinds of body and blood of Christ THe holy Scripture speaketh of two sorts of body of Christ Namely of the natural body of Christ which he took in the womb of the Virgin Mâ—ry and of his mysticall body which is the Church and of his Sacramentall or commemorative body which is the bread of the holy Supper as we have shewed already The Fathers following the stile of the Scripture besides Christs mysticall body which is the Church speak of two bodies of Christ to wit of his naturall body and of his Symbolicall and Sacramentall body of which body they speak as of a divine thing and full of Mysteries and of a Spirituall flesh which is made by the iâ—effable power of God by the meanes and for the causes which I shall relate hereafter Likewise also they make two kinds of blood of Christ the one naturall the other mysticall and Divine which we receive in the Sacrament Clemens Alexandrinus in his second Book of the Pedagogue chap. 2. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is two sorts of blood of Christ the one is his carnall blood by which we are redeemed fâ—om corruption The other is Spirituall to wit that by which we are annointed and that is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partaker of the Lords incorruption Saint Hierome upon the Epistle to the Ephesians a Ex Hieron in Epist ad Ephes caâ—â— Dist 2. de Conse Can. Dupliciter Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christivel spiritualis illa atque divima de qua ipse aâ—t Caro meaverc est cibus vel caro quae crucifixa est sanguinis qui militis effusus est lanced Christs flesh is meant or understood in two manners either that spirituall and divine flesh of which hee saith himselfe My flesh is meate indeed Or else that flesh that was crucified and that blood which was shed by the speare of the Souldier This place is alleadged in the Roman Dâ—cree in the second Distinction of the Consecration at the Camon Dupliciter And in the same Distinction at the Canon b De hac quidem hostia quae in commemorationem mirabiliter sit edere licet De illa vero quam Christus in ara crucis abtulit secundum se nulli edere licet De hac the same Father is alleadged upon Leviticus in these words It is indeed lawfull to eate of this
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
in correctiâ—â— Saint Matthew Saint Marâ— And touching the fruit of thâ— Vine OF all the words which the Loâ—â— used in the Institution of the Eâ—charist none gaule and vex our Adversaries more than those which he pronounced in delivering the cup saying This Cup is the New Testament and thosâ— by which he calleth that which was iâ— the cup the fruit of the Vine For they are forc'd as we shall see heareafterâ— to acknowledge in these words Thâ—â— Cup is the New Testament a figure like unto that which is in these words This is my Body and confesse that it is the signe and remembrance of it Besides that to presuppose that Christ called his blood the fruit of the Vine is out of all likelyhood Against these words of the Lord This Cup is the New Testament related by Saint Luke and Saint Paul Maldonat the Jesuite is madde and furious and stirred up with an audaciousnesse full of impiety and speaketh of these two organs of Gods Spirit as of two lyars that have not related the Lords words according to the truth And will have men to give credit to the testimony of Saint Matthew which saith This is my blood and not to the words of Saint Luke and Saint Paul which witnesse that the Lord said This cup is the New Testament Here be his words upon the 28 Verse of the 26 chapter of Saint Matthew * Nec multis opus est verbis Nego Christum haee verba dixâ—sse Cum enim Matthaeus qui aderat Marâ—us qui ex Matthaeo didicerat scribant Christum his verbis sanguinem suum tradidesse Hic est sanguis mens novi Testamenti aequum est credere Matthaei potâ—us Marci qua Iucae Pauli verbis usum esse c. There needs not many words I denie that Christ said these words For seeing that Matthew which was present and Marke that had learned it of Matthew writ that Christ gave his blood in these words This is my blood of the New Testament it is reasonable to beleeve that Christ did rather use the words of Matthew and Mark than those of Luke and Paul And a little after maintaining that Christs intenâ—â— was to give his owne blood hee speaketh of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul as no having well conceived Christs meaning saying Luke and Paul seeme to speakeâ— such sort as if Christ had chiefly aimed this viz. to declare that he gave the No Testament rather than his blood And little after Though we should faine anâ— suppose that Christ spake as it is written iâ— Luke and Paul c. Truly this presumption is intolerable to dare contradict thus an Evangelist and an Apostle Luke and Pauâ— saying I deny that Christ spake these wordâ— And to make himselfe a Judge of the fidelity of the Apostles saying this maâ— is more credible than that man anâ— deeme that for to excuse Saint Luke anâ— Saint Paul one must faine and presuppose that which is not Every man that hath any remnant oâ— modesty and feare of God shall ratheâ— beleeve that all the Evangelists and Apostles are to be beleeved alike and that all have spoken the truth For iâ— we beleeve that they have reported somâ— thing falsly all the rest of the Scripture becommeth suspect and uncertaine And though we should grant that Saint Luke and Saint Paul have brought some alteration in the words of the Lord yet were we bound to beleeve that they were moved by the holy Spirit to speake after that manner for to cleare and illustrate Christs words and turne the mindes of men from grosse thoughts and take away from the spirit of error the occasion of forging a Transubstantiation This Jesuite having thus abused Saint Paul and Saint Luke a little after upon these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine cleaveth to Saint Luke his side against Saint Marke and Saint Matthew and * Maldonat in 26. Matth. vers 29. Haec verba quae Matthaeus Marcus referunt Christum de calice dixisse non de co calice dixit quo sangu nem suum dedit sed de coqui in coena agni Paschalis à patre familias inter accumbentes distribui solebat 〈◊〉 will have Christ to have said these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine of the cup of the Passeover against the testimony of Matthew and Marke who report that Christ said these words upon the cup of the holy Supper Wherein indeed he maketh Christ a lyar For after the Pascall cup he dranke the cup of the Eucharist wherein there was wine The Lord had spoken against the truth if in drinking in the cup of the Pascall Lambe he had said he would drinke wine no more seeing he dranke of it a little after Add to this that Saint Matthew and Saint Marke make not any mention of the Pascall cup and consequently call not the fruit of the Vine that which was in a cup whereof they spake not In this Maldonat hath the Antiquity Popes Councels and the Jesuits themselves against him which maintaine that these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine ought to be understood of the cup of the holy Supper Saint Cyprian in the 63 Epistle The Lord said †Dico vobis non biham à modo c. Qua in parte invenimus