this chapter p. 287. l. 5. the word even must be put in the next line and read that even c. CYPRIAN IN HIS LXIII EPISTLE TO CAECILIVS §. 7. SPEAKING OF THE EVCHARISTICALL CVP. The holy Apostle teacheth that we must no manner of way swerve or depart from that which is commanded us in the Gospell and that the Disciples ought to practise and doe the same things which the Master hath done and taught And in the XI §. If Christ must be heard alone we ought not to regard what others before us have thought fitting to be done but what Christ who is before all hath done first For we must not follow the custome of man but the will of God The Commentary upon the first to the Corinth attributed to Saint Ambrose in the XI Chapter The Apostle saith that that man is unworthy of the Lord which celebrates this mysterie otherwise than it was celebrated by him For that man cannot be devout which presumes to doe otherwise than it was given us by the author THE ANATOMY OF THE MASSE FIRST BOOKE CHAP. I. THe Institution of the holy Supper by Christ Jesus as it is contained in the first Epistle of the Apostle Saint Paul to the Corinthians Chap. 11. 23 I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread 24 And when he had given thankes hee brake it and said Take eate This is my body which is broken for you this doe in remembrance of me 25 After the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This doe ye as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me 26 For as often as ye eate this bread and drink this cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eate thiâ— bread and drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the bodie anâ— blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eaâ—e of that bread anâ— drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnatioâ— to himselfe not discerning the Lords body Saint Mathew in the 26 Chap. and 29 Verse addes these words of the Lord. BVt I say unto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome And in the 27 verse he testifieth that Christ presenting the cup to his Disciples said Drink ye all of it CHAP. II. Foure and thirty contrarieties between the Lords holy Supper and the Masse and how farre the Church of Rome is departed from the Institution of the Lord. NOne can deny but that our Lord Jesus did institute the holy Supper aright and as it ought And it were an impiety to find fault with his institution Therefore the shortest way yea the only meanes to end all our differences would be to come back to Christs institution and to speake as he spake and to doe as he did That is the thing which we desire and beg with so much earnestnesse and whereunto the Church of Rome can by no meanes agree For the Councell of Trent in the XXII Session denounceth Anathema on all those that shall say that in the Canon of the Masse there is any errour Yet neverthelesse it is evident that the Masse is nothing else but a changing and a disfiguring of the Lords Institution Whereof we will give some examples 1. Christ instituting the holy Supper among his Disciples spake in a knowne and intelligible tongue to the assistants On the contrary the Priest in the Masse speaketh in a tongue which the people understand not 2. Christ presenting the Cup to his Disciples said Drinke ye all of it And St. Paul in the 1 to the Cor. Chap. 11. vers 28. bids the people of Corinth to drink of the cup saying Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. And in the 10. Chap. 17. Verse We are all partakers of one bread and of one cup according to the Version of the Romane Church solely authorised by the Councell of Trent 3. Christ in celebrating the Eucharist spake not of sacrificing his body and made no offering unto God his Father On the contrary the Priest in the Masse pretends to sacrifice Christs body and offereth him up to God in sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and for the dead without a warrant and without Gods command 4. Christ in the holy Supper made no elevation of the hoste as likewise the Apostle worshipped not the Sacrament but sat still at the Table On the contrarie the Priest in the Masse lifts up the hoste and maketh the people to worship it 5. Christ did not cause any bones nor reliques of Saints to be put under the sacred table and did not aske of God the remission of sinnes through the merits of those Saints whose reliques were under the table On the contrary the Priest in the Masse kissing the Altar speakes thus to God a Oramus te Domine per merita Sanctorum tuorum quorum reliquiae hic sunt omnium Sanctorum ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee Lord through the merits of thy Saints whose reliques are here that thou wilt vouchsafe to pardon me all my sinnes 6. Christ said to his Apostles Take eate On the contrary in the Romane Church a great number of private Masses are sayd at the intention of such as pay for them without communicants and without assistants in which the Priest saith Take eate but there is no body either for to take or for to eate Yea even in publick Masses the Priest oftentimes eateth and drinketh alone 7. Three Evangelists viz. S. Matth. in the 26 chapter S. Marke in the 14. Chap. and S. Luke in the 22. and S. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians testifie that Christ gave bread to his Disciples saying He tooke bread and brake it and gave it Now the Sacrament is not given but after the consecration Christ therefore gave bread after the consecration And Saint Paul 1 to the Corinth Chap. 11. Verse 26.27 and 28. saith three severall times that we eate bread And in the 10 Chap. Verse 16. he saith that wee breake bread And in the 20 Chap. of the Acts Verse 7. it is said that the Disciples came together to breake bread On the contrary the Church of Rome teacheth that in the Eucharist no bread is eaten and that the bread is not broken but that which the Priest breakes in the Masse is the body of Christ which neverthelesse cannot be broken 8. Christ giving that bread said This is my body declaring that the bread that he gave was his body On the contrary the Romane Church teacheth that the bread is not the body of Christ But that the bread
is no more bread and that it is transubstantiated into Christs body Now how the bread is Christs body himselfe teaches it when he adds that it is his commemoration Even as in the next line following he saith that the Cup is the New Testament because it is the signe and commemoration of it according to the stile of the Scripture that giveth to the signes and memorials the name of the thing which they doe signifie and represent 9. Christ called that which was in the cup the fruit of the Vine saying I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine On the contrary the Church of Rome teacheth that that which is in the cup is not the fruit of the Vine but blood And saith that in the Cup is not onely the very blood of Christ but also that his Body and his Soule and his Divinity is there and that the Body is whole in every drop of the Chalice Whereupon it followeth and the Roman Church beleeves it so that Christ dranke his flesh and swallowed downe his owne soule and body and ate himselfe and had his head in his mouth 10. The Evangelists doe record that Christ having taken bread blessed it But according to the Church of Romes doctrine which abolisheth the substance of the bread in the Eucharist Christ did not blesse the bread for to destroy a thing and reduce it to nought is not to blesse it 11. Christ distributing the bread and breaking it spake in the present tense saying b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod frangitur This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it appeareth that by his body he meant the Sacrament or commemoration of his body For Christs naturall body cannot be broken To shun the force of this argument the Latin Version of the Romane Church hath corrupted this place and in stead of these words Which is broken for you hath turned Which shall bee delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.14 Quod pro vobis tradetur putting delivering for breaking and the future for the present And indeed our Adversaries are mightily pestered to tell us what it is that the Priest breaketh in the Masse Doth he breake bread But they say that it is no more bread Doth he breake Christs body But it cannot be broken and they themselves say that it is whole and entire in the least crum of the hoste as big and as large as it was upon the crosse Doth he breake the Accidents of bread which most fraudulously they call species viz. the taste the colour and roundnesse of the hoste But these things cannot bee broken Can a man make peeces of taste or of whitenesse None but bodies can bee broken 12. The Apostle Saint Paul conforming himselfe to the Lords institution saith in the 10 chapter of the 1â— to the Corinthians 16 Verse that the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The Church of Rome gaine says and contradicteth every word of this sentence The Apostle saith that it is bread The Church of Rome on the contrary saith that it is not bread The Apostle saith that it is bread which we breake On the contrary the Church of Rome saith that it is flesh which we doe not breake The Apostle saith that this bread is the communion of the body of Christ On the contrary the Church of of Rome saith that this bread is Christs body it selfe Behold then a cleare and a plaine exposition of these words This is my body given by the Apostle to wit The bread which I breake is the communion of my body and not that which the Church of Rome giveth viz. That which is under these species is transubstantiated into my body 13. It is very considerable that the same Apostle in the same chapter and 21 verse maketh an opposition between the Lords table and the table of devils saving Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils The reason of the opposition sheweth plainely that