The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

II. The same Authors Discourse upon the Romish Stories, con∣cerning the mentioned Reliques of Christs Blood, issued [ 10] out Miraculously from Images. SECT. VII.

VVHereas Aquinas, with Others, out of many Histo∣ries, have approved of many Apparitions of Blood in great abundance at Mantua, Venice, Rome, and els-where flow∣ing out of Images: This your Doctor concludeth with him∣selfe, that7 1.1 Albeit Some portion of the Blood of Christ might be sayd to remaine on earth, yet can it not be thought, that [ 20] such a copious measure of Blood, as is reported, should have bin: Because, although each Country glory and boast of such their Reliques, as being Christs Blood (for that as the Proverb is, EVERY ONE THINKETH HIS OVVNE BEST;) yet could not so great Quantities of Blood, as filled whole ves∣sels, be sayd to issue out of Christs Body, without some iujury to that perfection of his glorious Body. And therefore Hee that shall beleeve that, let him heare that notable saying of Solomon, Hee that is of a sodaine Beliefe, hath a light and inconstant heart.] By occasion of this Question, thus prosecuted, they [ 30] start (as it were) another Hare, questioning whether it bee a matter of Faith to beleeve the Blood, so appearing, to be the Blood of Christ? One side affirming it to be, grounding them∣selves, [ 40] as they thought, upon Bulls of the Popes of Rome;

upon a pretended Testimonie of Athanasius; and upon the Divine Revelations of Saint Bridget: On the contrary side, your Doctor qualifieth the Approbations of Popes; excep∣teth against the pretended Testimony of Athanasius (and just∣ly) as counterfeit; and denieth that the Revelation of Saint Bridget can be sufficient to prove it to be Impious and irreli∣gious, not to beleeve the contrary.

III. As for the third point, of the Blood of Christ shed at his Passion, wee leave them8 1.2 skirmishing together; One side affirming, and the other denying, any part of that Blood to [ 10] have beene at any time remaining in the world, since the time of his Passion. All this our Relation hath no other Ayme, than to shew the Vnconscionablenesse of your Dis∣puters, in requiring Faith of Others, to beleeve such and such Apparitions of Christs Blood, which they themselves, by their owne Reasons, Contradictions, and Conclusions have made uncredible. [ 20]

Notes

• 7 1.1

  Idem Collius. lib. 5. Disp. 8. cap. 2. Verum Christi San∣guinem in terus esse, memoriae atque lite∣ris proditum est—Cap. 3. Quid de al∣l••tis historiis censen••∣••um sit—. Sicut certam mihi elicere posse videar asserti∣onem, non nihil isti∣us sanguinis Christi apud nos remansisse; ita adduci non pos∣sum, ut assentiar, tan∣tam effusi sanguinis copiam, qualis ea esse convincitu•• ex iis, ••bsque certo naturae Christi rèviviscentis detrimento, absolu∣tae corporis Christi Perfectioni repug∣nante.—Difficile est satisfacere ijs om∣nibus, qui de ve∣ro Christi sangui∣n•• gloriantu••, cùm ••••n cui••, pulchrum sit, ut f••rt Prover∣b••um, ut quispiam p••udens inducet ani∣mum suum credere; tot vascula sacro Domini cruore referta, nunc etiam in terris reperiri—Si quis, credit, audiat illam in∣fignem sententiam [Qui citò credit levis est corde.] Cap. 4. Objectis rationibus respondetur. Cap. 5. An cum fide Catholica repugnet, nihil sanguinis Christi tem ansisse in terris—Cardinalis Sancti Petri ad Vin. putat non sine haeresi negari posse.—Ex testimonio Bullae Pij Secundi Pontificis; ex Revelatione Brigittae alij; alij, ut Thomas affirmat, de sanguine Christi nutrimentali, non de vitali; sed Distinctio haec inanis.—Ob. Athanasius de passione imaginis Domini. Cap. 7. Sanguis Dominicus, &c. cujus Authoritas approbata est in septimo Synodo Nvcena, Act. 4. quibus rationibus Angelicus Doctor, Quodilibet. 5. a 3. ••••dem cap. refert ad sanguinem Christi; sed ego minime subscribendum esse arbitor, Ob. Leo tertius. Respondeo, Non verum Christi sanguinem, Manituae existentem, fuisse à Leone comprobatum, sed fuit certa Inventi liquoris Approba∣tio, utpote qui veneratione dignus: imò etiam pium videri istum liquorem, & ut Christi sanguinem p••c colen∣dum. Ob. Sol. Diploma Pij Secundi tantum dicit, non repugnare Fidei doctrinae, sanguinem Christi aliquem relictum, esse in terris. Ob Sol. Non solum probabilis ac vera propemodum opinio est, eam historiam de per∣cussu Imaginis Christi, non fuisse Athanast•• magni, sed alterius Doctoris ejusdem nominis—quae tamen, si ejus fuisse dicatur—tamen unius Sancti Patris authoritas ad r••m tanquam de fide stabiliendam non suffi∣ciet.—Et approbatio Synodi Nycenae secundae non est existimanda cadere in totum, ac singulas Istius histo∣riae partes, sed solum quadrare in historiam perfossae Imaginis, &c. Quod ad Brigittae Revelationem spectat; etsi sit e•• maximi ponderis, tamen non tan•• tamque efficacis censenda est, ut ab ea discedere impium ac i••••••li∣giosum fuit.
• 8 1.2

  Id. Disp. 9. cap. 2. An portio aliquas de sanguine effuso in passione relicta fue∣rit in orbe tertarum? Affirmo, Nihil ejus sanguinis tunc effusi extra Dominici cor∣poris venas reman∣fisse. Silvester contra∣riè colligit ex Tho∣ma, Aliquid sangui∣nis in passione effusi remansisse apud mor∣tales. Ac Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 5. Disp. 36. cap. 8. Assero aliquam partem sanguinis Christi retaansisse, nec in Resurrectione totum resumptum fuisse.