calicem mixtum suisse quem Dominus obtulit Apostolis â— vâ—nü suisse quod sanguine suum dixit I say unto you I will drinke no more henceforth of this creature of the Vine untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Wherein we find that it was a mingled cup which the Lord offered and that which he called his blood was wine The Councel of Wormes in the fourth chapter * Apud Iuonem part 3. fol. 65. Vâ—nuÌ„ suit in redâ—ptionis nostrae mysterio cum dâ—xit Non bâ—bâ—m de genimine c. It was wine in the mystery of our redemption when the Lord said I will drinkâ— no more of the fruit of the Vine Pope Innocent the third in the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 27. * Quod autem vinum in calice consecraverit patet ex co quod ipse subjunxit non biba à modâ— c. Now that it was wine which Christ consecrated in the Chalice it appeareth by that which hee addeth I will drinke no more of the fruit of this Vine The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent in the Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist †SalvatoreÌ„ vino in hujus Sacramenti institutione usil esse Catholica Ecclâ—sia semper docuit The Catholick Churcâ— hath alwayes taught that our Saviour used Wine in the institution of this Sacrament seeing that himselfe said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine Salmeron the Jesuite in the IX Tome in the fourteenth Treatise holdeth the same and the Jesuite Vasquez upon the third
17. Genis Pactum hoc loco sumitur pro signo pacti Emâ—a Sa Primâ—edâ—tio eâ—â— Notis Pactum id est sâ—num pacti because it was the signe and remembrance of it So in the twelfth of Exodus the Sacrament of the Pascall Lambe is called the Passe-over because it was a memoriall of the Passeover of the Augell sparing the houses of the Israclites And Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. speaking of the Rock which gusht out waters in the Wildernesse saith that this Rocke was Christ because it was the sigure of Christ As Austin saith in the Eighteenth Booke of the City of God Chapter 48. b Dâ—â—tum 〈◊〉 Aâ—â—sâ—â—â—â— pâ—â—ra Gaâ— Christus quia 〈◊〉 â—lla 〈◊〉 quahoâ— dâ—â—â—â—m est 〈◊〉 â—â—â—abat 〈◊〉 the Apostle saith the Rocke was Christ because that Rocke did signisie Christ And in the 57 question upon the Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to beare the name of the thing signified as it is written Seven eares of corne are seven yeares and seven kine are seven yeares and many such like things a Hine est quod dictuÌ„ est Petra crat Christus Non enim dixit petra signisicabat Christum sedtanquâ—â— hoc esseâ— quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat sed per signâ—ficationem Thence comes what is said that the Rocke was Christ he did not say the Rocke signifieth Christ but as if it were that which it was not in substance but onely by signification Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chapter 7. saith Petra erat Christus id est significabat Christum The Rocke was Christ that is to say did signifie Christ And Aquinas in the Exposition of this Epistle b Petra erat Christus non per substantiuÌ„ sed per sig nificatione The Rock was Christ not in substance but by signification Lombardus in his Commentary upon this Chapter c B bebant de petra spirituali sâ—â—â—et quae Christum sign sicâ—â— bat They did drink of the Rock which signified Christ Which thing is confirmed by that word Was. For Bellarmin that doth invert these words and translateth Christ was the Rocke seemes to imply that Christ was then the Rock but is not now And the same Apostle to the Romans Chapter 6.4 saith Wee are buryed in Christs death by Baptisme because Baptisine signifieth to us that our sins are as buried with Christ and that we are to be made conformable to 〈◊〉 death And without extending my selfe further upon this Christ giving the Cur said This Cup is the New Testament iâ— my blood Wherein there is two figures as Salmeron the Jesuite saith truely a Salm. Tomo IX Tra. XV. pag. 98. 99. Subest in his verhis duplex Motonymia prima qua contmens ponitur pro contento id est poculum sive calix pro vino co quod vinum in ipso continetur Altera est qua contentum in poctelo id est sanguis sub specie vin soedus vel Testamentum diatur Novum cum sit ejus symbolum propter sâ—â—cies There is saith he a double Metonymie by which the continent is put for the thing contained that is to say the Cup for the wine contained therein the other that that which is contained in the Chalice iâ—â— called the Covenant or Testament for that it is the symbole or signe of it because of thâ— species And a little after b Idem ibidem pag. 100 Dicitur sanguis Novum Testâ—mentum sicut circumcisio dicitur foedus quia illud foedus representar The blood iâ— called the New Testament as the Circumcision is called the Covenant because it representeth that Covenant And Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary upon the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians c Hic calix est N. T. in meo sanguint quasi dicat Per id quod in bâ—câ—aâ—â—ce contiâ—â—ur commâ—â—â— ratur N. T. c. This Cup is the New Testament in my blood as if be did say By that which is contained in this cup is made a commemoration of the New Testament which was confirmed by Christs blood And Emanuel Sa the Jesuit in the first edition of his notes upon the first to the Corinthians Chapter 11. saith that the word IS implies as much as containeth or signifieth This manner of speaking is ordinary to say a mourning suite because it is a signe of mourning a celestial Spheare for the figure of a heavenly Spheare And in shewing of Mappes to say This is France and that is Spaine And to be lodged at the Eagle or at the Swan for the signe of the Eagle or of the Swan So doth Saint Austin say in the fifty seventh question upon Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified And Theodoret in the first Dialogue speaking of these words This is my body saith that the Lord gave unto the signe the name of his body And Tertullian in his fourth Booke against Macion chapter 40. He made it to be his body saying This is my body that is to say the sigure of my body Saint Austin in the 23 Epistle to Bonisâ—ce is very expresse If Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments But because of this resemblance they take very often the name of the things themselves Even then as the Sacrament of Christs body is in a manneâ— the body of Christ so the Sacrament of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Note that he saith that the Sacrament of Christs body is the body of Christ after the same manner as Baptisme is faith Therefore our Adversaries say very ignorantly that figures elsewhere are receiveable but in the Articles of faith and institution of a Sacrament figures are no way convenient or agreeable For we have produced many examples of figures in the institution of Sacraments and they themselves acknowledge two figures in these words This Cup is the New Testament And touching the Articles of faith the Creede saith that Christ sitteth at the right hand of God which is a figurative kinde of speech for God hath no right hand The wh le Gospell is comprized under thâ—se words Jâ—sus is the Lambe of G d and all Popery is grounded upon these word Vpon this Rock will â—â—uild my Church â—nd I will give thee the keeps of the kingdome of heaven which he all figurative words And it is to be observed that when Christ instituted this holy Sacrament he spake in the Jewish language which is a dialect of the Syrian tongue saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro cadavere 1. Sam. 17.46 Amos. 6.3 Es 14.19 2. Paral. 20.24 Gen. 15.11 Num. 19.29 Hâ—n in pagri that is to say This my dead body supplying the word IS after the manner of the Hebrewes and Syrians He did then say to his Disciples that hee gave them his dead body Which could not be true but in
