furth under the little Hostie Than which what can be grosser blasphemie let any man judge 1. In this point theÌ„ let us see what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their transsubstantiation Which is commonlie alleadged to bee expresse scripture and in particular these words Math. 26. 26. this is my Bodie but concerning this Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 40. sayeth Whether Christs Bodie in the Sacrament be by conversion or without any conversion the substance and accidents of bread still remaining is not found expreslie in the canon of the Bible nor can it be proven by any scripture sayeth bishope Fisher cont Captiv Babyl num 8. Cardinall Cajetan likewise affirmeth as witnesseth Suarez tom 3. disp 46. That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transsubstantiation but that they may be taken in a figurative sense as these 1. Cor. 10. 4. Cajet 3. q. 78. art 1. yea Cardinall Bellarmin speaketh thus lib. 3. de Euch. c 23. It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of scripture which without the Churches determination can evidentlie inforce a maÌ„ to admitt of Transsubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie to believe the same yet it may be justly doubted whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the same sayeth he seing the most sharp witted learned men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrarie 2. Wee haue sundrie Roman Catholicks who haue denyed Transsubstantiation upon any ground whatsoever as 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Bodie and Blood of Christ written to Charles the bald King of France about the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus aâ— Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist which is also extant 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canterburie in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housell as he calleth it anno 996. and yet to ascend higher Gelasius a Pope in his treatise against Eutyches of the two natures of Christ where he sayeth Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a divine thing to wit the Bodie blood of Christ yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine sayeth he and Biel on the canon of the Masse telleth us that in his time concerning the sacrament or any conversion therein amongst Catholicks there were four opinions wherof the first was That the substance of bread remained still sayeth hee 3. In the manner or sort of conversioÌ„ which they pretend to be in the sacrament Papists they varie and disagree mightilie For 1. Bellarmin telleth us lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11. that Durand holdeth That one essentiall part of the bread namlie the forme is turned but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach sayeth Durand Rational Divin lib. 4. f. 63. but others haue taught the contrarie sayth Bellarmin That the matter of the bread is turned into Christs Bodie but that the essentiall forme remaineth but as for Lombard their great Master of senteÌ„ces his words are these lib. 4. sent d. 11 If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is whether formal or substantiall or what other sort it is definire non sufficio saieth hee that is I am not able to define it and so he quyteth the matter Biel againe on the canon of the Masse lect 40. he sayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this conversion The First That the substance of the bread remaineth still together with Christs Bodie The 2. is That the substance of the bread remaineth not still but after consecration becometh the body of Christ The 3. is That tho the bread remains not yet the accidents of bread as weight colour taste remaineth and that Christs Bodie begineth to be under these accidents And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former That neither doeth the substance of bread remaine nor yet is it converted into Christs bodie for the absurdities that follow theron but is annihilat or redacted to nothing or else resolved into that which they call materia prima Bellarmin also in the forecited place sayeth that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverse from all the former to wit That the bread is personallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by him and of this also Cardinall Aliaco in 4. sent q 6 sayeth That this is possible and more agreable to reason and easier to bee understood But thereafter in the same place hee positivlie sayeth That the conversion of the bread according to his judgement into the bodie of Christ is successive as the night is turned into the day because as after the night the day commeth so sayeth he after the breads departing there is Christs Bodie But Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. § ex his will not haue this coÌ„version productive nor successiue but adductive as hee calleth it that is whereby Christs Bodie preexistent before this conversion in heaven beginneth to be sayeth hee under the accidents of bread wher it was not before which indeed is no conversion at all but onlie a meere translocation Moreover sayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. There hath been two opinions devysed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this mysterie one of DuraÌ„ds on 4. sent d. 10. who holdeth it probable that the substaÌ„ce of the bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatnes or quantitie another is of some ancient Divines whom Ockam followeth who say that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Christs bodie which notwithstanding they think cannot bee distinguished from the substance therof but that all parts do so runne one in another that ther is no shape in Christs bodie nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof But the common opinion of the Schooles and of the Church sayeth hee is contrarie to this and that in the Eucharist or little hostie there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bigness all other accidents hath both order shape agreable to a humane bodie Which is the eight miracle of the eleaveÌ„ that Durand maketh the priest daylie to work in the Masse lib. 4. ration divin f. 63. which miracles notwithstanding are not seene whereas Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. sent q. 5. saâ—eth I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle sayeth hee except I see the same And indeed these are such as are foreprophecied 2. Thess 2. 9. and are called lieing signes and wonders 4. They agree no better in this point to wit Wherby did Christ produce in his last supper Transsubstantiation Concerning which their Biel on the canon of the masse lect 36. sayeth There are four opinions The 1. That Christ did make this conversion not by any words which hee uttered but by his divine power without any words and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this minde