as to be partaker of the table of Devils is not to eate Devils * But to be partaker of the meat consecâ—ated to Devils So to be partaker of Christs Table is not to eaâ— Christ but to be partaker of the meaâ— consecrated by Christ in remembrane of Christ and of his death 14. Christ in distributing the breaâ— and the cup said Doe this in remembranâ—â— of me These words shew manifestly thaâ— the Priest maketh not Christ in the Masse and sacrificeth him not For it is impossible to make Christ in remembrance of Christ It is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Can a man build a house in remembrance of that house Did Aaron sacrifice a Lamb in remembrance of that Lambe Besides that the remembrance is but of things absent and past as Saint Austin saith upon the 37 Psalme Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentia non est positum No remembrance can be had but of things that are not present The councell of Trent declareth indeed that Christ by these words Doe this commanded that he should be sacrificed in the Masse But besides that Christ cannot be sacrificed in remembrance of Christ the Apostle Saint Paul presently after these words Doe this in remembrance of mee addeth the explication saying For as often as ye eate of this bread and drinke of this cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come Will we therefore know what is to Doe this Saint Paul teacheth us that it is to eate this bread and drinke of this cup for to shew and declare the remembrance of Christ his death 15. Our Lord Jesus brake the bread before he pronounced the words which they call the words of consecration He tooke the bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it saying This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it followeth by the doctrine of the Roman Church that he brake bread unconsecrated and untransubstantiated On the contrary in the Roman Church the Priest breaks the hoste after the words of consecration to the end the people may beleeve that he breaketh and sacrificeth the very body of Christ Our adversaries then confesse that the Priest breaketh an other thing than Christ brake Some for to arme themselves against the Apostle which saith that the bread that we breake is the communion of the body of Christ tell us that Saint Paul saith that we breake bread because that when he did minister this holy Sacrament he did break afore he consecrated following Christs example and consequentlâ— did breake unconsecrated bread Brâ—â— those that speake so contradict the Râ—man Church which doth not beleeâ—â— that the fraction of the unconsecrated bread is the communion of the body of Christ 16. The same Apostle 1. Cor. 11.28 saith Let a man examine himselfe and sâ— let him eate OF this bread Which is the same kind of speech used by Christ saying Bibite ex eo omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drinke yee all
the pronouncing of the words of Consecration For by these words This is my body the Priest offâ—reth nothing to God But every Sacrifice is an offering made unto God Furthermore in every Sacrifice he that sacrificeth addresseth himselfe to God but these words are addressed to the broad Which is more we have seene hereabove the Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that in all this action Christ offered nothing to God Therefore he made no Sacrifice 11. It is to be noted that in the Roman Church the Order of Priesthood is a Sacrament whose it stitution they wil have to be found in the Institution of the Eucharist when the Lord said Doe this as if Christ by one and the same words had instituted two Sacraments With as much absurditie as if one would needs finde the Institution of Marriage or of Extreame Vnction in the institution of Baptisme That if these words Doe this in remembrance of mee bee the formall and expresse words whereby Christ conferred the Order of Priesthood how comes it to passe that the Bishops when they dâ—e conserre that Order in the Ember weeks make no mention of these words at all 12. Our Adversaries put two sorts of Sacrifice The one bloody the other unbloody which they call the Sacrifice of Melchisedek and which they say to be farre more excellent that the blooddy sacrifice and will have the Masse to be the Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedek Whence followeth that the Masse is more excellent than Christs death which is a bloody Sacrifice It is great wonder then that the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking so at large of the Priesthood of Melchisedek maketh not any mention at all of Masse nor of Eucharist 13. But how is it thay by these words Doe this in remembrance of mee Christ should command men to sacrifice him in the Masse since it is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ seeing also that Saint Paul immediately after these words addeth the explication of them saying For as often as yee cate this bread and drink this cup ye doe shew the Lords