put a Father without a Sonne or a Sonne without a Father This error casts our Adversaries head-long into many others For if the Hoste become dirtie being fallen into the mire loe there are accidents that carry a substance and whereas the substance is the subject of accidents here on the contrarie accidents are the subject of the substance None can deny but that Ice is a substance when then the consecrated cup freezeth they will have the accidents alone to be frozen and so the accidents are become a Substance by a new kind of Transubstantiation no lesse prodigious than the first and which never thelesse availeth nothing to our salvation Vnlesse they will have Christs body to be frozen That if the Hostes grow mouldie behold there are lines a whitenesse a length a roundnesse mouldie If one warme the consecrated cup so that it smoake behold accidents which produce a Substance If as * Thom. 3. part q. 77. art 3. Sensu deprehenditur hostias consecratas putrefieri corrumpt Et art 5. Ex speciebus sacrimentalib generantur vermes si corrodantur Thomas and †Suarez in 3 Thomae disput 57. s 3. Constat ex hostus consecratis vermes generari Suarez acknowledge wormes breed in the consecrated hoste we must say that accidents have engendred a substance and that Soul-lesse accidents have produced an animated Substance and all that without being able to tell what profit the faithfull reape thereby The histories written by our adversaries testifie that Pope a Platina in Victore 3. ClemeÌ„t 5. Naucler Gener. 4. Aventinus lib. 7. pag. 598. Stella Fasciculus temporum Victorinus the 3 was impoysoned in the chalice of the Masse And that Henry the 7 Emperour was served just so in taking the Hoste b Henricus Archiepisc Eboracensis cum divina celebraret mysteria hausto in ipso calice ut aiunt vener obiit Matthew Paris in the yeare 1154. relates the like of Henry Archbishop of Yorke Then it was said with horrour God is impoysoned It is likely that for to avoid this inconvenience they make the essay to the Pope and taste it before him at the Masse as they doe at his ordinary meales That if the accidents onely are impoysoned besides the absurdity of impoysoning a length breadth and colour where there is nothing long nothing broad nor nothing coloured this ignominy is done to Christ Jesus that by his presence hee could not tâ—move away the poyson and that his body served of a vehicle to the poyson and that being given for the salvation of the soule it serveth to bring death and destruction to the body The Fathers impugne this errour plainly and expresly a Nyss exam emero pag. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregory of Nysse in his worke of six dayes The figure is not without bodie b Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit ubisintâ— ideo necesse est ut non sint Et paulo post Si moles ipsa corporis penitus aufâ—rater qualitates ejus non erit ubisint S. Austin in his 57 Epistle to Dardanus Take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies they shall be no more and therefore it is necessary they be not Aud a little after If the masse of the body be wholy taken away its qualities shall be no more The same in his 2 booke of Soliloquies c I'lud vero quod interrogast quis concesserit ut quod in subjecto est mameat ipso intereunte subfecto Who can yeeld to that thou hast demanded of me that that which is in the subject may remaine after the subject is abolished Briefly in all the Fathers you shal not finde one that saith that in the Eucharist the accidents remaine without a Subject That if they had be leeved it doubtlesse when they said that an accident is never without a subject they would have brought this exception taken from the Sacrament Moreover S. Austin in his 3 booke of â—he Trinitie chap. 10. saith openly that â—n the Eucharist there is no miracle wrought The bread saith he made for â—his use is eaten when the Sacrament is reâ—eived but because these things are knowne unto men by reason they are made by men a Haec henorem habere possunt ut religiosa stuporem autem habere ut mira non possunt 〈◊〉 they may well be honoured as religious but cannot be admired as miraculous In the 3 Tome of this good Doctor there are 3 bookes Of the marvelous things of the Scriptures wherein he speakes nothing of Transubstantiation nor of the Eucharist And those that talke here of Miracle understand not what a miracle is A Miracle is a sensible and a visible effect of the power of God against or above the course of nature to the end he may make his vertue knowne unto men But in the Masse there is nothing seene miraculous None can boast without lying that ever he saw the Transubstantiation made We do not deny but God may do all these things if he would But we say it is impossible that he would have such things to come to passe For he will be no lyar nor will contradict himselfe nor tie and submit his omnipotencie to mers imagination who imploy it in ridiculous things and forging of Chymera'â— and castles in the aire CHAP. XX Answers to some examples brought out of the Scriptures by our adversaries for to prove that the body of Christ hath beene sometimes in two severall places TO cloake this abuse they say that as God hath made that sometimes two bodies have filled and occupied but one place so hee can make that one and the same body be in severall places at once and thereupon they alleage for example that Christ entred in at the doores shut John 20.19 and consequently did penetrate the wood of the doores But they falsifie the Scripture S. John saith not that Christ entred in at the doores shut but that hee entred in when the doores were shut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It may be that he went in by some other place than by the â—ore It may be that the wood of the doore or the stones of the wall yeelded into him the creature yeelding and oâ—eying the Creator as a Hieron ad Pammach adv Joh. Ierosol Deum transire per clausam portam creatuâ— ram cedere creatori Hierome saith God went in at the doore shut the creature having yeelded to the Creator By saying â—hat he entred in at the doore shut hee meant the doore yeelded to him or that â—ee opened it at his coming in So if I say a muddie brooke runnes thorow a cleare water I meane it marred it as it went thorow But the best is alwayes to sticke close to the holy Scriptures Againe they alleage to the same purpose that Christs body coming out of the Sepulcher passed thorow the stone that stopped the mouth of the Sepulcher without taking away or removing the stone Matth.