The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread but with a secret benediction unknowne to us whereby he Transsubstantiâ—â— the bread into his Bodie of which the Evangelists maketh mentieÌ„ when they say that he tooke bread and blessed it so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing before he said this is my bodie that so that speech of his might be true The 3. is That our Saviour by these words this is my bodie made that coÌ„version of bread into his bodie but ttha be spoke these words twise though it be written but once and that first he spoke them softlie and unheard whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion And the 4. opinion is That by these words this is my Bodie which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie 5. Herin again they greatly controvert to wit whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion 1. Some say as Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect 47. with others That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of this is my Bodie 2. Others say That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmin sayeth The whole Church holdeth lib. 3. de justifi cap. 8. whose words are these The Sacrament without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament 3. Lombard their great Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 13. sayeth That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie Whose words are these It is called the Masse because of the comming of the heavenlie Angell sayeth hee to consecrate the bodie of Christ according to the Priests prayer saying Omnipotent God command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar therefore except the Angel come it cannot be called a Masse sayth he seing therefore as Bellarmin hath told us that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentioÌ„ and that no man can know the intention of another sayth Bellar. farr lesse be sure of an Angels coÌ„ming downe to comsecrate the bread turne it into Christs body I would theÌ„ on these grounds of their own ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body or onely a piece of bread which were most grosse Idolatrie as all must confess 6. To come to the words of consecration themselves 1 in generall next in particular let us see how they agree heerein 1. The most common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie and not figuratiuely but on the contrarie Bertram and the others with him forecited as also Cardinall Cajetan in 3. q. 78. art 1. holdeth that they are and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of speech as wee see in Circumcision and the Passover yea more in the Popes owne canon Law de consecra dist 2. c. hoc est it is said ther That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie representeth Christs flesh is called Christs Bodie but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing sayeth that place but by a mysticall signification so that the meaning is sayth the glosse it is called Christs Bodie that is it is a sign of his bodie 7. Next to come to the words in particular 1. The Catholicks do not agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucâ— cap. 11 in the manner of explicating what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne hoc or this in the words of consecration this is my Bodie in this there are two famous opinions sayth he the one that this pronowne hoc signifieth the Body of Christ the other is of S. Thomas sayeth he that it signifieth not the body of Christ precisâ—ie nor yet the bread as some hold but in coÌ„mon that substance be what it will which is under these formes so that the meaning is hoc this that is under this and thâ—se formes or accidents is my bodie Neither determinating it to the bread says Biel in can Missae lect 48. because so this speech should be false this bread is my Bodie nor to the bodie of Christ for this were absurd to say this bodie is my bodie sayeth he as also seing the vertue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word meum as Biel showeth in the same place therefore by hoc Christs bodie cannot bee understood Againe the same Biel in the place forecited sayeth that concerning this there are diverse opinions which he reduceth to two 1. That by hoc nothing at all is demonstrat and this Durand also declareth lib. 4. rat divin f. 64. 2. Some say that by hoc the bread is demonstrat so that the meaning should bee this bread is my bodie that is in a Sacramentall way the signe of my bodie But because this would seeme sayeth he to be hereticall therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore that it is a mixt demonstration partlie to the sense partlie to the understanding so that the meaning is this in which the bread which is seene is to be transsubstantiat is my bodie which must be believed and so the word is must be expounded in the future shall be this is likewise the opinioÌ„ of Richardê° de media villa and others but Alexander Ales expreâ—slie will haue by hoc the bread to bee demonstrat and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration 8. They controvert no lesse likewise in the next words corpus meum or my bodie as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and impassible to these who say the first it is objected that then sayeth heâ— it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible and that the Masse is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice Againe in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and impassible bodie it is likewise objected that this coâ—ld not be because his Bodie did afterward suffer and die being yet unglorified and therefore was mortall and passible Therefore sayeth Biel Hugo Cardinalis being straitned on both hands by the former contradictions concludeth for his part siding with neither of them saying That in this questioÌ„ as in such like others I professe sayeth hee that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets and in simplicitie of faith I think this sufficient if we say that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give because Hee was Omnipotent And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was and useth a short easie way to solve all questions 9 In the words also that followeth which is broken