death 1. Cor. 11. He teacheth us that to Doe this is to eate bread and drink the cup in remembrance of the Lords death Here therefore every man that seareâ— God and loves the Lord Jesus shal consider what a crime it is for moratal men and sinners to intrude and take upon themselves to Sacrifice the Eternall Sonne of God to his Father and to bee Priests after the Order of Melchisedek without charge and without commission CHAP. XXXIIII In what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice Of Melchisedeks Sacrifice And of the Oblation whereof Malachy speaketh THe holy Scripture calleth our Almes our Prayers our Praises and Thankesgivings and generally what worship soever wee render unto God Sacrifices In this sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice For the question betweene us and our Adversaries is not whether the Eucharist may be calâ—ed a Sacrifiee But whether it be truly and properly a Sacrifice of redemption and whether the Priests in the Masse sacrifice the body of Christ really and truely for the sins of the quick and of the dead Touching that our Adversaries bring no manner of proofe out of the new Testament wherein neverthelesse the institution of this Sacrifice should appeare Only they all eadge out of the Old Testament the example of Melchisedek who as they say sacrificed bread and wine Gen. 14.18 Which they produce falsly for that place saith no such thing Melchisedek brought out bread and wine to Abraham for to refresh his wearieâ— troopes but offered not bread and wine to Abraham in Sacrifice The very Biblâ— of the Roman Church hath proferens and not offerens Neverthelesse we wil suppose that place to be faithfully alleadged For if the Masse be the Sacrifice oâ— Melchisedek it will follow that the Masse is a Sacrifice of bread and wine and not of slesh and bones and blood From thence it followeth also that the Masse is not a Sacrifice of redemption For bread and wine offered up in Sacrified cannot bee the price of our redemption It were an abuse to think that Melchisedek hath sacrificed bread for the redemption of any one The propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament were made by the death of the victime and no propitiation was made without shedding of blood saith the Apostle Heb. 9. â—2 In summe it is to speak against the commâ—n sence to argue thus Melchisedek offered bread and wins Therefore the Priest sacrificeth the Lords body and blood They object likewise a place of Malachy chap. 1. wherein God promiseth that in every place Incense shall be offered unto his Name and a pure offering Which is a Prophesie of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God foretels that among the â—â—tions and acceptable service shall bee offered unto him Of the Sacrifice of the Lords body he speaketh nothing of it The novelty of this service is that it shall be made among all Nations whereas in Malachies time â—it was but made in the Jewish Nation They say also that the Passeover of the Old Testament was a Sacrifice and by consequent that the Lords Supper that succeeded thereunto must be Sacrifice They speake with as much reason as if I should say that the night must be cleare because it succeedeth to the day which is bright and cleere and that old Age is strong and lusty seeing it succeedeth to yong Age which is strong and lusty The succession of one thing unto another bringeth commonly great alterations Adde to this that our Adversaries will not have the Masse to be such a Sacrifice as that Passeover was For the Passeover was not offered by the Priests and was not made upon the Altar of the Temple it was a domesticall sacrifice which particular men made at home in their own houses As it appeareth by the Passeover which Christ did celebrate among his Disciples in which no Priest was employed And even though by this example our Adversaries had prooved that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice yet there would remaine for them to prove that in this Sacrifice Christs body is really sacrificed CHAP. XXXV In what sense the Fathers have called the Eucharist a Sacrifice THe ancient Fathers indeavouring to draw the Heathen unto the Christian Faith who esteemed there is no Religion without sacrifice and the Jewes whose Religion under the Old Testament did chiefly consist in Sacrifices have called the holy Supper a Sacrifice and the Sacred Table an Altar and those that serve at it Levites But they shew sufficiently how they call the holy Supper a Sacrifice since they call it Eucharist that is to say Thankesgiving and not a Sacrifice of Propitiation Saint Austin calleth it indeed the Sacrifice of our price in the ninth Book of Confessions chapter 12. But wee have produced a multitude of places out of the same Father that say that in matter of Sacraments the signes are wont to take the name of