Of which censures these Jesuites made a laughing stock in a Booke full of bitternesse which they have titled Spongia For to refute this Spongia the Sorbonne made use of the penne of a Sorbonist called Petrus Aurelius In whose Booke printed at Paris by Charles Morell I finde these words in the page 175. The Bishops have the power to produce Christ Anno. 1634. that is to say God himselfe c. Which vertue is in a manner infinite and equivalent not onely to the fecunditie of the Virgin Mother of God inasmuch as the Virgin-Priests procreate upon the Altar the same God whom the Virgin procreated first in her most holy wombe But alsâ— hath some â—â—â—ulation with the eternall operationes by which the divine persons are produced and with the eternall generation by which the Fâ—â—ther produceth with his divine mouth the same Word which the Priests produce with their sacred mouthes And gathers from thence that the power of Priests surpasses very farre all the Angelicall power And in the page 177. he saith that Priests doe perfect and accomplish the Redemption of mankinde And in the page 187. he saith that the power of Priests is most like unto the Divine power and that they have power over the reall body of Christ and over his mysticall body which is the Church and that with the Approbation of the Sorbon set in the front of the Booke Long before Pope Vrban the second * Simeon Dunelmensis lib. â— Chron. Vignier in his Ecclesiastiall History pag. 310. in the yeare 1097. called a Councell at Rome against the Emperour Henry the fourth in which he did thunder against earthly Princes who challenged to themselves the investiture of Benefices alleadging it is a thing abhominable that the hands of those which create God their Creator by their Character should be bound to this ignominie to be as drudges or servants to the hands that are night and day polluted with filthy and dishonest attractations If these things be true reason requires that so great a power hath not beene given unto Priests without great necessity and without some great profit should come thereby unto the Christian Church and that so many wonders as our Adversaries pile up in the Eucharist be greatly usefull and profitable to the faithfull Yet when we come to examine what the fruit is that comes from Transubstantiation and from the Sacrifice of the Masse we find they reduce it almost to nothing and make the Masse almost needlesse and unprofitable That appeares as cleare as the day by comparing it with Baptisme For in Baptisme there is no Transubstantiation made After these words I baptise thee in the name of the Father c. the water remaines in its owne nature and is not turned into blood Yet notwithstanding according to the doctrine of the Roman Church Baptisme is a thousand times more profitable and beneficiall and of a more excellent nature For in the Roman Church they hold Baptisme with water absolutely necessary to Salvation But as for the Eucharist our Adversaries hold that many are saved without being partakers thereof as appeareth by the example of John the Baptist and of the Theife crucified with Christ our Lord and of many faithfull people that dye without having partaked thereof specially of those which the Ancient Church did call Catechumenes Secondly our Adversaries say that by Baptisme not onely originall sinne is pardoned but even wholly taken away so that those which are Baptised have no more originall sinne nor nothing to speake properly that may be called sinne But concerning the Eucharist the Roman Church doth not beleeve that it wipes away the vices nor vicious customes in such sort as it may bee sayd that all those which are made partakers of the Eucharist bee without pride or without covetouesnesse or without lascivious lusts The principall is that our Adversaries teach that by Baptisme is remitted and abolished all the guilt and punishment both eternall and temporall of all the sinnes as well veniall as mortall committed before Baptisme But as for the Eucharist they say it availeth but against venial I sinnes which they make to be so light that a man needs not so much as to have and contrition or repentance for them Vasquez the Jesuite * Vasquez Tomo III. in 3 parteÌ„ Thomae Disp 179. cap 3. num 26. Rudes non debâ—nt hude ar tâ—â—ulum seire neque virtutem hujus Sacramentâ— prouâ—areâ—â— ad remitâ—â—dum vâ—â—ia lâ—â— quiâ— haec â—â—â—issiâ— non est ad sâ—lutem neâ—essarâ—â— The rude and vulgar sort ought not to know the particular vertue of this Sacrament in remitting veniall sinnes for that remission is not necessary unto salvation And the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent in the chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist * Catechis Trident. Remittâ— Eucharistiâ—i condonari leviora peccat a quae venialia dici solent noÌ„ est quod dubitarâ— debeat It must not be doubted but by the Eucharist light sinnes which are called veniall are remitted and forgiven which remission Vasquez told us just now not to be necessary Bellarmin in the seventeenth Chapter of his fourth Booke of the Eucharist putteth this among Luthers errors to have said that the first effect of this Sacrament is the remission of mortall sinnes And about the end of the same Chapter The whole question is reduced to this article Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe conferre the forgivenesse of mortall sinnes wherewith a mans conscience is charged or else for it comes all to one if for to receive the Communion worthily it be required that a mans conscience be not charged with any mortall sinne For all Catholicks teach that the Eucharist remits not such sinnes wherewith a mans conscience is loaden and therefore it is requisite they should be purged before And in the beginning of the eighteenth Chapter In this chapter it is not taught that the Eucharist be instituted for the remission of sinnes but onely for to preserve spirituall life And though even these Doctors were not so expresse upon this subject Yet the practise of the Roman Church shewes evidently that the Eucharist and the Masse availes nothing for the remission of sinnes For he that will receive the communion must be confessed before and after confession he receives of the Priest the absolution and forgivenesse of all his sinnes Whereupon it followeth that when a little after he receives the hoste there is nothing at all to be pardoned and that the Eucharist is a plaister for a healed wound and a remedie for a disease which is not Of how small efficacy likewise the Sacrifice of the Masse is in the Romane Church appeares in that they sing or say tenne thousand Masses for to draw one Soule out of Purgatory and yet after so many Masses they doubte still whether that Soule be in Heaven and are still uncertaine of its condition They Sacrifice in private Masses the body of Christ in a corner of a Church for the