for you as they are set downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits Judg. 7. 22. Every mans sword against his fellow For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome as wee may see decret 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42 affirmeth That it is Christs Bodie sensuallie that is broken torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers which yet sayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. § quartum cannot be spoken of Christs bodie or flesh without great blaspheÌ„ie And which a little after that time made that great physitian learned Philosopher Averroes to say as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador cap. 3. mundum peragravi c. that is I have travelled through the world sayeth hee and I never saw a worse more foolish â—ect than that of the Christians is because with their teeth they devoure that God whoÌ„ they worship which I may say is at this day the greatest scandell to Turks Iewes and Pagans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christianitie as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next their master of senteÌ„ces Lombard l. 4. dist 12. telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Councell is false erronious seing Christs bodie is now incorruptible immortall and impassible that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Disciples sayeth he who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts or torne in morsels as other flesh is therfore sayeth he dist 11. because it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mysterie 3. Others againe sayth he affirmeth that there is no reall breaking there as men seemeth to see with their eyes but that it is said to be broken sicut fit in magorum prestigiis c. that is as useth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers who by delusion deceiveth mens eyes sayeth he that they seeme to see that which is not a right comparison indeed of masse priests 4. Others againe sayeth the same Lombard affirme that by the wonderfull power of God there is a breaking ther where notwithstanding nothing is broken a grosse contradiction and this Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven that is dayly wrought by the masse Priest to wit That in the Masse that which is indivisible yet is divyded and tho it be divyded sayeth hee it remaineth whole 5. Biel also on the canon of the Masse lect 36. fayth that That which Christ brake and the Priest now breaketh is the sacramentall species as whytnes roundnes but neither Christs bodie nor yet any thing that is whyte and round a strange Chimera indeed The like sayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke nor bread though the Apostle sayeth 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break but this fraction is of the forme onelie and shape of the bread sacramentallie done sayth he which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying That this is the common opinion that the accidents of the breade which remaine without any subject ar only that which is broken Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurditie 10. No lesse digladiation is amongst Romanists concerning what is eaten in the sacrament according to Christs words Take Eate For 1. as hath beene said according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning It is Christs bodie flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth which Bellarmin calleth blasphemous and Lombard hereticall But on the contrarie Alexander Ales p. 4. 11. memb art 2. as also Bonaventure in 4. sent d. 12. art 3. Affirme that the eating of Christs bodie is mysticall and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reasone thereof that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating to wit 1. a masticatioÌ„ or chewing with the teeth 2. a trajection into the stomack and bellie And 3. a Conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this last which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree to the bodie of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in a mysticall manner turneth us into it self say they to which they might also added that which our Saviour â—peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth that it likewise goeth out in the draught Math. 15. 17. Againe if a Mouse or Ratt or any such beast happen to eate the consecrated Hostie it is controverted what is eaten by such 1. then in the Roman missall and cautel's of the Masse it is affirmed that they eate Christs bodie for these ar the very words Item â—â— corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit c. that is If the bodie of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders if these vermine can be found let them be burned and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconsumed if it may be done without horror let it be eaten But Lombard in the contrarieê° lib. 4. d. 13. sayeth That Christs bodie is not eaten by such beasts though it would seeme that it were and if any will ask sayeth he What is it then which is eaten by such he answereth verie blâ—ntlie saying Deus novit that is God knoweth not hee But Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter otherwise and sayeth That as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the bodie of Christ when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament so doth bread miraculously returne wheÌ„ Christs bodie ceasseth to be there and therfore that the mouse or any such beast eateth onlie the bread that miraculouslie is so furnished unto them by God Even as the same Durand tells a tale there how a Matron that furnished bread sabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did laugh when shee heard the Pope affirme that to be Christs bodie which shee knew to be bread that her self had baken whereupon the Pope to coÌ„vince her of her errour by his prayer he converted the hostie visiblie into a finger of flesh when heere on shee was converted he prayed againe and turned the finger of flesh into bread againe And so heere were three pretie coÌ„versions si credere fas ect The first of the Hostie into Christs bodie invisiblie the next of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly the third of the finger of flesh back againe into bread visiblie Quis talia fando temperet c 11. Heere againe in the other Element of the Sacrament they contend one against another concerning the mixture of water with the wine the TranssubstantiatioÌ„ of both 1. Then Cardinall Aliacâ— in 4. sent q. 5. telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not simplie necessarie at all to be used in the