purpose put out his own eyes and give the Son of God the lye For all this dâ—scourse is addressed and spoken to the Jewes of Capernaum to whom hee promiseth to give his flesh to eate If by these words hee had promised to give them the Eucharist hee would have deceived them for he never administred nor presented the holy Supper unto them 2. That appeareth by the time wherein the Lord held this discourse It was when the holy Supper was not as yet instituted no nor till about two yeares after How could the Lords Disciples have understood that hee spake of the Eucharist unto them which was not and whereof he had never spoken before 3. Where is there in all this discourse of the Lord the least mention of a Table or of a Chalice or of a Supper or of a Fraction of Bread or of a distribution of the Sacrament among many In summe of any of the actions wherein the administration of this Sacrament doth consist 4. It is to be noted that Christ speaketh often in the present tense Iohn 6.33 and chap 35 14. He doth not say I shall be the bread come downe from heaven and I shall be the bread of life But I am the bread came downe from heaven and I am the bread of life And He that eateth my flesh hath ete naâ—l life He was then the bread of life before the holy Supper was instituted and might have beene eaten then and was the sood of the Soule when the holy Supper had as yet no being 5. Now that by eating and drinking the Lord meaneth to beleeve and to trust in him and thereby to be nourished and vivified he shewes it himselfe saying in the 35 Verse I am the bread of life be that commeth to me shall never hunger and hee that beleeveth on mee shall never thirst Who sees not that in this place beleeving is put for drinking since by beleeving the thirst is quenched And as by that word of comming hee speaketh of a spirituall comming so by that word drinking hee meaneth and understandeth a kinde of spirituall drinking 6. And when the Lord saith in the 47. and 48 Verse Hee that beleeveth in mee hath eternall life I am the bread of life who sees not that this bread is taken in and by beleeving For Christ sheweth how he is the bread of life to wit because he that beleeves on him hath eternall life 7. The very words whereupon our Adversaries ground themselves most are those which make most against them In the 53 Verse the Lord saith Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you There it is evident he speakes of a manducation necessary unto salvation and without which none can be saved Hee speakes not therefore of the manducation of the Sacrament by the mouth of the body seeing that without it so many are saved Now to say that this corporall manducation is necessary not indeed but in vow and desire is to come neare our beleefe and reduce that necessity to the spirituall manducation Moreover to say that none are saved without desiring to be partakers of the holy Communion is to exclude from salvation John the Baptist and the good Theife crucified with the Lord who never participated thereof neither in deed nor in vow And we might bring many examples of Pagans and Idolaters Read the Homily of the 40 〈◊〉 maâ—â—yrs i◠〈◊〉 who by hearing of the wordes of the Martyrs were converted at the same instant and put to death at that very houre without any body ever having told them of this Sacrament and consequently without having made any vow at all to bee made partakers thereof Yea many have suffered martyrdome without being Baptized and by consequent verie farre from disposing themselves to receive the Eucharist 8. The same appeareth by that which Christ addeth in the 54 Verse Hee that eateth my flesh hath eternall life He speaketh not of the manducation of the Sacrament For many that eate it have not eternall life Their ordinary evasion is that Christ speaketh of him that eateth his flesh worthily Wherein appeareth how strong the truth is on our side For according to our beleefe the Lords words are true without any addition But our Adversaries doe adde some glosses for to escape and save themselves Which addition they make of their owne head without the Word of God One may well eate the bread unworthily as Saint Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. Whosoever eateth this bread unworthily But it is impossible to eate the Lords flesh unworthily since to eate is to beleeve as we have shewed A man cannot beleeve in Christ unworthily no more than to love God unworthily since that in beleeving in Christ and in loving of God consisteth all our dignity Cardinall Cajetan observeth the same upon the sixt of Saint John saying Christ doth not say He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood worthily but hee that eateth and drinketh to the end wee may understand that he speaketh of a meate and of a drinke that hath no need of modifieation c. It appeareth then plainely that this speech is not to be understood literally and that the Lord speaketh not of eating and drinking the Sacrament but of beleeving and of feeding spiritually by faith in his death 9. The Lord addeth in the 56 Verse He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Words