had much paines to discover the falsity of many places and false Workes which are in so great number that if they were taken away the Fathers Workes would bee found diminished of a third part Those among our Adversaries that are well read in the Fathers acknowledge the same with us and passe condemnation in this point Reade Sixtus Senensis about the end of his fourth Booke and the Booke of Cardinall Bellarmin Of Ecclesiasticall Writers where he hath put the Catalogue of the Fathers Works There shall ye wonder to see the multitude of Bookes which he saith to be doubtfull or manifestly counterfeit Which causes men to doubt of the other Workes whose falsitie is not easilie found out For the discovering of these falsities we have beene helped by the Catalogue of the Workes of Ancient Writers which Photius Patriarch of Constantinople who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 878. hath put into his Librarie And by Gennadius a Priest of Marseilles that wrote a Booke of the Illustrious men about the yeare of our Lord 492. Item by the diversity of stile Item by certaine places of the Fathers which are alleadged by Ivo Gratian Burchardus Lombard Thomas and others quite otherwise than they bee found in the editions printed in this last age Item by other places of the same Fathers which say the contrary so that one and the same Father is oftentimes found to contrarie himselfe Even as the ninth Age was the Age wherein the Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome were forged under the name of one Isidorus Mercator which was falsely framed for the grounding of the Papall Monarchy which with might and maine was a building in that Age So the eleventh Age in which Berengarius Archdeacon of Angiers withstood and impugned stoutly and vigorously the opinion of the reall presence and Transubstantiation was the Age wherein were forged sundry works in the behalf of that error and divers clauses were chopt into the Books of the ancient Fathers Of this false coyne is the Book attributed to * Bellar. lib. de Script Eccles Sixtus Senensis sub sinem libriquart Cyprian of the Lords Supper which all the learned of the Roman Church acknowledge not to be of his making And the Cathecheses Mystagogicall of Cyril of Jerusalem The Catecheses of Gregory of Nysse are indeed his but horribly corrupted and full of errors which the Roman Church approves not There is mention made there of one Severus an Heretick who is posterior to this Gregory above 150. yeares Of these falsifications and divers others we have entreated more at large in the Book against Cardinal du Perron He that should take away from the works of Cyprian Ambrose Hierome Austin and Athanasius the counterfeit Books should diminish the writings of these Fathers more than of a third part Wherefore after so many falsities discovered when our adversaries object us some place of a Father we might very justly desire them to proveunto us that that place was not added or depraved by some falsifier aswell as so many others By all manner of reasons if in an writing brought in justice there be found but one falsification the whole instrument loseth all its force and is rejected There is another difficulty that deceiveth such men as are not wel seen in antiquity to wit that the words used in old time have now changed their signification In the Fathers are found these words of Pope of Sacrifice of Oblation of Purging fire of Indulgence of Station of Species of Monke of Penance but quite in another sense than these words are taken at this day Notwithstanding these difficulties and disadvantages whereby our adversaries strive to prevaile against us we refuse not for all that to buckle with theÌ„ For what falsifications soever were made in the Books of Ancient writers yet in them remaines still so many expresse and formall places against Transubstantiation that of the collection of them a man might make a great volume Wee have produced above 500 in the Book of the Novelty of Popery and Mr le Faucheur and Mr Aubertin have laboured lately and taken paines about this subject with a â—ost exact diligence and full of great learning Here wee will content our selves to produce some few places for a taste yet with this protestation that I do not alleadge the Fathers for to be a stay to our cause which is sufficiently propped and established upon the Word of God Goâ— doth not beg the testimonies of men Hâ—â— word is as strong alone as being aâ—companied with humane testimonâ— To goe about to defend it with thâ— testimonies of men subject to errouâ— is as if a man would lighten the Sunâ—â— with a Candle But wee doe alleadgâ— the Fathers for to defend their honour because that against their â—â—tent our Adversaries make them Advocates of a bad cause And for 〈◊〉 condescend and yeeld some thing to the disease of this froward age wherein the holy Scripture hath lost its power and efficacy and which armeth it selfe with human testimonies against the Word of God CHAP. XXVI Places of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation and to the manducation of the body of Christ by the corporall mouth TErtullian in his fourth Booke against Marcion chapter 40. disputing aâ—ainst the Marcionites that denyed Christ â—o have a true humane body speaketh â—hus a Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suuÌ„ illum fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Christ when he had taken the bread â—nd distributed it to his disciples made it â—o be his body saying This is my body â—hat is to say the figure of my body But it were not a figure unlesse it were a true body His reason is because men represent not by figure the things that are not And in the third Booke chapter 19. b Panem suum corpus appellans ut bâ—â—c jam euâ— intelligâ—â— corporis sui figuram paâ—i dedisse Christ called the bread his body that thereby thou mightest understand that he gave to the bread to be the figure of his body Origen upon the fifteenth Chapter of Saint Matthew speaking of that which the Faithfull receive by the corporall mouth in the Eucharist * Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in veâ—â—e abit in sâ—cessum â—jicitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbit Dei perque obsecratâ—oneÌ„ juxta id quod habet materialein ventrem aâ—â—â— in secessuÌ„ emitâ—itur c. â—â—t haecquidem deâ—ypico symboluoqueâ—orpore If every thing that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is sent into the prity this food which is sanctified by the Word of God and by the Prayer as it is materiall gâ—â— into the belly and is sent into the privy And a little after And thus much be said touching the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ Vpon this place