that decide this question For they would be false if they should be taken and understood of the manducation of the Sacrament it being a thing most certaine that profane men and hypocrites which receive the Sacrament dwell not in Christ nor Christ in them Now to dwell in Christ is to be conjoyned to him with an union constant and continuall and mutuall betweene Christ and the beleever As Cornelius Jansenius Bishop of Gant Concord Evang. ca. 59. Quiedit carnem meam hibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in co hoc est indivulse intime mihi coujungitur ego illi teacheth very well He saith hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him that is to say he is conjoyned unto me inseparably and intimately and I to him and proves it by other places of Saint John in his first Epistle 4.16 Hee that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him And in the same place Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit And in the third Chapter 24. Verse he saith that hee that keepeth his Commandements dwelleth in him and bee in him From whence he inserreth that also in this 6 Chapter of Saint John the Lord speaks of a kinde of eating which is proper unto those that have a faith working through charity and not of a corporall manducation whereof wicked men are partakers 10. That if for to make Christ to dwell
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
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
Words which Mâ—tthew and Marke would not have omitted if by them the Lord had instituted the Sacrifice and the Priesthood of the New Testament CHAP. XXXIII That the Sacrifice of the Masse agrees neither with Scripture nor with reason 1. THe two third partes of Saint Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews are employed in speaking both of the Sacrifice and of the Priesthood of the Christian Church where neverthelesse no mention is made at all of the Eucharist nor of any other Sacrifice of redemption than the death of Christ our Lord. 2. Moreover in many places namely about the end of the ninth Chapter the Apostle saith As it is appointed unto men once to dye so Christ was once offered for to take away our sinnes Teaching us that as man dieth but once and that the death of men is not reiterated neither bloodily nor unbloodily so the Sacrifice by which Christ offered himselfe for our sinnes receiveth no iteration And in the tenth Chapter two severall times he saith in expresse tearmes that Christ hath offered Vnicam oblationem one onely Sacrifice and then sate him downe on the right hand of God 3. For since Christs death is a price and a sufficient Sacrifice for our redemption there is no more need of another Sacrifice of redemption That if for applying unto our s lves Christs Sacrifice he must he sacrificed againe by the same reason for to apply his dâ—ath unto our selves he must be put to death againe Christ and his death is applyed unto us by the fraction of the bread 1. Cor. 10.16 And by Baptisme Galat. 3.27 And by that Faith whereby Saint Paul saith that hee dwelleth in our hearts Ephesians 3.17 but not in sacrificing him 4. But how should Christ in the Masse satisfie for our sinnes seeing he is no more in that condition of satisfying nor of suffering for us But onely in the state of interceding and impetrating for us as Bellarmin confesseth * Bellar. li. 2. de Missa cap. 1. §. Secundo Christus nunc nec mererince sâ—â—isfacere potest sed tantum in petrare I gitur impetratio propria est hujus sacrificij vis effiâ—â—â—â—ia Christ saith he cannot now merit nor satisfie but only impetrate Wherefore the proper vertue and efficacie of this Sacrifice is to impetrate not therefore to redeeme and satisfie Now for to impetrate Christs intercession whereby he maketh request for us sitting at the right hand of his Father Rom. 8.33 is sufficient without being needfull to sacrifice him 5. Wherefore the Pastors of the Chritian Church are never called Priests in the Scripture for to distinguish them from the people But all the faithfull are called Priests by Saint Peter in his first Eâ—istle Chap. 2.9 And by Saint John Revelation 1.6 He hath made â—s Kings and Priests unto God and his Father 6. The Apostle Saint Paul to the Ephesians 4.11 maketh a denumeration of the Offices which Christ ascending up to heaven left here to his Church And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers Of Priests and Sacrificers he speaketh not one word No more than in the first to Timothy and in the Epistle to Titus where he describeth the duty of Priests whom hee calleth also Bishops and of Deacons without making any mention of this Priesthood 7. It is evident that to be a Sacrificer is a thing more excellent than to be Sacrificed So Aaron was more excellent than the beasts that he offered Not onely because he was a man and had these Sacrifices in his power but also because these Lambes and Bullocks were figures of Christ as hee was