Christ with the bread in the Sacrament only which bringeth no manner of change to the naturall body of Christ But these Fathers make two bodies of Christ the one his naturall body which is but in Heaven the other the bread of the Sacrament which they make to be Christs body two manner of wayes to wit because it is united to the divinitie of Christ by an union like unto the hypostaticall union of the two natures of Christ and because it is a signe figure and symbole of Christs naturall body according as the signes are wont to be called by the name of that which they doe signifie and represent Whence also they say sometimes that that bread is the body of Christ borne of the Virgin and crucified for us Whosoever shall apprehend this aright shall have a key in their hand for to enter into the knowledge and intelligence of the Fathers and for to come out of all difficulties It is the solution of the places of Cyril that are objected against us and of those and Ambrose out of the Booke of Sacraments For indeed the Author of the Books of Sacraments was one of these Impanators since that he holdeth that by the unspeakable vertue of God the bread becometh the body of Christ and yet remaines bread still as we have prooved and alleadged the forme of the service of that time where it was said * Ambros li. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Fac nobis hanc oblationem aseriptam rataÌ„ rationabilem acceptabilem quod est siguracorporis Christi That the oblation we offer is the Figure of the body of Christ And in the 4 chap Let us establish this to wit how THAT WHICH IS BREAD may be the body of Christ And a little after he saith that the bread and the wine are still what they were and yet are changed into the body and blood of the Lord. Wee must not wonder if for to work this change in the bread of the Sacrament he imployeth the Omnipotency of God and his unexpressable vertue in changing things For indeed if that union he conceiveth were true it were an unspeakable and incomprehensible work and wherein human reason is stark blind Because of this mysticall union which is neare unto the personall union Cyrill of Alexandria saith that this body of Christ received into our bodies maketh them susceptible and capable of the Resurrection Which truely is an abuse For by the same reason the participation of the Sacrament should keep us from dying The Faithfull of the Old Testament and John the Baptiste and the Theife crucified with Christ and an ininfinit number of Martyrs that were never partakers of this Sacrament are no lesse capable of the Resurrection From that impanation sprung up that custome by which in old time many particular persons carried away the Eucharist into their own houses and kept it locked up in a chest or cupboord as a Gregor Nazianz. Oratione de sorore Gorgonia Gorgonia did who was sister to Gregory Nazimzen Which sheweth on the one side that they did give unto that bread something more than to be the figure and signe of Christ body And on the other side that sheweth also that they did not beleeve the Transubstantiation For they would never have put Christs naturall body into a womans hand for to keep it locked up in a cupboord From the same opinion proceeded that which Satyrus b Ambros Oratione de obitu fratris Satyri did who was S Ambroses brother and yet unbaptized Who being upon the Sea in danger of shipwrack caused the Eucharist to be given him and hanged it about his neck and then threw himselfe into the sea for to save himselfe by swimming An evident proofe they beleeved thâ—t in this Sacrament there was some secret vertue and that neverthelesse they beleeved not this bread to be the naturall body of Christ crucified for us For they would never have given it to an unbaptized person for to hang it about his neck and cast it with him into the Sea Neither is it to bee omitted that the Fathers never speake of the species of the bread in the plurall but only in the singular because that by the spâ—cies of the bread they understand the substance of the bread which is one But our Adversaries which deprave the Fathers tearmes as well as their doctrine speak of species of the bread in the plurall because that by the species of the bread they understand accidents without a subject which are many Which is a new doctrine and a phrase or kind or speech altogether unusuall not only in Philosophers but also in the Fathers and in all Antiquity CHAP. XXX Particular opinion of Saint Austen and of Fulgentius and of Innocent the third AVsten and Fulgentius his disciple take sometimes these words This is my body in a sense patricular to themselves For besides this exposition which is very frequent in S. Austin namely that the Lord called the bread his body because it is the sigure and signe of his body in some places he will have in these words THIS is my body that by this word body the Church be understood For in his Sermon to Children which is to be found at the end of Fulgentius his Workes hee speaketh thus These things are called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene and another understood c. If then thou wilt know what the body of Christ is heare the Apostle saying Ye are the body and members of Christ And in the 26 Treatise upon S. John By this ment and by this drinke the Lord will have the fellowship of his body and of his members to bee understood to wit the holy Church of the Predestinat Pope Innocent the third holdeth the same doctrine For in his 4 Book of the mysteries of the Masse hee saith that Christ hath two bodies to wit his naturall body which he took of the Virgin and which was crucified and his mysticall body viz. the Church Then he addeth * Mysticum corpus coÌ„editur spiritualiter id est in fide sub specie panâ—s The mysticall body is eaten spiritually that is to say in faith under the species of the bread By all the premises it is plaine and evident that he who forsaking the Scriptures taketh the Fathers for his addresse or direction intangleth himselfe into marveilous difficulties and casteth himselfe into darknesse and in a labyrinth without issue And that a man must be well read in them and observe and heed them very exactly for to attaine to an indifferent knowledge of them That if any one readeth them carefully and with an unpreoccupated mind though he meets with many errors in them and small agreement among themselves Yet he shall find them so far from the doctrine of the Roman Church as the heavens are from the earth CHAP. XXXI That the Church of Rome condemning the Impanation is fallen her selfe into an error a thousand times more pernitiouâ— by Transubstantiation
And in the 34 Psalme O taste and see that the Lord is good And Ieremy in the 15 chap. Thy words were found and I did presently eate them And God himselfe in the 55 of Isayâ—h inviteth the thirsty to drink of the waters And that it may bee understood he speakes of a spirituall drink he addes Encline your care and your soule shall live According to this kind of speech S. Peter in his 1 Epistle chap. 2 exhorts us to desire the milk of intelligence to wit the Word of God And S. Paul in the first to the Corinthians chap. 3. saith he hath given them milk and not solid meat Christ our Lord is he that hath used very often such metaphors taken from corporall meats and drinks He saith in the 4. chap. of S. John that his meat is to do his Fathers will And in the same chap. he promiseth to give water whereof whosoever shall drink shall never thirst And in the chap. 7.37 If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink And in the 5. chapter of S. Matthew Blessed are they which doe hunger and thirst after righteousnesse With such manner of figurative speeches is woven and interlaced a great part of the 6 chap. of S. John where the Lord speaking to the Capernaites promiseth to give them the bread of Heaven and saith that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed Two occasions mooved him to speak so For the Jews of Capernaum making him inferior to Moses and objecting unto him as by reproach of impotency that Moses had given unto the Iews the Manna which they call the bread of Heaven the Lord from thence takes occasion to tell them he would give them another bread descended from Heaven farre better than the Manna to wit himselfe come downe from Heaven for to bee the food of soules and for to vivifie them The other cause that mooved him to speak in figured tearmes is that he was speaking unto ungratefull and rebellious Iews â—o whom S. Maâ—thâ—w saith he spake not wiâ—h â—t a parâ—ble Matth. 13.34 Here our Adversaries acknowledge with us that there is a manner of eating the body of Christ which is spirituall and which is done not by the corporall moâ—th but by the Faith in Christ Iesus in whom we find our life and spirituall food The Councell of Trente in the XIII Session chap. 8. teaches the same saying Some eate this bread only spiritually and by a lively Faith But besides this spirituall manducation the Church of Rome forgeth to her selfe a corporall manducation whereby the Faithfull in the Eucharist do chew and eate with their very teeth the body of our Saviour Christ and take it with the corporall mouth and make him to enter into their stomacks and do call this a reall and true manducation for to oppose it to the spirituall manducation whereof they speake very often with contempt as of a picture and of a thing which consists only in imagination The Councell of Trente intimates so much tacitely saying there be some that eate this bread only spiritually as if it were a small thing in comparison of the reall eating of it by the mouth of the body Yet neverthelesse when wee presse them a little they are forced to avow that the spirituall manducation is a great deale better and that the corporall manducation which they maintaine and defend so stiflly and with so much ardour is a small thing in regard of the spirituall For they confesse that many are saved without partaking of the Eucharist but that none are saved without beleeving in Christ And that many eate the Sacrament which neverthelesse do perish eternally but that whosoever eateth Christs flesh spiritually and with true Faith shall have eternall salvation according to the Lords saying in the third chap. of S. John that whosoever beleeveth on him shall not perish but have eternall life Which is more our Adversaries do acknowledge with us that the manducation of the Sacrament without the spirituall manducation by Faith is not only unprofitable but even turnes into condemnation and that it is profitable and usefull but for and because of the spirituall manducation But the spirituall manducation by it selfe alone and without the corporall manducation leaves not to be profitable and alwayes necessary to salvation The manducation of the Sacrament by the mouth of the body is common both to good and bad and hypocrites partake thereof as well as the true Faithfull yea our Adversaries hold that beasts may eate Christs body and that Mice do carry away sometimes the body of the Lord But the spirituall manducation is proper and peculiar to Gods Children and none but the true Faithfull can be partakers thereof Christ in the 15 of S. Matthew saith that which goeth into the mouth defileth not a man whence follows that neither can it sanctifie a man In this S. Austin is far from that language which the Roman Church holdeth now a dayes who acknowledgeth no other true and reall manducation of Christs body than that which is made by the bodily mouth in the Eucharist For this holy man on the contrary holdeth that there is no other true and reall manducation of Christs body but the spirituall and that that which is done in the Sacrament by the mouth of the body is not a true manducation He teacheth it in his 21 book of the City of God chap. 25. a Dominus ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed 〈◊〉 veracorpus Christi manducare The Lord saith he sheweth what it is to eate the body of Christ not in Sacrament only but in truth And in the same place b Non solo SacrameÌ„to sed re veâ—â— manduâ—â—verunt corpus Christi They have eaten the body of Christ not only in Sacrament but also truely and indeed To this holy Doctor Thomas joynes himselfe in this point in his 7 lesson upon the 6 of S. John where speaking of him that eateth spiritually the body of Christ he saith c Hic est ille qui non Sacramentalâ—â—er tantum sed re verâ— corpus Christ manduâ—at It is that man that eateth the body of Christ not only Sacramentally but also in truth CHAP. II. That in the 6 Chapter of S. Iohn the Lord speakes not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of the manducation of his flesh by the mouth of the body BY the corporall manducation wee understand the manducation of the bread and wine which Christ hath honored with the title of his body and blood because they are the Sacrament and remembrance of the same But our Adversaries pretend to eate really the body of Christ with their mouth and to make him passe into their stomach and for to prop this so grosse and Capernaitish manducation they alleadge the sixth of Saint Iohn where Christ saith that he is the bread come downe from Heaven and promiseth to give his flesh to eate 1. For to beleeve that a man must of
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