a man who was to die for us but Aaron represented Christ as hee was God offering his body in Sacrifice to his Father for our finnes Priests therefore boasting themselves of sacrificing Christ advance themselves above Christ 8. In all Sacrifices the thing sacrificed and offered unto God must be destroyed and killed But in the Masse Christ is not destroyed and suffereth nothing there Therefore in the Masse Christ is not sacrificed To say that in the Masse Christs sacramentall being is destroyed is a pure mockerie For Christ hath but one being to wit his naturall being And this word of Sacramentall being is as much as a significative being which is a Chymera oâ— fond conceit The principall is that in the Masse they pretend to sacrifice Christ for our redemption But the Sacramentall or significative being of the Lord is not the price of our redeÌ„ption is not sacrificed for us That if the Sacrifice be made when the species of the bread and wine are destroyed we must say that the Sacrifice is made in the stomach of the Priest some houres after the Masse is ended for there must be some time for to destroy the species by the disgestion 9. Furthermore in all Sacrifices the thing sacrificed must bee Consecrated and in every Sacrifice there must be some Consecration But in the Masse there is nothing consecrated Not the bread for they hold it is no more bread Not Christs body for men cannot consecrate him It is he that consecrateth us Not the accidents of bread For they be not offered to God in Sacrifice otherwise the Masse would be a Sacrifice of accidents of colour of savor of lines and superficies 10. Our Adversaries never find themselves more puzled than when they are put to finde in the institution of this Sacrament some action wherein this Sacrifice doth consist by which they pretend that the consecrated Hoste is sacrificed to God in propitiatory Sacrifice Doth this Sacrifice consist in the words whereby the Priest presenteth the body of Christ unto God and prayes him to have that offering acceptable But we have seene in the foregoing Chapter that our Adversaries doe confesse thaâ— Christ made not God his Father Doth this Sacrifice confist in the fraction of the bread But that is impossible for Christ brake the bread before hee uttered the words of Consecration therefore hee brake no consecrated Hoste And when the Priest lets the Host fall whole into the Chalice without breaking it the Masse leaveth not for that to be called a Sacrisice as Bellarmin * Bellar. lib 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. 60. Si forte panis consecratus in calicem decidat non solet fragi sedrelinquitur ita intâ—grum usque ad sumptioneÌ„ nec tamen sacrific um irritum aut essentialiter immutanri creditur Adde quod hac caeromonia Dommus non v detur esse usus acknowledgeth Perhaps they will say the Sacrifice consisteth in the manducation But that cannot be For eating is not sacrificing That if eating be sacrificing every one of the People shal be a sacrificing Priest and the Peoples mouthes shall be as many Altars Vnder Moses Law in all the sacrifices after which the people did â—ate of the things sacrificed the sacred feast was made some houres after the Sacrifice was ended Neither can the Sacrifice consist in
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
massacre them as to those that went into Syria against the Sarasens for to reconquer Christs Sepulcher to whom he gave the remission of all their sins and a degree of glory above the ordinary as may bee seene in the Bull of Innocent the third placed at the end of the Councell of Lateran The Earle of Montfort having with him one Dominicke author of the Order of the Jacobins with an army of these crossed ones did massacre in a few moneths above two hundred thousand of them And for to strengthen and fortifie this abuse there was no speeche in those times but of miracles coyned of purpose tending to the worshipping of Images and establishing of the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist They gave out to the people that such an Image had sweated blood that another had nodded his head That a woodden Crucifix prickt in the side had cast blood This fable is recited by Fulgoslib 1. c. 6. And by Nauclerus Gener. 