fieâ—i ut redigatur ad locum unitatis â—t a ut quatuor homines occupent locum unius hominis when for to prove that a body may be in severall places at once hee saith that it is possible that foure men hold no more place than one of the foure alone and that all foure fill up but one place Take me a man clothed with a sute of clothes that sits close and is made just to his body Bellarmin saith it is possible for these foure men to be contained in the same sute of clothes without being made larger and the men never a whit the lesse If that be possible for foure it is also possible for ten yea for a hundred yea for a thousand so that all the men of the World shall be contained in a single doublet But if of these foure men in this little doublet one be sitting the other lying and the other standing If one of-them embrace the other and by consequent is out of the other they shall not be in one and the same place If they speake together and looke one upon another the one shall be the object of the others eyes and therefore shall not bee in one and the selfe same place Truly I thinke this Jesuite propounding such things and shutting up a whole Common-wealth in a doublet had a minde to deride his owne Religion For by the same reason a man may have both his eyes in one place and not different of sitnation Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar c. 2. § Tertia Christus in Eucharistia non habet modum existendâ— corporum sed potius spiritâ—uÌ„ cum sit totus in qualibeâ— parte By this meanes a man shall have two eyes and shall have but one And the parts of an humane body shall not be distinct and the one shall not be out of the other This our Adversaries doe by their Transubstantiation as Bellarmin acknowledgeth saying that in the Eucharist Christ doth not exist after the manner of bodies but rather after the manner of Spirits since hee is whole in everie part It is false likewise that according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome Christs body be in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits For when an Angell is present in any place he is not present in a thousand others severall places and is not far from himselfe and divided from himselfe aâ— they will have Christs body to bee in a million of severall places at one and the same time The same Jesuite in the third Booke and fifth chapter saith * §. Ad haec Substantia fius quanti â—ate caâ—o dâ—ci non potese that a Substance without qantity cannot bee tearmed flesh Whereupon it followes that Christs body under the Host is not flesh for there is no quantity since it is whole under every point that hath no quantity Besides that the quantity of a body is a continued quantity But Christs body in the Host is not one in continuity with that which is in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God the Father since hee is farre and remote from it Againe he saith in the same place * Quid est corpus nisi extentâ—o 〈◊〉 longitudinem latitudinem prosunditatâ—m That a body is nothing else but an extension in length breath and depth Therefore in the Sacrament there is no true body of Christ since it hath no extension no length breadth and depth As he saith himselfe in the second chapter of his first Book Christs body in the Eucharist hath no extension I have wondred many times seeing that our Adversaries hold that Christ municants untill the species be destroyed and consumed by the disgestion why they do not give them hard bread and not of easie disgestion that they might have Christ in them a longer time rather then to give them such light Hosts or wafers which are presently turned into a Chylus and disgested in an instant CHAP. VIII Of the progresse of this abuse and by what meanes Satan hath established the Transubstantiation UPon this matter the opinions of men began to varie in the eight Age wherein the controversie touching the adoration of Images was in its hight and force For Satan at the same time did labour and busie himselfe to introduce and bring into the Church these two sorts of Idolatry In the yeere of our Lord 754 the Emperor Constantin son to Lisaurus called a Councell of his whole Empire at Constantinople where 330 Bishops were present that condemned the adoration of Images Among other reasons that they bring they exhort the people to be contented with those Images that Christ had instituted having given in the holy Supper the bread and wine for Images and Figures of his body and blood And speaking of the Eucharisticall bread they say * Ecce vivificantis illâ—â—s corporâ—â—s Imaginem Behold the image of this quickning body that is honorably presented And a little after The Lord commanded to set upon the table that image altogether chosen to wit the substance of the bread least Idolatry should creep in if it were represented in an humane forme But few yeares after the Empire being fallen into the hands of Irenea an Idolatrous woman and who did put out the eyes of her own son and ravished the Empire from him this monster called another Councell at Nice in the year 787. where she caused Images to be re-established and the worshipping of them to be commanded under paine of a curse There likewise were condemned as abhominable these foresaid clauses of the former Councell whereby the bread and wine are called Images of the Lords body and blood And it is the same Councell that declares that Images are equivalent and of as much worth as the Gospell and that an Image is better than Prayer And that Angels are corporall And that he that hath the least doubt whither Images must bee worshipped is accursed For certainly the spirit of Satan reigned in that pernicious Councell Wherefore also Charles the Great who lived then called another Councell at Franâ—kford anno Domini 794 in which that Councell of Nice was condemned as erroneous by a generall consent notwithstanding that Pope Adrian had approved that Councell and made a Treatise in defense of it Whilest Satan bestirred himselfe thus in the East parts the Roman Bishops on their side did labour in the West parts For they did well perceive that these two things to wit the adoration of the Sacrament and the adoration of Images would be of great use and would serve much for the strengthning of their Empire and encreasing of the dignity of the Romish Clergy For the Pope taking out of the way the holy Scriptures from the eyes of the People hatâ—â—given them Images which they call Ignorant mens Books busying the eyes of the people whilest he conveyed away the Word of God from them And the opinioÌ„ of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist exalts the dignity and power of Priests so
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