44 That to an Image of the Virgin Maries brought from Damascus breasts of flesh were grown upon the wood That in such a place the Host had appeared in the forme of a child and an Angell by it that did hacke him to peeces That an Hoste pricked by a Jew had gushed out blood and being cast into a great cauldron or kittle was turned into a man as is to be seene yet at this day in Paris represented upon the forefront or porche of the Church of the Billetes The life of Saint Anthonie of Padoua saith that he presented the consecrated Hoste to an Asse which presently left eating of his Oates and worshipped the Hoste a Albertu Krantzius Metropol lib. 1. ca. 9. Wedekindus a Saxon Prince saw a child thrust into the mouth of the Communicants b Paschasius Rathertus de corpore sangnine Domini c. 14. Guil. Mal. mesbur l. 3. cap 27. An Angell did present Christ in the Masse unto a Priest called Plegâ—ls in the shape or forme of a childe which he kissed and imbraced with great courage 〈◊〉 A little Jewish boy comming by chance into the Church as he was playing saw upon the Altar a little boy that was minced and cut into small peeces and thrust by small lumps into the mouths of the Communicants Thomas Cantipratensis in his second Booke of Miracles Chapter 40 saith that at Doway in the yeare 1260. the consecrated host being fallen to the ground rised up againe of it selfe and pearched it selfe upon the cloth wherewith the Priest did wipe his hands in the shape or forme of a fine little boy who instantly became a tall man having a crowne of thornes upon his head and two drops of blood running downe from his forehead on both sides of his nose Jodoeus Coccius collected about one hundred of such miracles Iodoeus Coccius Thesaur Tom. II. lib. 6. de Eucharistia For in Berengarius his time such miracles were very rise and frequent Matthew Paris an English Historian in the yeare of the Lord 1247 relates that the Templers of the holy land sent to Henry the third King of England a little Christall bottle full of the true blood of our Saviour Christ that he shed upon the Crosse which Cristall bottle that silly King carried upon his nose to Westminster Church in Procession a foot clothed with an old sleâ—velesse gowne Salmeron the Jesuite in the XI Tome and fifth Treatise page 35. saith that at Rome in the Church of Lateran there is some of Christs blood kept Item in the Church of Saint Maximin at Rome which Marie Magdalen gathered up at the foote of the Crosse There was also at Rochelle some kept as the same Jesuite saith in the same place Sigonius in his fourth Booke of the reigne of Italy * Forte saÌ„guinis ex imagine crucâ—fiâ—â— Salvatoris in syria effusi portio delata MaÌ„tuam fuerat c. Carolus Leonem Pontisicem per literas obsecravit ut accurate horum miraculâ—rum vâ—ritatem vellet explorare compertam sibi significare Ob id Leo Roma â—gâ—â—ssâ—s Mantuam venâ—t re cognâ—ta ad C roâ—tum ser psit saith that in the yeare 804. was brought out of Syria to Mantua a portion of the blood that ran out of the Image of a Crucifix which did many miracles And that the fame of it being come to Charles the Great he intreated by letters Pope Leo to enquire of the truth of the matter And that the said Pope having knowne and perceived the truth of the thing wrote to Charle-maine touching the same And in the eighth Booke in the yeare 1048. he saith that the inhabitants of Mantua having forgotten this blood and knowing no more what it was this blood beganne againe to doe miracles Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 76 question of the third Part of Thâ—mas * Art 8. saith that yet at this day there is in Spaine some of Christs blood kept in Reliques Thus the darknesse grew thicke and the mysterie of iniquity strengthened it selfe dayly more and more the kings having no knowledge at all of the holy Scripture and trembling under the Popes thunderbolts and excommunications and powring abundance of wealth and riches into the bosome of the Clergie for the easing of their soules after death And for a full measure of mischiefe new Orders of Mendicant Friers did spring up namely the Franciscans and Dominicans whereof Francis Assisias in Italy and Dominick Calarogensis in Spaine were the first Founders in the yeare of our Lord 1216. and 1223. An incredible multitude of these Monks were dilated and spâ—ead over all the regions of the Popes Empire who made use of them as of so many torches and trumpets for to provoke and encourage Princes to the persecution of the faithfull And it was the said Monks that hâ—ve coyned and forged the Schoole Divinity all bristled with pricks and twisted about with subtilties much like unto the Cray-fish in which there is much picking but little to eate It is from this Divinity that suttle distinctions are drawne wherewith they cover themselves against the truth Aâ—istotle is alleadged there a great deale oftner than the Apostle Saint Paul Thus it behooved the mysterie of iniquitie should advance it selfe At the birth of these begging Friers Innocent the third in the yeare 1215. called a Councell at Rome in the Lateran Church in which the word of Transubstantiation not as yet received by any definition in the Roman Church was established by an expresse Canon and authority of Councell CHAP. IX Of the Judgement which the Doctors of the Romane Church doe make touching the apparitions whereby a little Child or a morsell of flesh hath appeared at the Masse in the hands of the Priest and touching Christs blood that is kept in Reliques A Long time hath beene that if one had doubted that a childe or a pâ—â—ce of flâ—sh that had appeared in a Priâ—stâ— hand were not truely Christ and that Christs blood that was kept in